Ibn Khaldun 14th Century Arab Libertarian

I found a reference to Ibn Khaldun in an op ed piece on Freedom of the Press in the Egyptian weekly Al-Ahram. The article itself is well worth the read, as it gives a classic liberal view of the issue and its importance for the reformation of the Egyptian political system.

Often in the West we are given to believing the portrait painted by the media of the Middle East as a unitary Islamic culture, one that has no liberal traditions and is under the dominant authority of the Mullahs.

Ahmed Naguib Roushdy writes:

John Stuart Mill and John Locke wrote about freedom as a political principle, but it was Mill who fully enmeshed it in a philosophical theory. The Islamic historian and jurist, Ibn Khaldun, who preceded Adam Smith in calling for open markets and free trade by 400 years, said in his famous work Al-Muqaddema that restricting people's freedom would preclude the advance of economic development and commercial exchange. Modern economists and writers still consider that there is a connection between freedom and the welfare of nations.

I had not heard of Ibn Khaldun before reading this piece and so I googled him. As the author said he fits well within the liberal tradition, indeed in modern terms he can be seen as a precursor to both Adam Smith and Karl Marx.

The English Historian Arnold Toynbee says this about Ibn Khaldun;

Ibn Khaldūn, from Arnold Toynbee, A Study of History vol. iii, III. C. II. (b), p. 321
The last member of our Pleiad of historians is ‛Abd-ar-Rahmān ibn Muhammad ibn Khaldūn al-Hadramī of Tunis (vivebatA.D. 1332-1406)—an Arabic genius who achieved in a single 'acquiescence' of less than four years' length, out of a fifty-four years' span of adult working life, a life-work in the shape of a piece of literature which can bear comparison with the work of a Thucydides or the work of a Machiavelli for both breadth and profundity of vision as well as for sheer intellectual power. In his chosen field of intellectual activity he appears to have been inspired by no predecessors² and to have found no kindred souls among his contemporaries and to have kindled no answering spark of inspiration in any successors; and yet, in the Prolegomena (Muqaddimat) to his Universal History he has conceived and formulated a philosophy of history which is undoubtedly the greatest work of its kind that has ever yet been created by any mind in any time or place. It was his single brief 'acquiescence' from a life of practical activity that gave Ibn Khaldūn his opportunity to cast his creative thought into literary shape.

His major life work can be defined as a Universal History of the Politcal Economy Arab world, It is a Sociology of Economics. In fact his work is remincint of the later works of Spencer, Weber and Veblen.

Ibn Khaldun, a Sufi who died in 1406 AD, was a renaissance man, the real father of sociology. He defined the foundations of sociology more than 4 centuries before Auguste Comte "discovered" them .

During his lifetime Ibn Khaldun is seeing the development of the earliest forms of capitalist primitive accumulation during the period of the last crusade the centralization of Arab control over the Middle East and the decline of European Fuedalism. This would not be recognized in Europe for another two hundred years. He developed a Labour Theory of Value predating Adam Smith, Ricardo and Marx. In fact he is a libertarian economic sociologist.

“Whoever takes someone's property, or uses him for forced labor, or presses an unjustified claim upon him It should be known that this is what the Lawgiver had in mind when he forbade injustice.”

Ibn Khaldun fits well within the World Systems Theory of the evolution of Capitalism as developed by Wallerstein and Arrigi. In fact it places Arrighi's dating of the earliest development of capitalism as far back as the 14th century as correct. Journal of World-Systems Research

Ibn Khaldun: Discourse of the Method and Concepts of Economic Sociology

Capitalists (al-mutamawwiluun)

The term "al-mutamawwiluun" refers to persons possessing a great deal of capital. These are individuals who have acquired great estates and farms. They are considered among the wealthiest inhabitants of a particular city. Their capital is generated through fluctuation of the market, imposition of taxes and commerce. They appropriate the labour power of other people in return for protection and other non-material services. Ibn Khaldun says that these are persons who live in great luxury and are accustomed to it. They compete in this respect with emirs and rulers. Emirs and rulers could use their power to undertake similar activities, something which Ibn Khaldun doest not recommend.

Class structure.

There are, according to Ibn Khaldun, three major classes:

At the top is the class of rulers. This is the class of those holding power. It also includes capitalists.

Thereafter comes the middle class. This is the class between the capitalists and the lower class. It composes entrepreneurs (al-mu^ctamiruun), i.e. those who are engaged in activities such as craftsmanship and the like and who are not capitalists.

