STOP THE OIL WAR!
LEAVE YOUR CAR AT HOME!

The following rants, well I call them rants because it is important not to take oneself too seriously, represent some of my opinions and ideas on a wide range of subject matter. Much of it concerns Canadian politics, a popular pastime for us Canucks who have no lives.

I have opinions on everything. I figure that's part of the poets job, to voice the opinion he finds formulating in the heads of the people around him. I also believe it is the poets chore to put to words the poop that needs disturbing. Some pieces have been published in various newspapers or on radio. Some are unpublished.
If these words give you pause to think, good. I've done my job. If you want more, visit by blog at: willbillyblog.blogspot.com

Maher Arar and the RCMP

    I am one of the many who have been deeply moved by the Arar case. I have also been very interested in the calls for heads to roll and other changes at the top of the RCMP.
    Some years ago, when I was a reporter for a daily newspaper in the interior of BC, I was sent to investigate concerns of RCMP in action in a small village.
    A group of Sikh treeplanters had been camped in the town and had been subjected to repeated late night and early morning harrassment by a band of local young people in hot cars, who were burning rubber and shouting racial slurs at the group. After several complaints to RCMP, and no subsequent action by police, one of the crew bosses had pulled out a rifle and fired shots in the air to warn off the offenders. This finally brought the police out, who charged the crew boss with unlawful discharge of a
firearm.
    As a result of this charge several local people expressed concern with the way the police handled the situation. They had many complaints. They believed police mismanaged the original complaints about the young people causing the problem, were concerned how the  police responded to their complaints, who apparently started ticketing complaintants for parking on the wrong side of the street, which was commonplace in the village. Other concerns expressed included the frequent turn over of police officers because of an RCMP policy to
cycle officers out of the detachment every few years, and that the young people causing the problem were related to the police officers and
village big wigs.
    I made notes on all the concerns and took them to the local RCMP for comment. Their response was a rather smug, "no comment." I wrote the story up and it was published on the front page of the paper. Shortly after it was published I received a call from the district commander of the RCMP. He was upset with the nature of my article, the criticisms it contained, and wanted an opportuity to explain the RCMP's position on the situation. I made arrangements to do a feature length article and interview with the officer on RCMP practices and procedures, and their position on the particular case.
    Just before I was about to leave for the interview I received a phone call from the regional commander, the district commander's direct
superior. He was coarse and unrelenting, even threatening. He told me I would never be allowed to interview any member of the RCMP at any time, ever. He even went so far as to speak to my editor in an attempt to have me dismissed. My editor, fortunately for me, did not buckle to the officers demands.
    I tell this story because, nothing has changed at the RCMP. There is a culture of self preservation and protection at the RCMP. Sometimes it is more important for them to protect one another than it is to protect the people they are charged to protect, the citizens of Canada. This is not unusual. Police forces everywhere culture an atmosphere wherein they are  more like a brotherhood or secret society than a public service agancy. To their credit the members of the RCMP take good care of one another, however, this same code of ethics sometimes translates to an exclusionary environ for people not directly associated with the police force or in high community postitions.
    Resignations and firings at the top of the RCMP will not change this situation. The displaced will only be replaced by other officers who have been trained to abide by the same ethics that led to the smearing of Arar's reputation. What is needed is a complete overhaul of how the RCMP do business, and how they are governed and overseen.
    If ever there was a strong argument for the implementation of a civilian watchdog, with real teeth, to oversee the RCMP, than the Arar case is it. Clearly the RCMP made a mistake, which in of itself is  forgiveable.
    What is unforgiveable is how they tried to cover it up by lying and violating Arar's civil liberties in order to protect themselves. The RCMP have set themselves up as a fraternity wherein the priority of protecting the members of the fraternity supercedes the mandate to protect everyday citizens, and they will clearly go to great length to protect themselves, even to the detriment of innocent people.
    The story I tell here is not unusual. I  know of many people who have had serious issues with the way the RCMP does business. One fellow I know, who has never had a charge against him and has a clean record, complained to the RCMP about the activities of certain of their officers involved in a drug investigation. Several years later this same fellow applied for his RCMP file under the freedom of information act. He received over 100 pages, most of them blacked out. Some of the information in the file showed the RCMP had actually sent in undercover officers to investigate the man who lodged the complaint. It always struck me as strange that the RCMP would have such a large file on a man who had never been in legal trouble and whose only apparent indiscretion had been to complain about police behaviour.
    While I agree heads should roll, from the commissioner in a straight line to whoever was responsible for slandering Arar, the bigger job should be to totally revamp how the RCMP does business, particularly where it concerns their response to criticism and complaints against the force itself. I hope the media will do more research on how the RCMP do business and push towards a review of RCMP practices and procedures. I also hope the media will look deeper into how the RCMP complaints commission does business.
    Having met Maher Arar, I want to say that this man has done a great service to the people of Canada and should be compensated for his time and trouble. What's more, he should have input into any changes that are reccomended to be undertaken by the RCMP. I dare say Arar would be a leading candidate to serve on any commision that looks into the RCMP.
    Finally, I want to say the current goverment's action, of blaming the previous government, and deflecting responsibility for Arar's incarceration and torture to the United States, is appalling. As I remember it, Mr. Harper and others in his party, were quick to condemn Arar based on the circumstantial evidence. They, as opposition, and now as government, contributed to the abominable assault on Arar's liberty, and it is incumbent on them to set the matter right by making a full apology to Arar and his family, and to compensate them without further delay.



