CIC HAS MOVED to
877 Shefford Road.
Gloucester
Ottawa, Ontario
K1J 8H9

Tel: (613) 680-2867
Tel: (613) 680-2871
Fax: (613) 680-2902

Privacy statement

Simply put, there is growing concern that the appointment of someone with a known far-right bias to a highly respected human rights organization can only create more instability for Canadian minorities.

*** ***

Many thinking Canadians are shocked by the appointment of former Canadian Alliance candidate Mr. Gérard Latulippe as the new president of Rights and Democracy, replacing Rémy Beauregard who died suddenly in January 2010 amid a hostile struggle for control of the organization. This human rights organization has been in turmoil for the past year.

Rights and Democracy - officially known as The International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development -- was created by Parliament in 1988. It is a tax-payer funded non-partisan organization established to operate at arm’s length from the federal government. Its international mandate is to encourage and support human rights values and to promote democratic institutions and practices around the world.

The much-questioned appointment of Mr. Latulippe by the opposition parties, many reputable social justice institutions, and concerned Canadian citizens, was announced on Tuesday (March 2) by Foreign Affairs minister Lawrence Cannon. The danger that such an appointment could undermine Rights and Democracy’s social justice mandate are enormous, given the backdrop of the current government’s national and international policies and the dubious track record of Mr. Latulippe on minorities within our multicultural society.

Why the concerns???

Simply put, there is growing concern that the appointment of someone with a known far-right bias to a highly respected human rights organization can only create more instability for Canadian minorities.

Mr. Latulippe has publicly expressed views contrary to cherished Canadian values of tolerance and inclusion, particularly with respect to Canadian Muslims and other minority communities. In the spirit of ethical equality and Canadian tradition, any president of Rights and Democracy should pledge to represent the interests and concerns of ALL citizens.

It is fair comment to caution that Mr. Latulippe’s views on immigration and on Canadian Muslims and minorities call into serious question whether he is the right person to head an organization whose policies are historically based upon respect, accommodation, tolerance and openness. Partisan exclusivity or discrimination, however subtle, should not be an option.

In 2007, for example, Mr. Latulippe authored a submission to the Bouchard-Taylor Commission (investigating the issue of "reasonable accommodation" for ethnic and religious minorities in Quebec) in which he suggested that Montreal’s increasing Muslim population posed a threat both to the cultural integrity of Quebec and to Canada’s national security.

The smooth functioning of Quebec society, he said, is harmed by "the increasingly large geographical concentration [in Montreal] of immigration from Muslim countries." Among the solutions he proposed were a requirement that immigrants settle outside Montreal and a pre-immigration test be imposed to verify that a potential immigrant's values conform to those of Quebec society. He also said such religious symbols as the Muslim headscarf (hijab) and the Sikh ceremonial (non-weapon) dagger, or kirpan should be confined to the "private sphere." On the other hand, he said, Catholic symbols such as the dominant crucifix in Quebec’s provincial legislature reflect "national identity" and should be preserved.

Furthermore, according to Mr. Latulippe, "The debate of today is not centered anymore on the protection of our language, but of our culture." He also argued that geographically concentrated Muslim immigration means "we take the unnecessary risk of generating homegrown terrorism."

Statements such as these from an appointed leader of Rights and Democracy suggest that both rights and democracy are in danger of being eroded and replaced by an escalation of false fears about Islam and Muslim immigrants to Canada as well as other minorities. Instead, the discourse will be more about "us vs. them." And this is exactly what Canada does not need if we want each citizen to realize their full potential and contribute to the well being of this great country.

This could only happen if the head of Rights and Democracy is someone with a legitimate and reputable record in the field - and does not come into its leadership through a political appointment.

(This article was edited for the Canadian Islamic Congress Friday Magazine.)

"An attack on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada." - Peter Kent, Junior Foreign minister, February 12, 2010

*** ***

In my new book Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid I argue that the trajectory of this country’s foreign policy has always been clear. Having reached the culmination of six decades of one-sided support and four years into the government of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Canada is (at least diplomatically) the most pro-Israel country in the world.

Since the book went to print at the end of 2009, the Conservatives have launched a more extreme phase of Israel advocacy. Groups in any way associated with the Palestinian cause have been openly attacked and Ottawa has taken a more belligerent tone towards Iran.

Early in February, Ottawa delighted Israeli hawks by canceling $15 million in funding for the UN agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). The money has been reallocated to Palestinian Authority judicial and security reforms in the West Bank. At the same time, Canada doubled the number of troops involved in U.S. Lt. General Keith Dayton’s mission to train a Palestinian force to strengthen Fatah against Hamas and to serve as an arm of Israeli occupation.

Only a few weeks earlier, Israel apologists sang Harper’s praise when his government chopped $7 million from Kairos, an interdenominational Christian aid organization that had received federal money for 35 years. During a visit to Israel, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said Canada had "defunded organizations, most recently like Kairos, who are taking a leadership role" in campaigns to boycott Israel. Palestinian advocacy was also the reason Ottawa failed to renew its funding for Montreal-based Alternatives, an international solidarity organization, which received most of its budget from the federal government.