At the bottom, says Ibn Khaldun, there is the lower class, described as those who have nothing to gain or to loose.

Surplus earnings in money and kind (al-muktasabaat)

This denotes all types of visible surplus earnings, contrary to utility-produces (al-mifaadaat) which are invisible.

Considering the two terms together, Ibn Khaldun says that al-mifaadaat and al-muktasabaat in their entirety or for the most are value realized from human labour. Human effort and labour is necessary for every unit of surplus in money and every unit of surplus in kind. Labour could be concealed or obvious, but whatever the case, none of these surpluses will be realized without labour

The know-how productivity (al-mifaad al-muqtana minhu)

This is one of the most important terms of Ibn Khaldun's theory of value. It represents the mere know-how labour which results in creation of utility. It is the productive skilled labour that creates value. There is nothing here but labour.

Ibn Khaldun means that when we buy an article, we do not buy only something concrete (the thing in itself), but we buy in fact the amount of labour which is spent to create that article. Since labour differs in its quality, the price of the article must also differ. Ibn Khaldun expresses this qualitative distinction by the linguistically related term al-qinyah.

Labour

Labour is the sine qua non of all, the source of value. It belongs to the things that constitute capital. One's value, says Ibn Khaldun, is embodied in one's labour and this can not be realized without payment. Labour, which constitutes one's sustenance, livelihood and surplus earnings, is divided into primary and additional labour.

Additional labour generates surplus earnings. Increase in demand creates new types of crafts and more labour. The market flourishes, the surplus earnings of entrepreneurs increase. The income and expenditure of the state and civilization­ al-^cumraan grows. The cycle repeats itself with the increase of demand for luxuries. Al-^cumraan increases for the second time. The cycle leads to higher and higher stages of growth, until one reaches the final stage of al-^cumraan where growth cannot be overstepped. [Here lies the rudiments of the Multiplier Effect and of measurement of GNP]

Economic enterprise (al-i^ctimaar)

This term refers to productive activities ­activities that yield surplus earnings­ whether emanating from agricultural labourers, farmers, craftsmen, capitalists and all other tax payers.

Economic enterprise (al-i^ctimaar) results from ambitions and incentives. Business and activities stop when hope and stimulation vanishes. Ibn Khaldun says that man is a natural leader, but becomes apathetic when deprived of his leadership

Those who undertake such activities are called " al-mu^ctamiruun- entrepreneurs. They engage themselves into productive labour through active participation as opposed to, for instance, capitalists (al-mutamawwiluun).

Gross earnings in money and kind (al-makaasib).

The terms "al-makasib" is a general term. It covers income, expenditure, consumption and savings.Labour is the main foundation and source of al-makaasib. According to Ibn Khaldun, gross earnings are achieved after having covered one's expenditures (an-nafaqaat) and one's livelihood (al-ma^caash). The overspill is savings that could lead to:

• accumulation of money as dead capital (ar-riyaash) and/or
• accumulation of capital in kind (al-mutamawwal)

Gross earnings, says Ibn Khaldun, are measured in gold and silver.

Accumulation of money as dead capital (ar-riyaash) is a surplus that exceeds needs and necessities. It denotes money, or treasure (adh-dhakhiirah) as measured in gold and silver.

Accumulation of capital in kind (al-mutamawwal) is also a surplus (maksab) that exceeds needs and necessities. It refers to goods and properties (estates, farms etc.) which result from crafts and non-crafts and which can potentially be converted into cash or gold and silver.

On economics

"In the early stages of the state, taxes are light in their incidence, but fetch in a large revenue...As time passes and kings succeed each other, they lose their tribal habits in favor of more civilized ones. Their needs and exigencies grow...owing to the luxury in which they have been brought up. Hence they impose fresh taxes on their subjects...[and] sharply raise the rate of old taxes to increase their yield...But the effects on business of this rise in taxation make themselves felt. For business men are soon discouraged by the comparison of their profits with the burden of their taxes...Consequently production falls off, and with it the yield of taxation."

This sociological theory includes the concept known in economics as the Laffer Curve (the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue follows an inverted U shape).