A National Debate about Afghanistan,

    Contrary to what our Prime Minister argues, I can think of several; good reasons to have a national debate on the role of our armed forces, and I believe the people in our armed forces would be glad to hear we're having the debate. They need to know the Canadian people support their welfare and are concerned about the situation our government has put them in.
    First, our international reputation as a peacekeeping nation could be severely damaged if we just go along with the Americans in this issue. We will be seen, potentially, as henchmen for the US. Yet Mr. Harper and his crew are serving it up as us being better neighbours.
    Secondly, we will be inviting the terrorists onto our soil. Until now we have managed to avoid acts of terror here at home because we have appeared to not be involved. That will change to moment we start shooting up Afghan insurgents.
    Third, if we have innocent Afghani blood on our hands, how can we go to the people of the world and say "stop this nonsense" when we ourselves are participating in it?
    Fourth, one thing we all have in common, here at home and abroad, is the perception that we are not American. Other nations respect that about us. We're the sober sister who tempers the happy trigger finger of our American cousins. If we relinquish that role, and go marching off in step with the US, our bright red maple leaf crests will be seen as nothing more than the symbol of another American battalion.
    Fifth, we may as well pack up, relinquish our national union, and join the US as states, because the moment we participate in the US incursions around the world is the moment we are going to need the US fighting force to protect us from the attacks that are certain to follow.
    Sixth, our democracy itself is in peril. By not allowing and facilitating public debate on the role of our armed forces in world affairs, and on our role as peacekeepers, we are quashing public dissent, and when dissent is subverted, democracy is dead.
    And seventh, perhaps most important of all, is the health and welfare of our fellow citizens in the armed forces. They grew up learning that Canada is a peacekeeping nation, and joined our armed forces with that knowledge at hand. Yes, if they are asked to, they will serve as a strike force, but we had bloody well better make sure that the situation we are sending them into is legitimate.

    At a time when the national debate should be about whether we should even have a military, as opposed to a peacekeeping and disaster relief force, we are being dragged into a winless war that could potentially endanger each and everyone of us. When Canadians should be discussing how we go about disarming the world, our soldiers are being marched off to kill or be killed. We should be leading the way to peace, instead we're being hoodwinked and spun into war. While we should be questioning the intelligence and humanity of the American war machine, we're joining up with it.
    It will be a sad day in Canada if we don't have a national debate about this issue. What's more, for the health and welfare of our armed forces personnel, it is imperative we have that debate right now, not after the body bags start coming home.



Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, an Olympian mistake
c. 2006 by Will Webster

I think its disgraceful Canada's new conservative governhement would use Canada's top soldier as a propaganda agent.

No one in Canada is going to directly challenge General Hillier, or his lieutenants, nor should they, about Canada's role in Afghanistan. Hillier's job is to follow orders, not set public policy. Therefore, it should not be Hillier who is appealing to the Canadian people to support our nation's involvement in the American-led, so-called, "war on terror." That's a job for our prime minister and the defense minister, not their underlings.

