As one who has actually been to Afghanistan and seen how the military cares for and treats detainees, it’s a little difficult to swallow the news that the International Criminal Court could investigate Canada for so-called war crimes. I’m not sure what that would accomplish, but it certainly would do nothing to help with the main problem in the country: the insurgency.

I’m unsure as to how or why anybody believes that Canada’s role in Afghanistan is anything more than a humanitarian mission buttressed by security. We’re in the country to provide stabilization for the democratically elected (thought admittedly corrupt and fraudulent) government with whom we have specific agreements and rules we must follow.

In providing security to Afghans we are not allowed to hold Afghan nationals for more than 96 hours in our custody, though at the time of the allegations (pre-2007) this was 72 or 48 hours.

It doesn’t seem reasonable to me to expect a foreign military with finite resources to ensure absolute humanitarian oversight of detainees after they’ve been handed over to the Afghan government. That’s like expecting a police officer in Canada to ensure proper oversight of a prisoner he has arrested and brought to justice. Is a police officer morally culpable if a prisoner is raped in prison?

The answer in Afghanistan appears to be yes, but only if the arresting party knew that the prisoner would be likely to be exposed to harm. Well, in Canada we know that many prisoners are likely to be exposed to violence and rape in prison as a matter of routine consequence. So, again, who is responsible in a moral sense? The system allowing the rape and violence? Or the police officer doing his job?

Even worse, most Canadians are not aware that the charges facing us are based upon the 2005 agreement signed by Prime Minister Paul Martin and General Rick Hillier with the Afghan government, which did not include the sort of oversight that exists in the revamped 2007 agreement. The system now is very clean and involves oversight from third party humanitarian agencies, in particular the International Red Cross, who has said it presently has no issues with Canada or any other NATO member.

But what bothers me the most is we are seeing torture through a very narrow prism of self-interest. Canadians only seem to be interested in the kind of torture taking place in which Canada may have had an indirect hand, but not torture in the broader context and problem that it is in Central Asia. The facts remain and are borne out in many studies, that although torture is ubiquitous in Central Asia, it has been significantly reduced since the fall of the Taliban, and detainees captured by NATO enjoy perhaps the highest exemptions from mistreatment of any Afghan citizen.

According to a 2009 International Red Cross Survey, those Afghans who report having been tortured has dropped to 29 per cent from 43 per cent in 1999 during the Taliban rule. That one in three Afghans have still reported being tortured in some manner is disturbing, but it does provide a more contextual analysis than the cherry-picking of detainees who went through Canadian custody.

The Canadian military is also relatively savvy to what irks the population back home, which is why it now usually brings along ANA soldiers or ANP police who can take detainees directly into custody without ever having changed hands from Canadian to Afghan authority. In this manner, because Canadians are only interested in torture if it occurs to detainees who went through our control, our military can never be “complicit” in torture. Never mind if torture occurs independently of Canadian involvement.

What is more perverse than any of this is the fact that Canada would be investigated for third-party complicity in war crimes, when there’s a foe out there that has little qualms about murdering women and children indiscriminately. It’s difficult to bring to trial an insurgent army that has signed no international agreements and abides by no rules of international law.

There’s a reason why Canada has lost its appetite for humanitarian work in Afghanistan and it’s because we have focused so much on how well the Taliban have been treated in Afghan custody that we’ve lost sight of the bigger picture. Public morale has been sapped by such gross distortions of our work over there that at this point it makes little sense to try explaining or justifying it any more.

Our military has a job to do and it will continue to do it in the same professional manner it has since the beginning, until it is called back home. What the International Criminal Court rules is of little consequence to anyone.

And here’s the proof:

Boy, life in Sweden must be really bad if it’s worse than here, where Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are destroying Canada.

The city of Richmond is renowned as one of the most “diverse” in Canada, but the term might be a bit of a misnomer. It isn’t diverse so much as it has shifted from the former homogeneous population of European immigrants to the current homogeneous population of Chinese immigrants.

According to the 2006 Census Data (the 2011 Census should represent a vastly different change from these numbers), just over 41 per cent of Richmond residents were born in Canada, while 57 per cent were immigrants. Of that number, at least 51 per cent came from mainland China, with 9,395 arriving between 2001 and 2006. Chinese immigrants represent the largest growing demographic in the city, and the 2011 Census is expected to show at least a 50 per cent gain from the previous number.

In terms of ethnicity, 78,790 people identified as being Chinese in the 2006 Census, or 45 per cent of the population. People who identified as being English, Scottish or simply Canadian combined to represent exactly one third of the population. Given the projected growth rates, ethnic Chinese people should represent a statistical majority when the 2011 Census data comes out.