For sociology it is interesting that he conceived both a central social conflict ("town" versus "desert") as well as a theory (using the concept of a "generation") of the necessary loss of power of city conquerors coming from the desert. The work is based around Ibn Khaldun's central concept of 'asabiyah "social cohesion." This cohesion arises spontaneously in tribes and other small kinship groups; and it can be intensified and enlarged by a religious ideology. Ibn Khaldun's analysis looks at how this cohesion carries groups to power but contains within itself the seeds - psychological, sociological, economic, political - of the group's downfall, to be replaced by a new group, dynasty or empire bound by a stronger (or at least younger and more vigorous) cohesion.

Perhaps the most frequently cited observation drawn from Ibn Khaldūn's work is, in layman's terms, the notion that when a society becomes a great civilization (and, presumably, the dominant culture in its region), its high point is followed by a period of decay. This means that the next cohesive group that conquers the diminished civilization is, by comparison, a group of barbarians. Once the barbarians solidify their control over the conquered society, however, they become attracted to its more refined aspects, such as literacy and arts, and either assimilate into or appropriate such cultural practices. Then, eventually, the former barbarians will be conquered by a new set of barbarians, who will repeat the process.

See:The Need for Arab Anarchism

Tags
economics
politics
history
sociology
Arab
Islam
Libertarian
Ibn Khaldun

agorism, counter-economics, left libertarian, new libertarian or Movement of the Libertarian Left.

Harper Cabinet Predictions

Alright here are my predictions for the Harper cabinet.

Rona Ambrose Foreign Affairs

Monte Solberg Treasury Board

Jim Prentice Indian Affairs

Diane Ablonczy HRDC

Peter McKay Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Vic Toews Justice and Attorney General

Carolyn Skelton Agriculture

Stockwell Day Water Sports

Conservative cabinet hopefuls wait by the phone for 'The Call' from Harper

Stocking up Tory cabinet

Don't politicize appointments: chief justice

Tags
Canada
Politic
Harper
Conservatives

Left, Right and Liberty

My old pal from our Canadian University Press (CUP) days; Terry Glavin in his latest blog entry criticizes what he sees as the libertarian/anarchist underpinings of the new left, the anti-war and the anti-globalization movement.

And Glavin believes they are dangerous, American ideas influencing our glorious Canadian Social Democratic politics.

Glavin first quotes from Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter, in Rebel Sell: Why the Culture Can’t be Jammed (Harper Perennial, 2000)

Unfortunately, the idea of counterculture has become so deeply embedded in our understanding of society that it influences every aspect of social and political life. Most importantly, it has become the conceptual template for all contemporary leftist politics. Counterculture has almost completely replaced socialism as the basis of radical political thought. So if counterculture is a myth, then it is one that has misled an enormous number of people, with untold political consequences.”

The counterculture of music, smoke ins, Adbuster magazine, G@P anarchist hip clothing chic is recuperated by capitalism, thus it is not socialism it is protest chic. Well congratulations on discovering that the counter culture is a consumer form of capitalism which it always was anyways. 'Hip capitalism', as we called it in the seventies and eighties was a kinder groovier kind of capitalism. See my Hypocrisy of Hip Capitalism

It's an old debate in the Anarchist movement as well, lifestyle reformism versus social revolution. Today the debate over counter culture is exemplified by Murray Bookchin with his Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism and Richard Day with his new book Gramsci is Dead.

Do we create alternative drop out cultures that ignore the state (Day) or do we actively mobilize to create a social revolution based on class struggle (Bookchin). This debate is now occuring again in the anti-war/anti-globalization movement which I think is the point that Glavin is trying to make. I think, because it is far from clear, that he is identifying libertarian/anarchist politics with drop out politics of the old counterculutre.

But then he goes and says this.

Ron Dart is a Red Tory philosopher, a devout Anglican, an NDP supporter (at least for now), an authority on the beat poets and the Catholic mystic Thomas Merton, and the author more than a dozen books, including The Red Tory Tradition: Ancient Roots, New Routes. In conversation with Ron the other day, I heard more than just a faint echo of the Heath/Potter thesis.

Beware the “antistate” left, he said. It may be Harper’s loudest and most vociferous opposition, but listen carefully. It speaks the same language that Harper does. It cleaves to “liberal” ideas, but in the American meaning of the word. It is a “subtler imperialism” that threatens to render Canada incapable of articulating an effective, homegrown defence against neoconservatism.

Beware of the Anti-State Left. As if Anarchism and Libertarian ideas are somehow foreign to the Canadian Left, an American influence on good old Canadian Methodist Social Democracy. In a further leap of logic Glavin then tells us what kind of an outcome will happen if these dangerous libertarian, anti-state ideas influence the Canadian Left.