For Stephen Harper and Gordon O'Connor to parade General Hillier in front of the Canadian people, hoping to drum up support for the mission to Afghanistan, is nothing short of extreme cowardice on behalf of our government.

Clearly there is much concern and many questions among Canadians about our new role in international politics and world affairs. There is even larger worry about our specific role in Afghanistan, and about our troops being deployed for any reason other than peacekeeping. Because of this, there needs to be a national debate in Canada about whether or not we want our armed forces changing their mandate from one of peacekeeping, to one of an assault force, which is what we are being used for in Kandahar province. And this is where the cowardice comes in. Harper and his government are afraid to put this issue to the people because they know there's a good chance the majority of Canadians will vote against it.

Make no mistake, Canada's new role in Afghanistan is not about protecting the Afghan people, as both O'Connor and Hillier have stated. It is about relieving spent US and British forces, and about propping up the failing US war strategy. Our new prime minister and his government are apparently so eager to please our American neighbours, that they are willing to put our armed personnel in harms way.

To be fair to our current political leadership, this is not entirely their doing. It was the Liberal majority, under Jean Chretien, who realized blanket support of the US led "war on terror" would be political suicide. So, instead of joining the Bush administration in Iraq, our former prime minister agreed to send troops to Afghanistan instead.

The Afghan invasion came about as a direct result of 911. Clearly, the Taliban had supported Bin Laden by harbouring him and his Al Queda forces. In the wake of September 11, 2001, it was clear the Taliban had to be removed, and Bin Laden's army usurped. Canadians supported that, just as we'd support our police going after a murderer. Al Queda attacked and killed innocent people. Canadians wanted him caught. But Canadians did not accept the pretense that the subsequent invasion of Iraq was part of that measure. Chretien knew, if he outrightly joined the US action in Iraq, the Canadian people would be up in arms. So he made a side deal. Basically, his government told the US; Look, we can't join you in Iraq because it would be politically disastrous, so we'll send our troops to relieve your forces in Afghanistan, and you can send those forces to Iraq. That way we'll appear to be fighting Bin Laden, and your soldiers will be freed up to help you out in Iraq.

Then, to cover his political backside, Chretien went down to Chicago and gave a speech that blasted the US for its foreign policy. You remember the speech, the one where Chretien told the Americans, "you are not trusted in the world." It was a very clever bit of spin, designed to help the Americans while appearing to keep Canada's role as an international peacekeeper in tact, at least in the eyes of  the Canadian public.
Now our new government wants to take it a step further, by stripping away the pretense and openly supporting the US action.

This is clear from statements made by Defense Minister O'Connor, who this past week came right out and said his government intends to build stronger military association with the US.

By parading General Hillier out in front of the Canadian people, the Conservatives are counting on the Canadian people not saying "No" to our service men and women. No Canadian is going to deny our brave soldiers the tools they need to do any job they've been ordered to do. So, by making Hillier the front man to the operation, the current government is avoiding having to address the backlash that would occur if the politicians were to go it alone.

If Harper were to stand up in front of the Canadian people and say, we're changing Canada's role in the world, we're no longer going to be just a peacekeeper, we're now going to become part of the American's world wide military doctrine of "bombing for democracy," he knows the backlash would swamp his government. So, instead, he parades out a widely respected General to ask that Canadians support his soldiers, knowing full well that Canadians are not going to deny that support.

Anyone who has graduated from high school in this country knows that places like Afghanistan and Iraq have been war zones since the dawn of time. Many of us remember the previous Gulf War and the Cold War, when the USSR tried for nearly ten years to take control of Afghanistan. We also remember how those actions ended in defeat. What's more, anyone who has studied the politics of that part of the world knows full well that armed occupations resolve nothing. In the end, its the people who live there who must decide for themselves how to resolve their own problems and armed occupations only exasperate the situation.

What Canadians really deserve, and what our government should be providing to us, is an open debate about our role in world affairs, and the role of our military in those affairs. Instead, we are being given no such debate, and are being manipulated into supporting US foreign policy under the guise of being supportive of our soldiers. To put it bluntly, our dog is being wagged but good!