All of this preamble is only my attempt to show and acknowledge that the city of Richmond is, for all intents and purposes, one that is largely Chinese in ethnicity and identified heritage. So it may come as no surprise, then, that this city operates as a Chinese culture bubble of sorts, in which shopping malls, medical services and other amenities are provided in Chinese. Equally unsurprising is that the residents, who are comfortable with that bubble, would seek only people who really belong there:

An online advertisment for an apartment rental in Richmond has sparked outrage after it stated “only Chinese” need apply.

The offending Craigslist ad was spotted by prospective renter, longtime Richmond resident and former school trustee, Patricia Whittaker.

Whittaker, who is of African origin, was checking rentals in the city centre when she came across the posting for the Mandalay building on Hemlock Drive, by Garden City and Cook roads.

But her disbelief when reading the “only Chinese” conditions quickly turned to anger when the realization set in.

“Chinese only? This is Canada for crying out loud,” said Whittaker, who runs the non-profit Centre for Integration of African Immigrants in New Westminster.

The importance of this advertisement shouldn’t be blown out of proportion, but nor should it be easily ignored, given that historically when such signs have been created by white Europeans, they were condemned for systemic racist and exclusionary attitudes. And although the landlord says she only phrased the advert in that manner because she can’t speak English, and so prefers Chinese tenants, it’s indicative of a multitude of failures in our immigration system.

First, in a city where not speaking English is of no consequence at all, where is the incentive to integrate and learn the mother tongue(s) of Canada? The situation wasn’t rectified by the landlord offering to rent to non-Chinese people, she merely moved it to a Chinese-only newspaper. That doesn’t help people who need to rent apartments, nor does it help the cohesion of a “diverse” society.

Second, where is the essential benefit to Canada of creating a separate and segregated society of Chinese people who don’t feel obligated in any way to adopt an attitude of openness to Canadians who, through no fault of their own, are not ethnically Chinese?

This should serve as a reminder to our government that language preference toward applicants for immigration to Canada should be given to those who will more easily integrate and assimilate into our country and its official languages.

The nanny state is ever-vigilant in its coercion for a purer life for you and your children. Whether it be mandating what children should learn, how they should think or what they should eat, the nanny state relies upon the fundamental precept that it knows how to raise your child better than you do. Nothing exemplifies this better than the oft-floated theories that table salt should be banned or fast food outlawed. At the college I recently attended the vending machines even have a tri-colour smiley face system for the foods. Happy green for the healthy choices, yellow ambivalent for the moderately healthy choices and, of course, red unhappy for coca cola.

In one Chicago public school the nanny state has been taken to its logical extreme, making it illegal to bring food from home. This is the progression, of course, from such allergenic bans as peanut butter and nuts.

At his public school, Little Village Academy on Chicago’s West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria.

Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.

“Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school,” Carmona said. “It’s about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It’s milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception.”

When I was a kid I used to eat a bag of chips and drink a can of coca cola every day. As a baby I was a vegetarian. Neither seem to have any present effect on my health.

The problem is that Canada is an even more likely candidate for this sort of nonsense than the United States. With universal single-payer health care there’s a very strong argument to be made that the state is already responsible for our health choices since we’re all collectively responsible for the health of our society. It’s the reasoning behind handing out alcohol to alcoholics and needles to drug addicts, donchaknow.

So I can foresee a Canada where the government packs your lunches, fortified with Vitamin B12 supplements so that no animals have to actually be killed in the production of the food. And since the argument can be made that childhood obesity is straining our medical resources, it’s only logical that the government will step in and feed everybody.

It’s a brave new world, and it’s being run by collectivists.

John Ivison is an often underrated political columnist who really hits the nail on the head every once in a while. His Saturday column on Ignatieff needing to stop talking about Ignatieff is one perfect example of his perceptive proficiencies.

As every political poll, survey and focus group has told him, Michael Ignatieff has failed miserably to build his image and brand as successfully as Stephen Harper. In fact, he’s failed so badly that only fringe party leader Elizabeth May has a less alluring leadership brand.

And of all the things that have hampered Ignatieff, nothing has been so pronounced as his expatriate days when Canada was little more than a vacation home to return to and renew his membership card. As Ivison writes, “it reminds voters that here is a man who is not like them,” in any way shape or form. Regardless of how many times the man tries to explain it in soft light video with archival footage of Harvard, he only serves to further validate the “just visiting” charge from the Conservatives.

