The newly formed Canadian International Council (CIC) heralded by it's Chair, Jim Balsille, as offering Canadians and their children "better lives" bears closer examination. Should Canadian's "look behind the headlines" as Balsille's new organization purports to do, they will find the new organization, just another conservative think tank dominated by the corporate scions of the nation --you name 'em the're there-- while seeking moral authentication through its nominal public membership.
The CIC is a privately funded arm of our corporate state, although any Canadian may become a fellow for $100,000. Benefactor status will require a cool million. Mr. Balsille declares that the CIC is "unrestrained by the competing ideological framework of our political parties". While objective on the surface, in a democracy that may be a dangerous thing.
In an ironic side note the CIC was formed through an assimilation of the Canadian Intstitute of International Affairs and the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. Both of these organizations were formed originally in the hope that public rather than strictly government, not to mention corporate, input were essential for wise foreign policy.
Should Canadians depend upon the CIC to provide an independant and objective view of foreign policy they will be ill served. Authentic objectivity can only provided by truly independent Canadian scholars.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Friday, April 4, 2008
Indian Land Claims
A Rare Setback for Indian Land Claims
The Supreme Court of Canada made a surprising, unanimous and historic decision in rejecting the $2,500,000,000 land claim by the self-styled, Papaschase First Nation. In a brave decision during today’s climate of acquiescence, the court ruled according to the statute of limitations declaring that the statute seeks to strike a balance between the plaintiff’s interest and the defendant’s right, after a judicious period of time, to organize his affairs without fearing a lawsuit. No mere “legal technicality” as Papaschase Chief Rose Lameman charged, the interests of all Canadians is at stake in the matter which confronts the dismemberment of the nation.
Although underplayed by the national media in Canada, of the historic ruling the Supreme Court also declared that, "This policy applies as much to aboriginal claims as to other claims". It is interesting to note that Justice Alan MacInnes of the Manitoba Court similarly ruled that there was no evidence to support any of the Metis arguments in the even more ambitious bid of the Manitoba Metis Federation to require billions in compensation. Supporting the view that the Supreme Court must take a stand was the disappointment with the ruling of the Manitoba court by David Chartrand, president of the Manitoba Metis Federation. Chartrand reminded us that lower courts typically reject aboriginal claims, but are routinely overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada. He expects the same outcome in the Manitoba in spite of the fact that the Metis case like the Papaschase First Nation's rests on tenuous contentions. Whereas the Papaschase had dwindled to just three individuals in number during the nineteenth century and the Manitoba Metis had largely left Manitoba for the Northwest Territories in the 1860’s; both groups base current claims on supposed populations that include individuals of questionable aboriginal status. For example, of the now 5,000 purported members of the Papaschase spread throughout Western Canada, included are members of the other Indian bands, non-status Indians, Metis as well as people of Caucasian and Asian descent; nearly all, who have come forward since the band began regrouping (signing-up new weakly established members) asserted Lameman.
Canadians whom have been largely mum, if at all aware of the enormity posed by the land claims crisis threatening to devour their country; have allowed misplaced guilt and sympathy toward native plight to yield a string of unwise settlements awarded by politicians crassly chasing votes. For this reason the Supreme Court’s landmark decision is particularly heroic and a landmark vital for the continued existence of the nation, which has come none too soon.
The Supreme Court of Canada made a surprising, unanimous and historic decision in rejecting the $2,500,000,000 land claim by the self-styled, Papaschase First Nation. In a brave decision during today’s climate of acquiescence, the court ruled according to the statute of limitations declaring that the statute seeks to strike a balance between the plaintiff’s interest and the defendant’s right, after a judicious period of time, to organize his affairs without fearing a lawsuit. No mere “legal technicality” as Papaschase Chief Rose Lameman charged, the interests of all Canadians is at stake in the matter which confronts the dismemberment of the nation.
Although underplayed by the national media in Canada, of the historic ruling the Supreme Court also declared that, "This policy applies as much to aboriginal claims as to other claims". It is interesting to note that Justice Alan MacInnes of the Manitoba Court similarly ruled that there was no evidence to support any of the Metis arguments in the even more ambitious bid of the Manitoba Metis Federation to require billions in compensation. Supporting the view that the Supreme Court must take a stand was the disappointment with the ruling of the Manitoba court by David Chartrand, president of the Manitoba Metis Federation. Chartrand reminded us that lower courts typically reject aboriginal claims, but are routinely overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada. He expects the same outcome in the Manitoba in spite of the fact that the Metis case like the Papaschase First Nation's rests on tenuous contentions. Whereas the Papaschase had dwindled to just three individuals in number during the nineteenth century and the Manitoba Metis had largely left Manitoba for the Northwest Territories in the 1860’s; both groups base current claims on supposed populations that include individuals of questionable aboriginal status. For example, of the now 5,000 purported members of the Papaschase spread throughout Western Canada, included are members of the other Indian bands, non-status Indians, Metis as well as people of Caucasian and Asian descent; nearly all, who have come forward since the band began regrouping (signing-up new weakly established members) asserted Lameman.