What's at stake if we follow Mr. Harper's plan?

First, our international reputation as a peacekeeping nation will be severely damaged. We will be seen, potentially, as henchmen for the US. Yet Mr. Harper and his crew are serving it up as us being better neighbours.

Secondly, we will be inviting the terrorists onto our soil. Until now we have managed to avoid acts of terror here at home because we have appeared to not be involved. That will change to moment we start shooting up Afghan insurgents. Nothing builds a resentment like a kid watching his father get killed by someone with a Canadian flag on his shoulder.

Third, our ability to take a higher moral stand at the UN will be severely handicapped if we have innocent Afghani blood on our hands. How can we go to the people of the world and say "stop this nonsense" when we ourselves are participating in it?

Fourth, our national identity will be severely damaged. One thing we all have in common, here at home and abroad, is the perception that we are not American. People all over the world respect that about us. We're seen as the sober sister who tempers the happy trigger finger of our American cousins. If we relinquish that role, and go marching off in step with the US, that identity will be lost, and our bright red maple leaf crests will be seen as nothing more than the symbol of another American battalion.

Fifth, by allowing ourselves to become complicit with US foreign policy, we will lose our sovereignty. For all intent and purpose we may as well pack up, relinquish our national union, and join the US as states, because the moment we participate in the US incursions around the world is the moment we are going to need the US fighting force to protect us from the attacks that are certain to follow.

Sixth, our democracy itself is in peril. By not allowing and facilitating public debate on the role of our armed forces in world affairs, and on our role as peacekeepers, we are quashing public dissent, and when dissent is subverted, democracy is dead. If we are not allowed to publicly debate the role of our armed forces in world affairs then we no longer have a free society.

To be fair, Harper and his government, have not openly said there will be no debate on this issue. No, they've done something far more sinister. By parading General Hillier out to ask for support, they have attempted to stop the debate from ever starting. Its despicable, undemocratic, under handed and dishonest, and its downright Un-Canadian.

At a time when the national debate should be about whether we should even have a military, as opposed to a peacekeeping and disaster relief force, we are being dragged into a winless war that could potentially endanger each and everyone of us. At a time when Canadians should be discussing how we go about disarming the world, our soldiers are being marched off to kill or be killed. At a time when we should be leading the way towards the abolishment of war, we're being hoodwinked and spun into one. At a time when we should be questioning the intelligence and humanity of the American war machine, we're joining up with it.

Perhaps it is time for each and everyone of us to demonstrate what has made us great in the eyes of the world. Back in World War II Canadians demonstrated to the world that we are a brave nation. When former Prime Minister Lester Pearson took the idea of international peacekeeping to the UN, we demonstrated we were prepared to lead the world into a era where war would finally be abolished. Maybe its time we as people stood up to our politicians and made it clear that there will be no more Dieppes, and that peacekeeping is not some fanciful notion, but something we are willing to pursue regardless of how it affects our business relationships with corporate America.

How do we do it?

We get on the phone, we write letters, we talk to each other, to our leaders, and to people all around the world. We begin the debate that our current government seems so intent on preventing. We do it now, or we accept that Canada, instead of being the great nation we always believed ourselves to be, is nothing more than a "MIGHT HAVE BEEN", like the men's hockey team we sent to Turin.

We must act now, or we may as well fold up the Maple Leaf and add another star to the American flag.



Resolving the Marriage Debate
c. 2006 by Will Webster
I have the cure for the gay marriage debate.

It was Pierre Trudeau who said the government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. Fact is, it has no place in our personal relationships either!

I’m not advocating abolishing the institution of marriage, but I do believe it should be divorced from the political and legal spheres.

People get married for all sorts of reasons, most of them wrong. They marry for taxes, for money, for security, for acceptance among their married friends. People are wed for family ties, for chances to live in democratic countries, for fame, for a lot of reasons other than love.

Marriage originated with the religions of the world. Until the last few centuries it remained in the sphere of the church. Somehow, even though church and state are supposed to be separate, marriage spilled over into the public realm, where it has become so entrenched as to become a civil contract.