But that’s the fault of the Liberal war room. They don’t seem to be able to perceive that the greatest asset of the Liberal leader isn’t what he provides, but what he doesn’t provide: the cult of personality that Stephen Harper has built around himself.

The Liberals are never going to match Ignatieff with Harper in some political gladitorial showdown, as the prime minister is going to win that match every single time. It isn’t about intelligence or experience or wisdom. Some people just “have it” and with Ignatieff, baby, you don’t have it.

What they’re missing, however, is the chance to juxtapose the Liberal brand as precisely the opposite to what many Canadians have come to dislike and distrust about the Conservatives. Instead of promoting the Liberal leader as the central brand, focus on branding the political party as a group of people all working equally toward some common goal.

Instead of the centralizing power of the Conservatives where all political messages have to be filtered through the PMO and Party HQ, where party candidates and workers have to be vetted for common media interviews, the Liberals could focus on being what the Conservatives are not.

The contrast could be remarkable if done properly. Ignatieff could step back and say that it isn’t about him, it’s about Canada and the kind of vision all 308 candidates have for a Liberal vision of the country. The Liberal brand is obviously enduring enough that it can hold a quarter of the electoral loyalty, despite having a weak leader for much of the past half decade.

Of course, that will never happen. Because part of the reason the Conservative strategy works is that it’s true. Ignatieff didn’t come back to Canada to stand out of the spotlight and campaign for a better Canada on ideas alone. He came back to be coronated as the returning monarch of Canada by virtue of his superior human qualities.

And even if that can’t be articulated on a perfectly logical plane of thought, it is the gnawing instinct of mistrust that is what most likely provides the negative feedback loop the Liberals are receiving in polls.

Aggregate Polling Numbers (n = 5,098)

There were three polls released today with Conservative leads ranging from seven to 14 percentage points over the Liberals. Even in the favourable Harris Decima poll, Michael Ignatieff still ranks fifth of all five leaders (even including the separatist) for having the most unfavourable ranking as a political leader.

In the Harris-Decima survey, the Conservatives lead everywhere except Quebec, where the Bloc continues its usual dominance. Second place is being contended between the Conservatives and Liberals, with the former holding a four-point lead. The Conservatives lead the Liberals by eight points in Ontario, six points in B.C., 28 points in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 33 points in the Albertan stronghold and finally just two points in Atlantic Canada. (It should be noted that the margins of error are only below six per cent in Quebec, Ontario and nationally.

Leger Marketing has much different figures, but their samples are admittedly too high in some provinces to pull any reliable indicators from it. The Conservatives lead the Liberals in Ontario by five percentage points, 29 points in Manitoba and Saskatchewan (a match with Harris-Decima), 40 points in Alberta (+7 over Harris-Decima) and 21 points in B.C., significantly higher than other results. The two are tied in Quebec, while the Liberals are shown as leading by four points in Atlantic Canada.

One of the interesting parts of the Leger poll is that there’s a question of decided voters, with 72 per cent of Green voters indicating their vote could still change, offering a clue as to why the Greens always poll higher than they place. Conservative and Bloc voters are most decided at 64 per cent, while 55 per cent of Liberals are decided and just 43 per cent of NDP have made up their mind.

Equally interesting is that the most “trusted” leader in Ottawa is a man who wants to separate from Canada. Jack Layton is second-most trusted, followed by “don’t know/refused”, Stephen Harper, before settling in near the bottom at 6 per cent for Michael Ignatieff. Just 3 per cent identified Elizabeth May as most trusted.

Nanos Research has the Conservatives leading the Liberals in every province, similar to the Harris-Decima poll. They lead by eight points in Atlantic Canada (with an unreliable margin of error of 10), eight points in Quebec, six points in Ontario, 28 points in the prairies and 26 points in B.C.

The current selection of ideas being proposed by the usual faces in Ottawa has to be among the most deluded I’ve heard in quite some time. The only party that appears to be displaying any fiscal common sense is the Conservatives, and that’s only because they’re not going to open the floodgates again until 2015.

It’s positively bizarre, actually, to listen to the Conservative proposals for the 2011 election, since they all take place in 2015, or the year that Canada’s deficit will magically be balanced. From the announcements he’s made, one would think Stephen Harper was actually running in a different time period than the others. A $500 fitness tax credit and income-splitting are just two of the big ticket items voters can expect a half decade from now.

Whatever spending promises have been made by the Conservatives, however, they pale in comparison to those made by the “Nanny State Professor”, with $8 billion in big-ticket social spending over the next two years. And they’ll somehow be paid for without raising income taxes (which isn’t exactly true, since they plan to raise corporate rates back up to 18 per cent).

