The Re-awaking of the International Bully to the South of Us.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a bully as "A person who uses strength or influence to harm or intimate those who are weaker". I suspects that Mr. Trump has always been a bully.  It appears as if his approach to almost any discussion either face to face or when on social media is to bombastically shout over his opponent, insulting them whenever possible and ignoring them when they say things he doesn't like. He has used his financial power to dominate. His approach has been surprising successful in his business life. Experience has shown him that many people just back down when faced with this overbearing attitude, perhaps in part because  they can't believe it is happening.   Mr. Trump has recently started to apply that apparently successful strategy to international affairs.

There have been times when the USA was capable of, and the population was willing to, support a president who wanted to dominate world politics. For example, the American political philosophy of manifest destiny has long been applied to other parts of the world. The Mexican -American War of the late 1840s was a blatant land grab as was Spanish American War fifty or so years later.  In fact for the next hundred years, the USA consistently, whether overtly or subvertly, stuck its nose into the politics of various countries scattered across the globe. And for the most part they got away with it. The USA, in terms of their economy were the world power. They could afford to either directly or indirectly buy governments , to use their economic might to pressure  governments to do what they wanted or if that failed - they had a large enough army and navy to threatened countries. There was as well a time when the battle lines between the Soviet Union and the USA were clear; a time when 90% of the world was divided into two political camps. Countries that fell within the USA's sphere of influence - automatically supported their ally. I am not too sure if Trump realizes that things are changed.

The USA is not the economic powerhouse it once was. There are other countries (e.g. China and India) whose economies have a significant impact on the world economy. There are other countries who may in fact have healthier economies and who are not dependent upon the USA. As the US's economic power wanes - citizens in other countries are less willing to be influenced by USA's political desires. The reduced economic power also means that the US has less money to continually build up its armed forces. It is clear from the recent budget submitted by Trump that if the priorities are to better support the armed forces - then there are not sufficient funds to support the environment or enhanced social programs. And finally - while citizens of the US have, because of extraordinary manipulation (e.g. the myth of weapons of mass destruction), been supportive of American intervention in the Middle East, their natural desire to be insulated from the world predominates (part of Trump's winning campaign platform was the promise to not engage in foreign wars). There may not be a way to convince the American public that another war is a good thing for them.

In the past ten or so days - Trump has dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb ever made, has continued to threaten North Korea with the USA's Navy sailing ever closer to their water, used 59 cruise missiles to protest Assad's use of chemical weapons and has been surprisingly combative with Russia. It would appear as if Trump thinks that these dictators will react to his bluster. It appears as if he thinks that these men perhaps don't understand the art of bullying. By definition Putin, Assad and  Kim Jong-un are bullies. They have been bullies on the international stage for far longer than has been Trump. They have total control of their countries political apparatus and they have far more to lose if they back down.  They are not going to back down quickly or easily.

If Trump does not find a way out (although he seems to never be embarrassed about changing his mind and then doing the exact opposite of what he promised), the world is going to come far too close to another war. There are times when I start to understand how some people felt in 1914 or 1939 as they watched their world slip in chaos.

The Sins of Our Fathers

Every once in awhile I am struck by a particularly strange combination of information, a juxtaposition of events and fact that is so strange that it come close to feeling as if it were impossible.

Quite often as I spin, I listen to an audio book that I have downloaded from the library. Usually it is a novel - generally some trivial thing that keeps my mind at least partially occupied. However last week I download a nonfiction book called  Lawrence of Arabia - War, Deceit, Imperial Folly, and the Making of the Modern Middle East - by Scott Anderson.  It was an exceptional "read". It discusses in some detail the activities of  four young men, their peers and superiors, who were active as spies and provocateurs during the 1914- 1918 war in the Middle East. While the author, as the title suggest, focuses mainly on T. E. Lawrence (better known to people of my generation as Lawrence of Arabia), Anderson also devotes considerable space to talking about the American agent who was still on the payroll of Standard Oil, a Jewish agronomist who ran a spy network in Palestine and a German who did what he could to ensure that the Ottoman empire was victorious. It was a fascinating read.  At the end of it I was left with three very strong impressions: one- how completely incompetent was Lawrence and his peers (along with the generals) at collecting information and developing plans based on that information; two - that the war in Europe was a horrendous waste of the human life - a war that was unneeded, driven by imperial visions of glory, poorly fought and at the end, had no ending; and three - how absurdly arrogant were the "victors" specifically Britain and France in terms of their absolute belief that they had the right to carve up the Middle East in any way they chose.

During the same week as I was listening to my book, some  Syrians were attacked by their own government. According to the New York Times 69 people were killed by a intentional chemical attack. The only words to discuss the attack is heinous. With the exception of Russia, we all want to condemn Assad. Even the most hardened among us has to believe that it is profoundly unjust, unfair and inhumane to kill citizens who are doing the best they can to survive in a war that may not be survivable.  While one could argue that these most recent deaths are not more important than the estimated 1400 Syrian civilians who died from chemical attacks in 2012, it is clear that by any measurement - far too many people have died in that poor, chaotic country. In all of our angst and outrage towards Assad and his minions we, who are safely ensconced in our middle class homes, need to remember that the chaos that has existed for the last 100 years in the Middle East is the direct result of our ancestors compulsion to rule the world.