The reason marriage became a civil contract is because people started circumventing the church in order to get out of marriages they no longer wanted to be in. It became more deeply entangled in civil law when people began to fight for compensation for time spent in marriages.

Today marriage takes up a good chunk of our courts, our law enforcement and our politics, a strange turn of events considering it was originally a religious right.

Removing it from the civil sphere would free up courts, police and put a lot of divorce lawyers out of work. It would allow those resources to be spent on larger issues, like the preservation of our environment, civil liberties, health and a myriad of other issues that seem to be on the back burner while we go round and round, as a society, trying to determine what the proper definition of what was initially a religious contract should and should not be.

Personally, I don’t care if my neighbour has one wife or five. Nor do I care if the two guys next door have been declared married by some church minister. As long as my neighbours aren’t hurting the other people in our community, I don’t really care what goes on in their house, and the goverment should care even less.

Under civil law there are plenty of provisions to protect people who enter into written and verbal contracts with one another. Common laws can sue one another. You can sue me and I can sue you, we can do that whether we’re married to one another or complete strangers. Having marriage as some sort of special state over and above the law, but bound to it, is not just unnecessary, its silly, and its discriminatory.

Married people get special consideration under the law, consideration that bachelors and spinsters don’t get, and all because a piece of paper somewhere says they’re married.

I think its time to put marriage back where it belongs, in the church. And for those who are not church going, marriage should be put back where it belongs, within the confines of the homes of the nation.

When two people are married, they’re married to one another. They’re not married to me, or you, or the other people in their neighbourhood. They’re married to one another and that’s where it belongs, between them. It does not belong in civil law because its nobody’s business but their own.

Again, I’m not out to denedgrade marriage. Simply put, I believe it is something very special, and being special, it does not belong in the public sphere, it belongs in the warm hold of those people who are in committed marriages.

Some will say I am trying to lessen marriage, to put it down, but not so. What hurts marriage is the partner who’s down at the bar with his paycheck while the family waits at home, its the man out in the redlight district paying a hooker while his wife is putting the kids to bed. What hurts marriage is the people who get married for all the wrong reasons.

It is not the two individuals who are totally committed to one another and want in some way to honour what they have found and built. To that end I think marriage should be celebrated, hell the whole damn town should turn out and whoop it up when folks decide to marry. But the moment the folks who got married cross the threshold, its between them. Its not a matter for the public to decide and does not belong in parliament or the courts.



War! Cool, where do I sign up?

c. 2002 By Will Webster
Happy New War's Eve to You All!

Well, here we are on the brink folks, preparing to leap off into what many of us swore we would never leap off into, war!

What is it good for? Hey, it's good for population control, which has always been one of the burdens of my generation. We always had too many young men hanging around with nothing to do. Now, with a war we will likely cure that problem. It may also be good for regenerating some emotion among the masses who have become sedated and apathetic through these years of relative peace. Nothing like a few boys coming home in body bags to stir up some feelings.

Heck, maybe we'll get lucky and some of the fighting will be done right here on our own soil. Who knows, maybe some sleeper cell will start bombing the malls and churches and a little of our blood will get spilled in the land. Nothing like a little family blood in the land to strengthen our bond to it. We might even get to do a little fighting ourselves. Then we can all feel like we were part of something and share the bonds of brotherhood like our Daddy's generation did back in the big ones.

Just think of it, if all goes according to the Bush plan, we can all sit back someday and talk about how we became best buds back in the war, how we whipped the infidels arse, and got so close we were like brothers. Heck, even the women of our generation will finally be able to tell sad emotional stories about the son or brother, so young and proud, who went away and never returned.

Ain't it great? Ain't it exciting? We're all going to get to join the Legion and drink cheap beer and march in all the parades and show up every November 11 with all our colours and medals, and the next generation will get to learn what a bunch of heroes we all were.

Imagine it folks: we'll get to run down to the newspaper office in the morning and check the list of casualties coming home from the front.

We'll get to go out dancing and there will be four girls to every guy. And the girls will be able to volunteer at the hospitals, helping the wounded and maimed find some spark of hope to keep them going. Heck, we may even have a run of women impregnated by young soldiers going off to the front. Perhaps we'll even get to have a potluck supper or two over at the neighbours house when word comes back from the front that their oldest son has died proud and brave in some desert somewhere.