The Liberal plan is big on the party’s attempt to corral the family vote from the Conservatives, adding $8 billion in new spending. $1 billion would go toward Registered Education Savings Plans (which personally appeals to a parent like myself, since my RESP isn’t tax-deductible while RSPs are), $1.2 billion would go to daycare, $700 million to better GICs and $400 million to energy retrofits (which is a bit of a policy lift from the Conservatives).

To say the Liberal budget is unaffordable is an understatement, although this seems remarkably similar to the same sort of pie-in-the-sky promises made by the Ontario Liberals when Dalton McGuinty reached out to put a chicken in every pot that was hard done by the Harris era.

It would be one thing if we were running large surpluses for Ignatieff to make these kinds of spending promises, but during a deficit it is frankly irresponsible. The sheer enormity of it all suggests the platform is aimed more at election racketeering than good policy-making. The last thing we need are more social programs that can be expected to balloon in cost over the next decade.

As for Jack Layton, he’s mostly out-to-lunch as usual. He’d create a jobs program that would be funded by returning the corporate tax rate to 19.5 per cent, proving once again that socialists don’t understand the fundamentals of economics.

There is one aspect of the NDP spending platform that deserves a closer look. His $103 million promise to improve benefits for military veterans is admirable, and certainly affordable when compared to the fact the Conservative government is willing to spend $100 million on the commemoration of the war of 1812.

Not that Layton is really in this two-horse race. Nor is Ignatieff, if you look at the polls lately. But Harper is taking some deserved heat for saying today that he wouldn’t meet the Liberal leader in a man-to-man showdown in front of the cameras (though it has been pointed out that Sun TV is willing to accommodate when they launch in late April), giving CBC reporter Terry Milewski the opportunity to call him a chicken to his face.

The Conservatives are also constrained by the fact that they have said on the record they won’t change their budget, so the amount of vote-buying they can manage is limited to things that extend beyond the current budget projections, hence the reason for their bizarre tax promises in 2015.

Perhaps the best thing to hope for is a majority government, not because I believe the Conservatives deserve one, but because it would test once and for all the argument that the government’s fiscal credibility has been compromised by the demands of the opposition. That, and the fact we wouldn’t have to hear about unaffordable universal programs until sometime in 2015.

If you haven’t read about the vegetarian couple who were denied adoption on the Greek island of Crete, well now’s your chance. Apparently this one has been making the rounds in the vegetarian blogs and news sites because they find it utterly appalling that these prospective parents might be denied adoption based upon dietary reasons.

Apparently the city’s welfare services cited the concern that the parents would foist the dietary restrictions on the child, a reasonable concern under the circumstances, when the University of Crete medical school recommended a diet that includes meat. The decision was made because they believed it would not be in the best interests of the child to be placed in a home where meat is not provided as a dietary option.

In this instance I don’t believe the action taken by the city was too extreme. After all, even though there are many proponents of a vegetarian diet, the mainstream medical world acknowledges meat as an essential food group. Health Canada, for instance, recommends a diet that includes meat although it suggests meat alternatives such as beans, lentils and tofu. Health Canada also recommends two servings of fish every week, and lean meats with no fat or salt.

That isn’t to say that a child would be unhealthy on a vegetarian diet. But I think it would be reasonable to ask whether the adoptive parents intend to include the child in their dietary regimen, and to prove that they understand the dietary requirements of children and the meat substitutes required to get proper nutrition. This point cannot be overstated, as children can develop Vitamin B12 deficiencies by not eating the right proteins.

So, why should adoptive parents should be forced to explain their dietary choices when birth parents aren’t required to do so? On the surface it may seem like an intrusion. After all, some parents would probably fail the criteria of raising their own children by government standards. But it’s reasonable to conclude that the state will attempt to find as suitable a home for a ward of the state as possible. Fortunately, the state is not yet able to enforce dietary compliance for children not under their care. (Though this is no doubt worthy of a futuristic movie).

I’m not sure why a parent would want to raise a child solely on vegetables anyway. It’s difficult enough to get my children to eat the single leaf sprinkled atop their meals for balance, let alone a sea of greens. Subjecting yourself to this kind of torture doesn’t seem worth any potential benefit to the child.

Having said that, I don’t think parents should be denied adoption solely based on their own personal dietary preferences. And much is missing from the article that might be of interest. Do the parents intend to feed the child only vegetables? What are the reasons for the vegetarian diet? Are they based on ethical or health motives? The former usually comes with a willingness to forgo the needs of humans for the imagined needs of animals.