The Conservatives chose a different tactic with the arm’s-length government agency Rights and Democracy. Instead of cutting its budget, they stacked the board with hard-line supporters of Israel. Last week, Maclean’s magazine reported that "The Rights and Democracy board is now predominantly composed of people who have devoted much of their life to an unequivocal position: that no legal challenge to Israel’s human rights record is permissible, because any such challenge is part of a global harassment campaign against Israel’s right to exist."

The new "Israel no matter what" board members hounded the organization’s president, Remy Beauregard, until he died of a heart attack after a "vitriolic" meeting in January. Once in charge, the new board voted to "repudiate" three $10,000 grants given to Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups (B’Tselem, Al-Haq and Al Mezan). Late last month, the Toronto Star reported that the "Conservative-appointed [Rights and Democracy] board secretly decided to close the agency’s Geneva office, distancing itself from a United Nations body it viewed as anti-Israeli."

Internationally, Harper has used his pulpit as host of this year’s G8 to pave the way for a possible U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran. "Canada will use its G8 presidency to continue to focus international attention and action on the Iranian regime," the PM explained on February 9.

While Ottawa considers Iran’s nuclear energy program a major threat, Israel’s atomic bombs have not provoked similar condemnation. The Harper government has repeatedly abstained on votes asking Israel to place its nuclear weapons program under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) controls.

In mid-February, Ottawa criticized China, a key trading partner of Iran, for refusing to follow Western dictates regarding the Islamic Republic. "I think China should step up to the plate and do something here," Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said.

While they are silent on the appalling record of the pro-West monarchy in Saudi Arabia and the dictatorship in Egypt, Canadian officials regularly berate Iran. "This regime continues to blatantly ignore its international obligations, and this threatens global security," Cannon said.

At times, Canadian words have been even more menacing. A February 17 Toronto Star article was headlined: "Military action against Iran still on the table, Kent says." Peter Kent, the junior foreign minister, explained that "It may soon be time to intensify the sanctions [against Iran] and to broaden those sanctions into other areas." He added: "I think the realization [is] that it’s a dangerous situation that has been there for some time. It’s a matter of timing and it’s a matter of how long we can wait without taking more serious preemptive action."

"Preemptive action" is likely a euphemism for a bombing campaign. Canadian naval vessels are already running provocative maneuvers off Iran’s coast and by stating that "an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada," Kent is trying to create the impression that Iran may attack Israel. But isn’t it Israel that possesses nuclear weapons and threatens to bomb Iran, not the other way around? Of course that would be a reality-based analysis, not something George W. Bush’s Canadian clones (and clowns) favor.

(Retrieved from: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11102.shtml This article was edited for the Canadian Islamic Congress Friday Magazine.)

A few decades ago, ours was a Christian civilization, and Jews were the designated Others. Now it's Judeo-Christian, and furthermore, why not Judeo-Christian-Muslim?

*** ***

There's something enigmatic in Stephen Harper's foreign policy. Since he decided to cut and run from Afghanistan, it seems to have only one pillar: total support for whatever Israel's government does.

It kicks in almost before Israel acts - as when he called the 2006 attack on Lebanon "measured," before there was time to get out a tape. Or against Israel's own position - as when he rebuked Canada's delegates for not leaving an anti-racism conference as though Israel had asked them to stay. It extends to NGOs such as Rights & Democracy, where Harper appointees created chaos over issues concerning Israel, like a tiny grant to a human-rights group that even Israel's attorney-general praised.

In a recent interview published, junior foreign affairs minister Peter Kent said "an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada." It sounded like The Guns of August, 1914 -- it was ridiculous. The Canadian Forces are overstretched, and Israel has perhaps the fourth strongest military in the world. Is this kind of myopic focus on one country and knee-jerk support for all it does appropriate to any government's foreign policy - except Israel's own? Surely it's about more than buying a few Jewish votes.

So I'm grateful to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney for casting light on this behaviour. At a Jerusalem meeting, he said: "The existential threat faced by Israel on a daily basis is ultimately a threat to the broader Western civilization." Aha! Then what we have here is a clash of civilizations, a new version of old dualisms such as Us/Them, East/West, commies/capitalists. That's how foreign policy was often justified in the past. But why code it in terms of Israel? It’s because the old dualisms aren't what they used to be.

They frequently carried, for instance, racist baggage: the white races against savages, etc. since racism was an official ideology back then. You caught a whiff of it recently when a British commander in Afghanistan told his troops (echoing Joseph Conrad) they were going into "the heart of darkness." Now anti-racism is official ideology, making the so-called clash of civilizations sounds like a less-vile dualism, even if it's kind of stupid.

But what civilizations? How do you separate them? A few decades ago, ours was a Christian civilization, and Jews were the designated Others. Now it's Judeo-Christian, and furthermore, why not Judeo-Christian-Muslim? After all, Muslims also lived and warred in the European "West," and Spain was largely Muslim for 700 years. The Greek classical tradition was transmitted to Europe, in Arabic, via the Muslim world. Western civilization, whatever it is, includes Muslims.