Who knows, maybe big band swing music will make a comeback and we'll finally understand why our folks and grand folks liked it so much.

Hey, maybe our songwriters and musicians and poets will finally start composing material that isn't all about puppy love. Maybe we'll finally have some real war ballads, hero stories, and one-who-never-came-back tear jerkers.

Just think of it folks. It could be something. It could be the time of our lives. The times we harken back on to our kids and grand kids. "Way back in the war I remember. . ."

Ah yes folks, don't worry, be happy, we are on the verge of days of fortune and glory. When all our divisions fall away and we go hunting and killing some huns of our own. Think of it, our generation will finally have something to be proud about and we'll finally get to go down in the history books as brave fighting men and dutiful women who stood up against the tyrants and made the world safe, until the next war came along.

And what's more, we'll finally get to wear uniforms, march in file, kill some heathens for Jesus and see the world. It'll be great, won't it?

War, cool! Where do I sign up?

Canadian Anti-war Activists Go to Iraq
c. 2002 By Will Webster
There was recently a fellow from a right wing think tank in the United States on an Canadian television news program saying Canadian peace activists going to Iraq were committing treason. He also asserted that the Huissein regime is the greatest user of propoganda since the Nazi regime. This is my response to the bozo.

First, these are Canadians. Canada is not a war with Iraq. Therefore the actions of these activists is not treason.

Secondly, the greatest user of propoganda since the Nazi regime is the USA. This war is about oil, about pipelines and about the US economy, yet the propoganda machine would have us believe it is about freedom and liberty.

What about the freedom and liberty of those peace activists to speak freely and to be at liberty to act according to their conscience.

Pot Decriminalization and the Gateway Theory
c. 2002 By Will Webster
The Canadian government is considering the decriminalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana. Needless to say, this is causing some considerable debate. On a recent current events program a policeman used the "gateway drug" argument to oppose the notion. This is my response.

I enjoyed your debate on pot decriminalization today. However I must take issue with the Police Association representative, Mike Dubenuk (sic), when he claims marijuana is a gateway drug.

He said most heroin addicts would tell you their first drug was pot. As someone who has known more than his fair share of heroin addicts, and addicts of all sorts, the first drug used by most addicts is alcohol, not pot. In fact, I know of many heroin addicts who never used pot but would revert to alcohol when the junk wasn't available.

Using the gateway theory as a lever in the argument against decriminalization is grasping at straws and more than a little hyporitical. Following the logic of those who use the gateway argument, it might be best to criminalize the use and possession of alcohol and thus save many of our young from lives of despair and illness.

But alas, history proves, prohibition doesn't work, it only makes criminals rich.

It is time to decriminalize marijuana, no, it was time a long time ago.

Alliance Attracts Bugs
c. 2000 By Will Webster
I am no supporter of the Liberal party but I know the statement made by Ms. Kaplan, that the Alliance are supported by racists and bigots, to be true.

In 1993, while working as a reporter with the Yukon News, during the federal election, I was assigned to Reform Party candidate Short Tompkins.

On election night his headquarters in Whitehorse was full of people watching the results on TV. During the night I witnessed several incidents that caused me concern.

These incidents included people in the room yelling "frog" whenever a French-speaking person appeared on the TV. Later on, when then NDP leader Audrey McLaughlin came on, several people in the room made disparaging comments about her, including calling her a "bitch" and a "dyke."

When I asked Mr. Tompkins about these people his response was, "Preston Manning is a bright light, and like any bright light, he attracts lots of bugs."

Mr. Manning has moved on and in his stead is a new light, perhaps an even brighter light, but a light that attracts bugs nonetheless, and from what I've witnessed lately with one of his "team" calling Asian immigrants an invasion force, even more of them.

For Mr. Day to deny their (the bugs) presence says one of two things, either he doesn't know who his supporters are or he is so accustomed to being surrounded by bugs he doesn't notice them anymore.

Bush Anoints Himself President
c. 20000 By Will Webster
I would like to comment on George W. Bush's declaration that he has won the presidential election.