"And it comes with a warning Canadians should heed: Beware, else we end up with our own versions of Fox News shouting matches, and our own Al Frankens pitted against their Bill O’Reillys in the same degenerate American arguments, carried on in the same American language, and the same hoarse and hate-filled stalemate that has so horribly paralyzed and disfigured American politics."

I know Glavin has gone native, and lives in the heart of the counter culture beast on the Left Coast of Vancouver Island but really where has he been for the last thirty years since we both left university?

We already have those voices on the right, the Ezra Levants, the Fraser Institute, the Byfields, the Alberta/B.C./Western Report, etc etc. They have been around for ages. The right specializes in generalizations and outrageous statements, the social democratic left as I have complained before have been far too polite and nice in debates allowing these screaming ranting right wingers to brow beat them in media debates. Glavin appears to think that some how polite English school boy debate, tea and crumpets, good show ol boy, is the Canadian way.

But back to my main point Anarchism and the Libertarian Left are as Canadian as any other aspect of the New Left or the Old Left. Emma Goldman the famous anarchist agitator traveled across Canada and eventually died in Toronto in exile from the United States. The Revolutionary union, the IWW was active in Canada at the turn of last century and the radicals which formed it went on to form the One Big Union, the OBU. It was reviewed in Canada in the seventies by those of us young anarchists including some of us in CUP. And is is going strong again now.

George Woodcock the famous English professor from UBC and anarchist biographer and historian was one of the earliest promoters of anarchism in Canada in the sixties. By the late sixties the New Left in Canada had a strong anarchist compenent in it based on Our Generation, a magazine out of Quebec which represented what the editors broadly called the Extra Parlimentary Opposition in Canada, that is the New Left.

By the seventies we had Yippies and anarchist collectives in every city in Canada.
And Vancouver, Glavins home town was no exception. It was chock full of anarchists especially around the magazine the Open Road. Which is well documented in Alan Antliffs book Only A Beginning: An Anarchist Anthology

Besides the Social Democratic Left which would influence the Liberals and Progressives alike in the Forties, we had a tradition of both radical Communists and Anarchists in Canada.

Way before Stephen Harper and the neo-cons recuperated the term libertarian it was used by members of the new left. And as I have taken pains to show here on numerous occasions those on the right who call themselves libertarians are merely Lazzie-faire capitalists, not real libertarians.

And one of the major Libertarian theorists in the U.S. was Canadian Samuel Edward Konkin III (SEK3) who moved to LA from Edmonton. That is truly a 'subtle imperialism'. True SEK3 was a student of Murray Rothbard, the economic historian, who did much to promote the Libertarian ideology that so upsets Glavin and his Red Tory friend. A NEW AMERICAN REVOLUTION

But Red Tories are really classic liberals, fiscal conservatives and socially liberal. Not unlike Tommy Douglas and the old CCF. In fact that is the history of liberalism, it went from a radical idea to becoming the defender of the status quo. In fact old fashioned political conservatism in Canada is liberal. The success of the Manning Reform party, and indeed the so called libertarianism of Stephen Harper are not based on libertarianism at all but on populism, economic liberalism and American Republican conservatism.

Here is what Murray Rothbard has to say about liberalism the ideology of the Red Tories and the Social Democrats that Glavin claims are as Canadian as maple syrup and beaver pelts.

In England, the classical liberals began their shift from radicalism to quasi-conservatism in the early nineteenth century; a touchstone of this shift was the general British liberal attitude toward the national liberation struggle in Ireland. This struggle was twofold: against British political imperialism, and against feudal landlordism which had been imposed by that imperialism. By their Tory blindness toward the Irish drive for national independence, and especially for peasant property against feudal oppression, the British liberals (including Spencer) symbolized their effective abandonment of genuine Liberalism, which had been virtually born in a struggle against the feudal land system. Only in the United States, the great home of radical liberalism (where feudalism had never been able to take root outside the South), did natural rights and higher law theory, and consequent radical liberal movements, continue in prominence until the mid-nineteenth century. In their different ways, the Jacksonian and Abolitionist movements were the last powerful radical libertarian movements in American life.