This week is also the 100th anniversary of the Canadian Army's "victory" at Vimy Ridge. While I appreciate that some have argued that this military engagement that cost 10,000 men who were either killed or wounded shaped Canada into what we are, I think the argument can be made that this is a particularly Eurocentric perspective.  We are and always have been so much more than a winning a battle to climb a little hill in another country. That those soldiers were brave is beyond question; that they did their duty as defined by the state, the church and their generals is clear. But their actions do not define the country I chose to live in. The war was a human resource disaster for Canada. 61,000  men were killed with another 170,000 wounded (Canadian War Museum). The war was, in fact, a disaster for much of the western world. Wikipedia states that approximately 11 million military persons were killed. For most of the war the battle lines moved hardly at all. Men died because of imperial stubbornness (on both sides), incompetent leadership (on both sides) and a general inability for anyone to say 'enough is enough".

So as our politicians and our main stream media commemorate those glorious days of yesteryear and as those same politicians and media people pontificate, with great anguish for the Syrian people, on the horrors of last week - I personally am going to reflect upon the fact that the sins of our fathers do visit upon someone. All too often however, in the western part of the world, the people who are the most affected, the people who are most damaged are not the sons of those who sinned.

Perspective is all

This morning, over my usual breakfast of brown rice, as is my habit, I perused various news headlines on my tablet. On the CBC site I noted that one of the news points reported on was that the House of Commons had, during question period, raised the issue of how much Canadian taxpayers paid to have a technician travel with Trudeau during his Christmas holiday.  It appears as if we had to pay $1,694 for his accommodation.  The math is beyond me but $1,604 must be less than .00001 percent of the total Canadian budget. I understand that the opposition is concerned about whether or not Trudeau will be unduly influenced by the holiday - but really are there not more important things to worry about? If the honourable members of the Opposition are running out of ideas - I think I, along with thousands of other Canadians, probably have a few suggestions. Resolving the housing crisis in Northern Canada, the lack of jobs for young people, the cost of post-secondary education, and creating a Canada wide response to climate change are a few suggestions.

The next item on CBC's list of newsworthy items was the fact that at least twelve Ontario police officers who have been suspended because they have been charged with a criminal offense remain on the payroll of their police force and made over $100,000.00 dollars last year. Ontario is the only province that  has a policy that states that unless an office serves jail time - they must be kept on the force's payroll. While those in charge of administrating the police must dislike this law - I am sure that police unions will fight to keep it.

 I appreciate the fact that we are all innocent until the judge says we are guilty and that it perhaps is wrong to fire someone before their guilt has been proven. I do question why taxpayers have to pay someone's salary for a period on months if not years when they are not doing anything. Is there no work that those officers could be doing? Surely there is some filing or toilet cleaning that needs to be done. I am willing to bet that those officers who are found guilty don't ever have to pay back the money. 

This is not a slam against the vast majority of police officers who are hard working, honest and who have a vested interest in creating communities that are safe. But I am damned if I can understand why a police officer who is charged with a crime (and maybe even convicted) gets treated differently (better) than do other workers. If for example, a part time worker at a fast food restaurant or at a dollar store is caught stealing - they get fired. There is no year long process where they get paid to not work while the courts process the charge.

 There are times when various union contracts/influences have lead the way to improved labour conditions - this is not one of them.  

In terms of the juxtaposition of these two articles one could wonder if the House of Commons, as the members think about how to reform it, should have a limit on questions that deal with minuscule amounts of money and be forced to deal with real issues of social inequity.

Stepping Up To The Plate

 Canada's Prime Minister may be a great communicator. He clearly has the ability to inspire people to be optimistic about the future. He is reasonably bright, far more diplomatic than his father and his boyish charm is attractive to people both in Canada and around the world.  It may be the first time that a Canadian Prime Minister has attracted so much positive international attention. He says all of the right things about climate change, women's rights, immigration and world peace. It is time however, that he started to do more that talk a good talk. Trudeau is facing two specific issues that not only may define his time in office but may define Canada and its role in the world for the next few decades.

 Just under a year ago (5/25/16) I did a piece entitled " On Being a Smug Canadian " in which I suggested that it was easy for Canadians  to criticize other countries'  (notably the USA) immigration policies because our borders were not vulnerable to large numbers of people sneaking in. Well - things have changed. Small numbers of illegal immigrants from the USA have, ever since Trump's election, started to cross into our country. So far there are not the thousands of people who cross over the USA's southern borders, nor are there the thousands and thousands of people from the Middle East who are attempting to cross into European countries. Still it is a test for us and I am not sure that we will pass.