Because the automatic judicial recount is not yet complete, and because all the ballots in this very close election have not been counted, I think Mr. Bush's pronouncement displays a fundamental disrespect for the democratic and judicial processes. Clearly Mr. Bush and his supporters have but one primary motivation, winning.

Mr. Bush, if he has any respect for the process, should be patient and wait. If he is as confident as he sounds then what is the difference if he has to wait a week or two for confirmation?

Whoever has been elected will not assume the Office of the President until January 2001, a full two months from now. So there is absolutely no good reason why the winner must be known at this time, especially when the margin of victory is so close. Is it not more important that democracy be the real winner of this election? What's more important, that a winner be named or that the process works?

As an outsider, a Canadian who makes frequent excursions into the United States, I am aghast at Mr. Bush's disrespect for the process. He seems to be more interested in becoming president than he does in affirming that the electoral and judicial systems function properly, and I don't think this is a particularly good trait for a potential president.

The Right To Protest
c. 2000 By Will Webster
I think the media is missing the mark when it comes to violence and disruptive behavior during protests at recent international meetings including APEC in Vancouver, WTO meeting in Seattle and the OAS in Windsor. What is different about protests today is the police practice of keeping protestors well apart from the people and groups they are protesting against.

In the '70s and '80s I worked as part of a group that provided security for and on behalf of protest marches. We conducted peaceful protests at government buildings, armed forces bases, conference centres where leading politicians were meeting and in the public parks and streets of large cities and towns.

Although we worked closely with protestors to insure peaceful behavior, the reason we did not have to address angry protestors is, in my opinion, because the protestors were actually allowed to protest, and they knew the people they were protesting against were seeing and hearing them. That is the whole idea behind protesting. You don't like what someone is doing and you make sure they know about it.

Protecting the safety of people and organizations, whose activities generate the level of dissension required to get people in the streets, may be necessary in some circumstances. But to protect those individuals and organizations from having to hear or see the protestors is a violation or the peoples right to protest.

The police have an obligation to protect the charter of rights and freedoms of all Canadians, including those who protest. Nowhere in the charter does it state that political and economic groups or organizations have a right to be protected from being protested against.

I do not know where or when North American police picked up this policy of protecting the protested while restraining the rights of the protestors, but I do know that it is the primary cause of the violence and anger that has emerged during recent demonstrations.

Most people take to the streets because something causes them great enough concern to take action, not because they want to cause trouble. It is these people whose rights police should be protecting.

Years ago when we had incidents of anger break out during demonstrations it was the demonstrators themselves who would calm things down. In those days we knew we were being heard and the anger was unnecesary.

Nowdays, things get out of control and the crowd lets it. And they let it because they don't feel they are being heard and the anger seems appropriate.

I think it is high time the media address the whole police approach to demonstrations. And it is definitely time for the police to get their priorities straight, before we wind up with dead kids on the sidewalks.

Quebec and Cree Sovereignty
c. 1996 By Will Webster
Quebec politicians on both sides of the separation issue have repeatedly said that Quebec would not be divided up in the event of separation.

However, worldwide support for the rights of indigenous peoples, a Canadian government opposed to separation and the considerable international lobbying efforts by aboriginal groups within Quebec, combined with support within Canada's aboriginal community and economic concerns raised by the lack of any treaties, could make the disassembling of a separate Quebec inevitable.

The Cree-Inuit opposition to Quebec sovereignty raises several questions about the viability of separation.

Can an independent Quebec survive without its natural resource revenue, which exists on land claimed by the indigenous peoples?

Can Quebec afford a lengthy legal and jurisdictional battle with its aboriginal peoples?

Could Quebec survive the possible international hostility it would face if it were to force separation from Canada on the Cree and Inuit populations?

Can Quebec afford costly land-claim settlements with its aboriginal people without the support of the Canadian government?

Setting aside the political and legal complications a separating Quebec would face with the rest of Canada, Quebec will face a strident challenge to territory, natural resources and human rights from the Cree and Inuit nations within its present boundaries.

Of the aboriginal groups opposed to Quebec independence, the James Bay Cree are the most visible and vocal. They are led by Mathew Coon Come, a lawyer recently elected Grand Chief of Canada's Assembly of First Nations.