Thus, with Liberalism abandoned from within, there was no longer a party of Hope in the Western world, no longer a "Left" movement to lead a struggle against the State and against the unbreached remainder of the Old Order. Into this gap, into this void created by the drying up of radical liberalism, there stepped a new movement: Socialism. Libertarians of the present day are accustomed to think of socialism as the polar opposite of the libertarian creed. But this is a grave mistake, responsible for a severe ideological disorientation of libertarians in the present world. As we have seen, Conservatism was the polar opposite of liberty; and socialism, while to the "left" of conservatism, was essentially a confused, middle-of-the road movement. It was, and still is, middle-of-the road because it tries to achieve Liberal ends by the use of Conservative means.

In other words the anarchist critique of socialism (being the left wing of the socialist movement), has been that its reliance on parilmentary politics and the idea of the seizure of state power by either elections or by revolution is flawed.

The anarchist or libertarian critique has been that social democracy, which is not socialism any more than Bolshevism is communism, is State Socialism, in other words Bismarkian socialism and thus a defense of the status quo. It is reformism an attempt to ameliorate the worst conditions of capitalism. European Social democracy died with WWI when it aided and abetted that war.

In Canada social democracy arose with the coming of the second wave immigrations of Central and Eastern Europeans who brought with them their growing revolutionary aspirations towards socialism and democracy that they lacked in the old country.They came to a Canada dominated by the English ruling classes and a French comprador class in Quebec.Canada's First Internment Camps

After WWI Canada saw the rise of a broad based immigrant workers and farmers movement. And again in the midst of the depression socialist ideas gained hold in the workers movement. After the second World War, the Progressives merged with the Conservatives, the CCF held power over a Liberal minority government, and Canada's war time state capitalist economy under C.D. Howe the Minister of Everything (and a darling of the neo-con right wing today ironically) easily shifted to welfare state capitalism of Keynesian model.

So Glavin and Dart are right in saying Canada's uniqueness in relationship to the U.S. is our social democratic values as a nation. I have said that here many times. That being said the libertarian spirit of Canadians also exists and is expressed on the left as well as the right. In particular in both Quebec and the Prairies where we have struggled against the English colonial mercantilist establishment of Ontario.Social Credit And Western Canadian Radicalism

What Glavin and Dart are attempting to do is identify social democracy with nationalism, with a unique Canadian identity of state capitalism. This is the same ideology of classic liberal nationalists like Mel Hurtig and Maude Barlow who run the amorphous mass organization the Council of Canadians. And while Hurtig is from Edmonton as a capitalist he always aspired, much like Peter Lougheed, to see the West as a real partner in late twentieth century Canadian Politics.

All Canadian nationalism is Ontario centric. It is based on the politics of Ontario's identity in relationship to the Americans and Quebec. Once upon a time Canadian Nationalism was the Ontario English ruling class identity, formed by its special relationship to the British Crown. Later as Canada became ten provinces, Ontario allowed the West to join in 'its' confederation not as a partner but as chattel colony for the mercantilist interests of its ruling class. Rebel Yell

Today Nationalism in Canada reflects the interests of Ontario, not the West or the Maritimes or Quebec. Today's social democrats be they Red Tories, New Democrats or Liberals, still cannot concieve of Canada as a different kind of federation. A more decentralized one, a real partnership, a renewed democracy with greater individual and community control and representation. The Bankruptcy of Liberal Federalism

In fact Toronto has become such a megacity it has veiewed itself as seperate from Ontario for many decades now, which is why Torontonians refer to Toronto, Canada. The base of Canadian nationalism is here in the heart of the beast. All the left has their base in Ontario, their national headquarters are either in Ottawa or Toronto. While capitalism has moved west.

Calgary is the new centre of Capitalism in Canada. Not Bay Street. Winnipeg was once what Calgary is today, the centre of rail, grain, furs and other real exports. Ontario was the industrial heartland where Winnipeg shipped goods to for processing. Winnipeg shared with Chicago the Grain Exchange and the Commodity exchange. Bay Street was le petit Wall Street. Real capitalism in Canada in the 20th Century has been a movement westward.

Toronto and Ontario cling to a rustbelt future, an old conservative elite whose time once was. Today the leaders of the liberal values of the status quo are interchangeable.

We have Bob Rae former NDP leader touted as a potential leadership candidate for the Federal Liberals. His brother already is.

We have the McQuinty brothers representing both the provincial and federal Liberals.

We have Jack Layton a former Toronto city counselor as federal NDP leader now joined in Parliment by his wife, Oliva Chow another former Toronto city conselor.

We have Belinda Stronach, millionaress, business scion of the new capitalism of post-fordism. She went from being a Conservative Leadership contender and MP to being a Liberal Cabinet minister and now MP and potential Liberal leadership candidate.