A vegan baby died in 2004 because his parents fed him nothing but soy milk and apple juice. The parents deservingly got life in prison for their extreme folly, as prosecutors noted the couple intentionally neglected their child and refused to take him to the doctor even as the baby’s body wasted away. Such extreme examples are good reason for concern, particularly with very young children.

I think if the Crete parents can have their diet approved by a medical professional, they should be allowed to adopt. Otherwise it’s reasonable to seek a couple more open to the full range of food choices.

I don’t want to pile on a redundant rebuke of Justin Trudeau’s thoughtless comments about the new Citizenship and Immigration guide, since I’m quite certain he’s already been filleted by more than enough other people today. Needless to say, many of those people were Liberal supporters who cocked their head to one side, raised an eyebrow and shot Justin a rather stern glare.

Yes, of course it’s ridiculous to say that the government should not call honour killings “barbaric” when they clearly are. In fact it’s probably the most appropriate use of an oft misused word.

I guess Justin was just trying to say something, anything, as he felt he should as Liberal immigration critic. Unfortunately, he decided to pick a fairly sensitive topic that Canadians uniformly agree is repulsive.

“There’s nothing that the word ‘barbaric’ achieves that the words ‘absolutely unacceptable’ would not have achieved. We accept that these acts are absolutely unacceptable. That’s not the debate. In casual conversation, I’d even use the word barbaric to describe female circumcision, for example, but in an official Government of Canada publication, there needs to be a little bit of an attempt at responsible neutrality.”

I don’t see why Canada should take a neutral stance on female genital mutilation, nor should it be encouraged to sit on the fence on this one. Such a thing is blatant cultural relativism, and is largely responsible for the toleration of a great deal of gender violence and misogyny the world over.

But as I say, I’m not here to pile on. Sufficed to say the remarks were a gift to the Conservatives, who can now stand safely on the side of women while firing back at the Liberal party who, in all likelihood, don’t share Justin’s views on this matter.

Still, that remains to be seen as well. The best thing to do in this situation for Michael Ignatieff would be an unequivocal clarification that Justin’s comments don’t reflect the Liberal Party’s views on honour killings, and that the term “barbaric” is certainly a fitting description for the wanton murder of women for culturally-fostered prejudices.

The sad thing is that although the vast majority of Canadians, and most likely immigrants as well, would have no problem with the term, Justin’s words are indicative of the deranged mentality of the relativists. These people espouse fervent belief in liberal notions of equality and women’s rights, but usually they only expect those things for western women.

The women living in misogynist societies who are culturally subjugated are viewed with a kind of self-determination from people like Justin. Which is probably why support for fighting the Taliban has been so low. People assume that’s the way women want to be treated anyway.

I don’t see a problem with telling immigrants to leave their “violent, extreme or hateful prejudices” at the door, and describing the murder of women as “barbaric” is perfectly reasonable. Let’s hope Justin comes around to that realization.

Quick show of hands. Who agrees with the CRTC that “market forces are working just fine for consumers” of internet service?

Yeah, I didn’t think so. The internet service provider market is a dog’s breakfast, mainly because the CRTC likes the competition nice and collusive. Why, you have the choice of spending $60 a month on internet from at least two corporate giants whose idea of competition is offering a bundle service with phone and cable.

This is the same CRTC that required direct government intervention to allow more competition in the the extremely expensive cell phone market to green-light Wind mobile. That didn’t last long, however, because our Canadian-content overlords decided Wind mobile was too Egyptian for its tastes.

Can’t have any scary foreign ownership in Canada. Best to simply shut up and pay our expensive cell phone bills. The CRTC is now looking at ignoring political pressure on their decision to allow so-called usage-based billing.

Which would be fine in an ideal world where some ridiculous antiquated regulator wasn’t making decisions against the best interests of Canadians. The concept of usage-based billing in a genuine free market economy would be fine. But we don’t live in a free market economy. Far from it.

As for why Canadians pay thousands of dollars more for the same service Chinese grocery vendors in Shanghai get, the CRTC doesn’t care about that either.

“The CRTC will not be expanding the scope, as requested by several parties, to include the billing practices for retail Internet services,” the commission said. “There is no evidence that market forces are not working properly in this unregulated market.”

What flatulent nonsense. No evidence that market forces are not working properly? Um, take a look at Japan for a moment (current tsunami devastation notwithstanding). (The updated 2010 report ranks Canada 22 out of 30 OECD countries for overall Internet access, based on penetration, speed and price).

Canada’s internet provider market is an oligopoly, and the CRTC seems to be the gatekeeper to that status quo.