The federal government must start to allocate resources immediately so that the small towns along the border can provide the necessary initial levels of support.  If we believe that we have a collective responsibility to support those who have asked for help, then we need to collectively create a national response. We must ensure that those small border towns do not carry the emotional or financial costs alone. At the same time we also need to ensure that there are sufficient resources in place to process the refugee applicants, do the security screening and to help them to relocate to other parts of Canada. If Canada starts now to provide those supports then we will not be overwhelmed when the numbers increase. If we wait too long, then the capacity of the residents of those towns to care will rapidly disappear.  Then the only option may  to create one of those horrendous refugee camps that one sees on television. That cannot be an option for us.

The second issue facing the federal government is Trump's declaration that dealing with climate change is not a priority for his administration. In fact he does not believe that climate change is even real or at least that it is caused by humankind's use of fossil fuels. To that end he has promised to lower emission standards for vehicles and factories, to do away with regulations that deal with the use of coal fired hydro plants and to encourage oil and natural gas extraction including fracking. Trudeau has, of course, made the exact opposite argument. He has publically, on international stages, promised to lower Canada's total carbon emissions. Various large manufacturing and/or international companies are now saying very clearly that if Canada continues on this path, the already uneven playing field will become so unbalanced that Canadian companies will not be able to compete with their competitors to the south. The pressure to lessen the federal government's stance on climate change will only increase in the upcoming months.

We cannot allow that to happen. We must, as a country, keep our promises to the world community. We cannot allow the bully to the south to force us to ignore the science so that we (or at least some of us) can become richer. We cannot afford to lose four years  -the climate is changing far too quickly. We must not listen to only those who believe that the international business world knows what is best for us. Commerce is important. We need a vibrant economy and that includes manufacturing that must compete on the international market. But not at the expense of our grandchildren living in a world that can no longer support them.

It is easy to make great speeches - it is equally as easy to make promises.  It is even easier when big brother to the south agrees with us. The hard part is following through on those promises when he doesn't. It is time that we started to do so.

Making Justice Work Faster

Canada's criminal justice system is facing a rather unique problem. In fact I suspect it may be the first jurisdiction in the western world that has had to resolve this issue. The problem, quite simply, is that the Supreme Court has said that people who have been charged with a crime, have the right to have a trial within a reasonable time. It appears as if some of our courts  are so backlogged that it is not possible in some cases to meet the Supreme Court's guidelines. Consequently, people who have been charged with serious crimes will be freed with no trial regardless of whether or not there is significant evidence that they may have committed this crime.

There is no doubt that those who have been charged for a crime but not convicted must be treated as if they are innocent.  I am a firm believer in the general concept that we need to err on the side of human rights rather than overzealous prosecution.  On the other hand it is concerning that it is conceivable that people guilty of a crime will never have a trial because the courts are too busy.

For anyone who has spent any time in court it is obvious what at least part of the problem is. The lawyers, both the crown and the defence are not in any particular rush. Both sides are busy, in some cases overwhelmed with the number of cases they have to process. For those lawyers who work within the legal aid system, the remuneration rate per case is so low that they need, to make a reasonable living, to assume responsibility for too many cases. The Crown is equally over burdened. It becomes much easier at the lowest levels just to adjourned a case for another few weeks while both parties attempt to gather, share and read the facts of the case.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, at one point in my professional career I spent a lot of time in court supporting individuals who had, for the most part, been charged with very minor offenses. A simple charge could take six months to resolve simply because either the crown or the defence requested an adjournment pleading a conflict in schedules or insufficient time to read and discuss the information.  There were numerous mornings when the cases that had been adjourned two weeks previously, were once again being adjourned because the work had not got done. It appeared to me and to others sitting in the court room waiting for their two minutes in front of the judge or the justice of the peace, that the lawyers were spending more time in court waiting for the opportunity to adjourned a case than they were spending dealing with the issue. If they spent less time in court juggling their schedules and workloads - they would have a lot more time to actually go to trial.

Like so many other problems, the obvious solution is to put more money into the system. Allocate more money to the legal aid system, hire more crown attorneys and perhaps more judges. But this solution only addresses the symptoms of the problem. Hiring 10,000 more lawyers will not make the system work better or faster. The courts need to insist that lawyers move along with a bit more speed. There needs to be a sense of urgency injected into the system from day one. I appreciate that some trials may be incredibly complex and that people need to take the time to make sure that justice is served, but from my limited experience, so many of the cases are not complex. We need to streamline the system.

Streamlining the system means that the police and the Crowns need to be more rigorous as to which cases they want to pursue (why are we arresting young people for simple possession of marijuana?); for simple misdemeanour charges, we need to create other more efficient and less expensive ways of dealing with those cases and we need to somehow impress upon those who have been charged with a crime and are guilty - to plead guilty sooner as opposed to dragging out the process only to plead guilty five minutes before their trial.  I am convinced that those who work in the system full time know what needs to happen to be more effective. We should ask them.

We have created a court room culture that says quite clearly - there is no rush - it doesn't matter how long it takes or how much it costs. But it does matter. Cost or time should never be the only reasons why the criminal justice system makes decisions but that does not mean we should waste those resources.