And we have Buzz Hargrove with his social democratic strategic voting in the last election endorsing the Liberals. While Ford and GM care not a wit who he votes for and still slash Canadian autoworkers jobs.

The political reality of Canada is that the base of social democratic power remains identified with the status quo, with its Nationalism and with its base in Ontario. This can be clearly seen from the last election. Where really nothing changed. The social democratic left is still stronger than the social conservatives who are now the government. But its base is the status quo, not radical change. Voting for Capitalism On January 23

On the other hand the election shows that libertarian/populist radical politics comes from the West and Quebec. Rather than embracing the staus quo as Glavin and Dart suggest, in order to revive a failed dream of a Federal NDP government, the left in Canada needs a good dose of libertarianism to thwart the right. Without it the contradictions of the Harper Conservatives will never be confronted their psuedo-libertarianism never exposed for the Republicanism it is. Whigs and Tory's

Glavin and Dart suggest we maintain the status quo, that the Left subsume itself into parlimentary politics, and existing trade union politics by extension. But the left has been doing that for fifty years and it has gotten us nowhere. It is the politics of the stationary bicycle. The libertarian left wants to put wheels on the bicycle and go somewhere.

See:

The Neo Liberal Canadian State

Historical Memory on the Eve of the Election

LABOUR HISTORY

The Edmonton General Strike Of 1919

Also references in the article: A greater union,

Calgary 1919-The Birth Of The OBU And The General Strike

The CCF:The Original Reform Movement

The Edmonton District Labour Council and Municipal Politics 1903-1906

Tags
Canada
libertarian
anarchism
social democrcaty
politics
socialism

left wing

Paul Martin in Denial

Paul Martins final press conference as PM was yesterday and despite quizzing
and prodding to say he and his team screwed up and lost the election he just couldn't admit it. Martin surprised by his own undoing

Poor Paul spent years in a backroom battle with his hand picked back room boys only to become another Lame Duck PM. Despite all his statements to the contrary he was a lame duck. Martin makes no apologies for Liberal decline, boasts of economic legacy Undone by the backroom politics of the Liberal Party.

He is in good company with these folks other lame duck Prime Ministers undone by backroom party politics.








Tags
Canada
Liberals
Paul Martin
Canadian Election
Canadian Prime Minister
Liberal Leadership
politics

Hockey Night in Kandahar

During yesterdays press briefing on Team Canada, the 2200 Canadian troops, two RCMP and on member each of CIDA and Foreign affairs going over to Kandahar to secure the province and begin infrastructure construction, Brig. General Fraser refered to his mission as equivalent to a hockey game.

He claimed he had an excellent forward line and a defensive line, the team was well equipped, the goal tendening was number one and his bench was deep.Wow guess they are going to plant a loonie somewhere in Kandahar like Team Canada did at the Winter Olympics.

So we are going to play hockey in Kandahar. No not really but it was so Canadian, so iconic. We can all now feel good about cheering for Team Canada against Team Taliban. Team Canada in Peril Butwhen our Canadian troops get injured or killed its going to be alot more serious than the Winter Olympics which coincide with Team Canada's mission to Kandahar.Team Canada waiting on injury reports

Brig. Gen. David Fraser, future multinational commander, speaks during a press conference Thursday in Ottawa.

"We do not take a back seat to any other nation in the world. Our soldiers are first-notch, first-class and ready for this mission," Fraser said.Last year, Canada's military was primed to battle "detestable murderers and scumbags," in the words of Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff.Now in the wake of several serious attacks on Canadians and calls for a parliamentary debate on the country's role in Afghanistan, the military has toned down its tough talk."This mission is about Canadians helping Afghans," Fraser said yesterday as he repeatedly stressed the mission is "not just about combat operations."We are prepared to kill if we have to," he said. "But that is not my mandate, to just go out and just kill. My mandate is go out and help the Afghans address the challenges that face them," he said.And conspicuously absent was any mention of Canada's special forces, who have suffered casualties in operations in Afghanistan.Instead, the focus yesterday was on the "Team Canada" approach to rebuilding the country.

When asked about whether this mission would take the fight to the enemy, that is the insurgents and Taliban in the outlying areas surrounding Kandahar, the General said that his team would play hard offence and they have a strong defence. I tell ya that man knows how to skate around a press conference.