In a 500-page study released in October 1995, the Cree argue they should have the same right to self-determination as Quebec. While not arguing for separation from Quebec, the Cree ardently state they have a right to remain in Canada if Quebec separates.

By Cree calculations, Quebec receives $3 billion annuall (1995) from the sale of raw resources. Most of those resources are located within the area claimed by the Cree as their own.

Territory claimed by the Cree and Inuit covers more than half of the province. None of the land claimed by either First Nation is treaty. There have been no land claim settlements, no treaties and no official forfeit of those lands to the Canadian government or the British or French crowns since the arrival of the French and British in Canada.

Cree and Inuit people claim the land belongs to them despite its relegation within Quebec's boundaries.

During the recent Quebec referendum on separation the Cree voted 96.3 per cent against separation. Seventy seven percent of 6,380 eligible voters turned out.

Coon Come, when announcing the outcome of the Cree vote, said his people had voted decisively.

"The message is clear, my people have made their choice," said Coon Come, on October 26, 1995. "We and our territory will not be forcibly included in an independent Quebec."

Coon Come, who has taken his message to the United States Congress and to European governments in the past (and has vowed to do so again) said separating the Cree from Canada would be unconstitutional, illegal, undemocratic and a breach of human rights.

Speaking to John Gray of the Globe and Mail, the Cree Grand Chief was blunt. "This would be a kidnapping of the James Bay Crees. This would be the hijacking of a whole people and their lands. This we will not allow the separatists to do. The James Bay Crees have spoken clearly. We will not go."

Ultimately the people of Quebec -- French, English and Aboriginal, will have to decide for themselves what the cost of separation will be. Meanwhile, the position of the Cree is clear. Coon Come insists he will pursue their interests through political pressure, in Canada and abroad.

"We are not a violent people," he said, in October last year. "We oppose the use of force, and have always found other means to resolving our differences. The use of violence and force is against our most fundamental beliefs."

The bottom line for the Cree, as published in their book: Sovereign Injustice: Forcible Inclusion of the James Bay Crees and Cree Territory into a Sovereign Quebec is; "the Cree, along with other aboriginal nations in the province, cannot be included in an independent Quebec against their will."

This Is An Angry Sermon, Angry But Hopeful
c. 20000 By Will Webster
In our society anger has become a scourge. We do not know how to deal with it. We shun people who get angry. We tell them it is not appropriate. We use anger against the angry. We justify ignoring the message if the messenger is angry.

As a result, people supress their anger. They hide it. They take it out in deceptive ways or they push it down so deep it becomes internalized. People who are angry feel ostracized, alone and angrier. In the end many cannot contain it. It explodes and they do something harmful, either to themselves, others, or both.

I am not ashamed of the anger on these pages. In fact, I'm proud of it. In my opinion anyone living in the world today who is not angry on some level is either completely out of touch, on some drug or not telling the truth.

In a world full of injustice, war and supression it is only natural that we feel some anger. And I think it is important that we begin to express it.

Remember, if it weren't for anger, there would have been no end to Viet Nam, no equal rights for women and other minorities, no Magna Carta, no bills of rights and freedoms, no American Constitution.

Anger is a surface emotion, like the whistle on the water kettle, it warns us there is something boiling underneath. It lets us know when we are in danger, when our rights are being trampled, when we need to deal with things.

I believe that everyone of us needs to re-think the way we deal with anger. We need to begin to hear the message the angry messenger bears. We need to stop ignoring the message because of the manner in which it is delivered.

Anger is, in my opinion, a healthy emotion. It can save our lives. The only real problem with anger is how we respond to it, both internally and externally.

In my own small way I hope these pages are of some use in helping to heal the world's anger, or to at least let it be expressed in a safe and responsible manner.

If you would like to comment on these tirades click here

Stay tuned, more to come soon.

Visit Will's Poli-Blog to read more rants.
Return to Will the Poet's Homepage
Check out Will's 2002 US Travelog
Check out Will's Most Recent Poetry Page
Check out Will's Original Poetry Page
Write to Will
All material contained herein is copyright by Will Webster.
All Rights Reserved.