Simplistic dualisms such as the clash of civilization respond to some primitive human need for a reassuring division into Us and Them. The trouble is, these old divisions don't work as well any more. The world has become too scrunched up, populations are intermingled and intensely in touch. The lines blur, and then fade. Yet Jason Kenney still refers to broader Western civilization? Is he trying not to offend Canadian voters of Chinese or Indian origin by including them as "Western"? It's been a rough patch for those naturally inclined to divide the world starkly, which is what I picture Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney doing.

So they try to slip some of dualism's waning power into foreign policy by way of Israel. Maybe that's how humanity advances. You eliminate one silly dualism, like racism, and replace it with slightly less foolish versions. Eventually we might surpass dualism itself.

I want to end by mentioning Fanny Silberman, a luminous soul who survived Buchenwald and other Nazi camps and died in February. She was my real-estate agent and pal. She knew I was critical of Israeli policies, yet it never diminished her warmth, not even when I switched agents. Her generosity and joie de vivre were boundless; her response to life was inclusive and inspiring...

(Retrieved from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/and-this-is-our- foreign-policy/article1473368/

This article was edited for the Canadian Islamic Congress Friday Magazine.)

We are in the midst of an unmatched environmental disaster.

*** ***

BAGHDAD - After three decades of war and neglect, large parts of Iraq are in environmental ruin and more than 40 sites across the country are contaminated with high levels of radiation and dioxins, an official Iraqi study has found.

Areas in and near Iraq's largest centres, including Najaf, Basra and ¬Falluja, account for around 25% of the contamination and coincide with increased rates of cancer and birth defects over the past five years. The joint study by the country’s environment, health and science ministries found that scrap metal yards near Baghdad and Basra contain high levels of ionizing radiation -- thought to be from depleted uranium used in munitions during the first Gulf war, as well as since the 2003 invasion.

Iraqi environment minister Narmin Othman said high levels of dioxins on agricultural lands are increasingly thought to be responsible for a general decline in the health of people living in the poorest parts of Iraq.

"If we look at Basra, there are some heavily polluted areas there and there are many factors contributing to it," ¬she explained. As well, many kinds of bombs were used in attacking oil pipelines and most of the contamination settled in and around Basra.

"The [contaminated] soil has ended up in people's lungs and has been on food that people have eaten," she continued. "All of this has caused systemic problems on a very large scale, for both ecology and overall health."

Government study groups have recently focused on the war-ravaged city of ¬Falluja, west of Baghdad, where an unstable security situation had kept scientists away since fierce fighting there in 2004.

The media have also reported claims by local doctors of a massive rise in birth defects in the city. "We are aware of these reports, but we must be cautious in reaching conclusions about causes," Othman said, but acknowledged that "the general health of the city is not good. There is no sewage system ... and there is a lot of stagnant household waste, creating sickness."

"We have had co-operation from the United Nations environment program and have given our reports in Geneva," she continued. "We have studied 500 sites for chemicals and depleted uranium. Until now we have found 42 places that have been declared as [high risk], both from uranium and toxins."

Ten of those areas have been classified by Iraq's nuclear decommissioning body as having high levels of radiation. They include sites of three former nuclear reactors at the Tuwaitha facility - once the pride of Saddam Hussein’s regime on the south-eastern outskirts of Baghdad - as well as former research centres around the capital that were either bombed or dismantled between the two Gulf wars.

Bushra Ali Ahmed, director of the Radiation Protection Centre in Baghdad, said only 80% of Iraq had so far been surveyed. "We have focused so far on the sites that have been contaminated by the wars," he said. "A big problem for us is when say a tank has been destroyed and then moved, we are finding a clear radiation trail. It takes a while to decontaminate these sites."

Scrap sites remain another major concern. Wastelands of rusting cars and war damage dot Baghdad and other cities, offering unchecked access to both children and scavengers.

Othman said Iraq's environmental degradation has been intensified by an acute drought across the country that has seen a 70% decrease in the volume of water flowing through the Euphrates and Tigris rivers.

"We can no longer ... call ourselves the land between the rivers," she said. "A lot of the water we are getting has first been used by Turkey and Syria for power generation. When it reaches us, it is poor quality and that which is used for agriculture is often contaminated. We are in the midst of an unmatched environmental disaster."

(Retrieved from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/22/iraq-nuclear-contaminated-sites This report was edited and slightly abridged for the Canadian Islamic Congress Friday Magazine.)

This week CIC presents the following link to our readership:

Chossudovsky predicts: the U.S. will start World War 3 by attacking Iran. Please watch some insights into this at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4p1kD8CZX8&feature=player_embedded#

************************************************************************ IMPORTANT NOTE from the Editor-in Chief of the CIC Friday Magazine, Imam Dr. Zijad Delic - National Executive Director of the Canadian Islamic Congress: If you, dear readers and supporters, have suggestions, comments, or questions, please feel free to address them to me. I welcome your responses at: imamdrdelic@canadianislamiccongress.com