When ever a press type would ask if the General was worried he would face Iraq like conditions in Afghanistan Fraser would say, "we have nothing do with Iraq I am going to Afghanistan."

Whew that's good to know, had us worried there. The point that the General seemed to continually miss was that the reporters weren't saying we were going to Iraq they were refering to the door to door, combat operations that American forces have faced in towns like Faluja and if Canadian troops would face the same kind of fight in Kandahar. But Fraser avoided that crucial issue with all the gusto and grumpiness of Don Cherry.

Afghan officials have expressed fears that foreign fighters are emulating the rebellion in Iraq with a wave of suicide attacks, including an assault this week when a bomber, dressed in women's clothes, killed five Afghans at an army checkpoint. "There is a big group coming from Iraq," said Ghulam Dusthaqir Azad, governor of the southwestern province of Nimroz. "They're linked to Al Qaeda and fought against U.S. forces in Iraq. They have been ordered to come here. Many are suicide attackers."Despite the dangers, Fraser said that soldiers are "pumped" about the upcoming mission.And he praised the equipment the troops will be taking with them, including LAV III armoured vehicles, hi-tech aerial drones to provide a bird's-eye view and new 155-mm howitzers that can blast a precision-guided shell 40 kilometres with an accuracy of 10 metres.

Blogger Peaktalk raises some interesting questions about the Canadian and Dutch forces going to Kandahar, both countries being left leaning social democracies share a view that their soliders are Peacekeepers says Peaktalk

Peacekeeping missions by their very nature include a ‘war-component’ as you will have to pacify some elements that have fail to recognize the terms of the truce that a peacekeeping force is supposed to maintain. In some nations, Canada being a great example, most people don’t even know that their sons and daughters in Afghanistan are actually engaged in fighting the Taliban. “We’re a peaceful nation and we’re making peace” is an often heard belief and it is hard to argue with it as no one has ever made it clear to the average Canadian what their mission was all about. So, Canadians and Dutch alike are often left with the artificial peacekeeping construct, used to buy political support, to ignore realities on the ground, and to wishfully think that there are no real life threatening hazards in today’s world.

His link is out of date, it goes back to a 2004 article. His point is well made, we are not on a peace keeping mission, but a mission to secure a hostile area and then peace will ensue.A dangerous mission for Canada's troops

General Fraser yesterday cleared up our mission yesterday. Candians now know full well the mission we are sending Frasers Team Canada to Kandahar to do. Uh sort of. We are going to build infrastructure in Kandahar, public buildings, schools, roads, train their army and police, establish the area as a secure State.

After we subdue the nasty warlords and Taliban in the hills with our brand new state of the art Howitzer, we will build a hockey rink and play Canada's national game in the newly established state of Kandahar. We are making Kandahar safe for Tim Hortons to open a franchise.

And while the General assured us Team Canada is playing with best equipment possible, apparently that is not so.

Some of their equipment dates back to when Edward "Eddie" Shore, "The Edmonton Express" played for the Boston Bruins, the same year the 'lauging stock' of the NHL the Chicago Black Hawks beat Toronto for their second Stanely cup ever., 1937-1938.

Canadians armed with WWII pistols



History and Development
of the M1911/M1911Al Pistol


tags
Tags
Canada
Canadian Troops
Afghanistan
Kandahar
NATO
Tim Hortons

Another Catholic Child Molester

It's all about the unnatural practice of modern Catholic celibacy and the seperation of the sexes into male and female only facilities.

The encyclical on celibacy is modern, while the practice actually originated in the Gnostic heresies of the dark ages. Through out history the Catholic church allowed for married priests, even the pope was married, of course he was a Borgia.

Celibacy coincides with the enclyclical that the Pope is infallible. The practice in of celibacy and its resulting in abuse has certainly turned out to prove that wrong.

Ex-Vatican official wanted on Ontario sex charges
Globe and Mail - 10 hours ago
By GREG MCARTHUR. Ontario Provincial Police have issued a warrant for the arrest of a retired Vatican official, a Canadian, who was close with Pope John Paul II and is now wanted on sex abuse charges. Monsignor ...
OPP charges Vatican official with sexual assault CTV.ca
Retired Vatican official accused of molesting altar boys in ... CBC Saskatchewan
CBC Ottawa - 580 CFRA Radio - Ottawa Citizen - CTV.ca - all 7 related »

It is not about sex but about power that the priest has over the lay person. Whether it is a child or women, as there have been many cases of sexual abuse with women in the church as there have been with former altar boys.