Canadians whom have been largely mum, if at all aware of the enormity posed by the land claims crisis threatening to devour their country; have allowed misplaced guilt and sympathy toward native plight to yield a string of unwise settlements awarded by politicians crassly chasing votes. For this reason the Supreme Court’s landmark decision is particularly heroic and a landmark vital for the continued existence of the nation, which has come none too soon.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Man for All Seasons
Here Indeed Was A Man For All Seasons
We note the regretable passing of that greatest of actors, Paul Schofield, who recently succumbed to leukemia at age 86. He is due the greatest personal admiration not so much for his incomparable acting ability, but for his even more prodigious personal qualities. Having learned his trade in the classic manner he worked primarily in the theatre. As Audrey Woods
(Associated Press) pointed out, Schofield made few films even after the Oscar for his 1966 portrayal of Tudor statesman Sir Thomas More. Although a stage actor by inclination, training and gifts; it was film that gave him his greatest fame. Of his several films his most memorable and juxtaposing roles range from the soul imbued, Saint Thomas More in Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons and the souless heart of human evil as Judge Danforth in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, that timely and powerful critique of McCarthyism in 1953.True to his humble, yet noble origins, as the son of a country schoolmaster, Schofield preferred throughout his life the sweetness of close rural family life to the glamour of the limelight, having turned down many parts offered to him over the many years.In a fit of “Schofieldian” humility, Richard Burton scoffed at the notion that he should be regarded as the natural heir to Olivier or Gieglud, deferring the honour to Schofield. “Of the ten greatest moments in the theater,” Burton generously remarked, “eight are Schofield’s”.True to his democratic roots he declined the inevitable offer of a knighthood, explaining, “It is just not an aspect of life that I would want. If you want a title, what's wrong with Mr.?" How utterly “uncommon” (sic.); how utterly unlike our Lord Black today, for example, and all those so many hinds who make it their life’s work to chase the tail of the dog. He did graciously accept many other honours including Tonys, Emmys and of course the British Companion of Honour in 2001. There is little doubt that in Schofield's view, as his life so clearly proclaimed, the greatest honours were the wife and family who survive and continue to love him.
We note the regretable passing of that greatest of actors, Paul Schofield, who recently succumbed to leukemia at age 86. He is due the greatest personal admiration not so much for his incomparable acting ability, but for his even more prodigious personal qualities. Having learned his trade in the classic manner he worked primarily in the theatre. As Audrey Woods
(Associated Press) pointed out, Schofield made few films even after the Oscar for his 1966 portrayal of Tudor statesman Sir Thomas More. Although a stage actor by inclination, training and gifts; it was film that gave him his greatest fame. Of his several films his most memorable and juxtaposing roles range from the soul imbued, Saint Thomas More in Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons and the souless heart of human evil as Judge Danforth in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, that timely and powerful critique of McCarthyism in 1953.True to his humble, yet noble origins, as the son of a country schoolmaster, Schofield preferred throughout his life the sweetness of close rural family life to the glamour of the limelight, having turned down many parts offered to him over the many years.In a fit of “Schofieldian” humility, Richard Burton scoffed at the notion that he should be regarded as the natural heir to Olivier or Gieglud, deferring the honour to Schofield. “Of the ten greatest moments in the theater,” Burton generously remarked, “eight are Schofield’s”.True to his democratic roots he declined the inevitable offer of a knighthood, explaining, “It is just not an aspect of life that I would want. If you want a title, what's wrong with Mr.?" How utterly “uncommon” (sic.); how utterly unlike our Lord Black today, for example, and all those so many hinds who make it their life’s work to chase the tail of the dog. He did graciously accept many other honours including Tonys, Emmys and of course the British Companion of Honour in 2001. There is little doubt that in Schofield's view, as his life so clearly proclaimed, the greatest honours were the wife and family who survive and continue to love him.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Prometheus
The title of this publication, Prometheus, was selected for its powerful allusion to human nature and the human political condition. It represents, as the ancient Greek's knew so well, the eternal human quest to seek freedom and understanding in all its multifarious forms and break the bondage of authoritarian political control that permeates the ages. The Promethean myth is the most human of epics: that of a "man" following the quest of liberation from the whims of Kings and their Gods. For it was Prometheus who not only gave man fire, by Aescaleus’ account, but also the noblest arts of civilization (writing, mathematics, agriculture, medicine, and science): in short, freedom of though and action. It was Prometheus who was bound and punished eternally by pitiless Lord Zeus’ vulture: which would savour the hero’s liver for all time, were it not for his intrepid rescue by Hercules; whereupon, once again the Greeks defied the gods.
We refer to Aescaleus later version of Prometheus an inversion of Hesoid’s traditional hieratic account of the myth, which affirms Zeus’ role as a Solonic ruler of the rightly ordered cosmos. Aescaleus who comes much later during the Golden Age of Hellenic democracy and thought, casts Prometheus as a indominable benefactor of mankind, ever questing for knowledge, independence and human dignity.
It reminds us of Byron’s Prometheus, 1816
Amighty lesson we inherit;
Thou art a symbol and a sign
To mortal … fate and force;
Like thee, Man is part divine,
Triumphant where it dares defy,
And making Death a Victory.
We refer to Aescaleus later version of Prometheus an inversion of Hesoid’s traditional hieratic account of the myth, which affirms Zeus’ role as a Solonic ruler of the rightly ordered cosmos. Aescaleus who comes much later during the Golden Age of Hellenic democracy and thought, casts Prometheus as a indominable benefactor of mankind, ever questing for knowledge, independence and human dignity.
It reminds us of Byron’s Prometheus, 1816
Amighty lesson we inherit;
Thou art a symbol and a sign
To mortal … fate and force;
Like thee, Man is part divine,
Triumphant where it dares defy,
And making Death a Victory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)