While celibacy is un-natural, it is the power of the priesthood that allows them to abuse those who are in their care. The abuse of children, is the power over by the priest taking advantage of his position of 'authority'. And clearly this priest was imbued with the authority of the Vatican.


Also see: Christianity Is Child Abuse


TAGS
child abuse
Christianity
Catholic Church
Canada
Priests

Torys Slime Graham

Blogging Tories that is. In a reprehensible piece of trash blogging, Ottawa Core writes Bill Graham Interim Leader of Pedophile Cult?

He gets his link from a spurious posting by Proud To Be Canadian (I am not proud this creep is Canadian) who uses inuendo in a clever way and leaves a link to google stories on Graham.

Both of them use out of date information and doubtful allegations that Bill Graham now the Liberal Leader, had a sexual relationship with a fifteen year old boy back in the eighties. This is a slimy attempt to out Graham who has never come out as a gay man in public.

So I checked out the links provided by PTBC and OC. The original allegation was posted on Fab. But it no longer exists.

Lifesite the Anti-Abortion Anti-Gay site ran this story based on the spurious report in Fab and Frontpage magazine.

MAGAZINES SAY CANADA'S FOREIGN MINISTER HAD SEXUAL AFFAIR WITH 15-YEAR-OLD MALE PROSTITUTE

Claim Canada's Foreign Minister Is An Admitted Bisexual

OTTAWA, February 19, 2002 (LSN.ca) - Canada's newly appointed Foreign Affairs Minister, Bill Graham, is a darling of the homosexual activist community having constantly supported pro-homosexuality initiatives including homosexual marriage. However, last year a Toronto-based homosexual magazine called Fab published an interview with Lawrence Metherel, a former male prostitute, who claimed to have had a sexual relationship with the Graham, dating back to 1980 when Metherel was 15.

This is the old right wing ploy where a story is posted by one right wing site, and then repeated as authoritative by another right wing site. The Fraser Institute does this by quoting the Cato Institute, both are right wing think tanks.

In this case Frontpage magazine which Lifesite quotes from is run by Right Whingnut David Horowitz. His Canadian editor published his attack on Graham based on an article in the satirical magazine Frank. That article is no longer on line because Frank died. And with Frank it was a rumour that had originated, once again with the defunct Fab.

The only source for this story that still exists online is from the Eye magazine in Toronto which said this at the time and is still right on.

You see, fab (the magazine for homosexuals who hate themselves) published an interview with an ex-boyfriend of Graham's last year, featuring the spurned lover's lurid accusations against the respected MP. In my opinion, this was a disgusting piece of yellow journalism. I remember thinking -- after using the article to drain the grease off my breakfast bacon -- that fab had finally sunk as low as any supermarket tabloid. And Frank, true to sleazy form, reprinted fab's bilge after Graham's appointment.

Atypically, Frank (which rarely exhibits remorse) made a pathetic attempt to justify its release of the tawdry details: "Now that he's a federal cabinet minister and a security risk, shouldn't the rest of the country get the story?" The Globe and Mail echoed Frank's sentiments. After Graham (the "flamboyant" new minister) recently deflected questions about the "rumours" concerning his private life as irrelevant, the Globe editorialized, "It is relevant, of course, if it makes him politically vulnerable."

So two of the supposed original sources for this story are no longer on line. And all these stories occurred in 2002! Four years ago. And let us remember this that the 'Flamboyant" Bill Graham has never admitted to being gay. Regardless of the speculation and clever innuendo by the press about his sexuality. Despite the fact he is married and a grandfather.This doesn't stop the renewal of this attack on Grahams character by these blogging gay bashers of the right.

So while the Blogging Tories and the other rightwhingnuts whine about how gays flaunt their sexuality, with gay pride parades, and demands for their human rights, it is for this very reason they do. Silence is death as the AIDS acitivists say. The closet is not safe.
For that very reason being in the closet has been a security risk, while coming out opens one up to gay bashing. Heck being "flamboyant" opens one up to gay bashing.

Think I am being to harsh calling the creep Ottawa Core a gay basher.

Here is how Ottawa Core ends his article: Kill all the lawyers. Oh, did I mention Bill Graham is a lawyer and law professor? Can you see him eyeing your child?

This is hate speech pure and simple. And it is an open threat of violence against a public figure. And we have laws about this in Canada.

tags
Canada
Liberals
gay bashing
hate literature
Bill Graham
Blogging Tories