Let's Not Reduce The Level of Debate

So apparently, now I am a "Pakistan supporter".

All, because, yesterday when Mr Sappani wrote a Pakistan-bashing article on his blog, I merely asked him for facts to clarify his story. He, of course, took the rationale that "what he was saying can be googled" which therefore excused his rant. Whatever, it's his blog, his rant space.

However, asking for facts is akin to "Pakistan supporting".

On January 5, 2007, I wrote against Majid Khan, particularly because he had served in the Pakistan army during 1971, which I felt had committed genocide and war crimes in that war. As someone originally from Bangladesh whose family had been in the Mukti Bahini fighting Pakistan forces, I would be amongst the last to be called a "Pakistan" supporter.

However, when I am accused of just that, Mr Sappani is trying to reduce the level of debate on Libblogs to a more George Bush-like "us versus them" attitude. His anti-Pakistani article was just that - anti-Pakistan. It started from a news article about a debt-ridden third-world country's national airline (PIA), and spiraled into an anti-Pakistan vitriol. As someone who has many Canadian friends of Pakistani descent, I asked Mr Sappani for clarification on his conclusions, one of which included a mark against Pakistan because it was the "only Islamic country with the N-bomb".

Now I am of the mind-set that India is the only Hindu-country with the N-bomb, but I would not use that in an article against Indian nuclear weapons because I consider such a term racist. Moreover, both India and Pakistan has proved themselves responsible nuclear countries so far. Our strategy should be to accept that these nuclear weapons are here to stay, but to promote freedom, education and democracy in those countries.

There are many things wrong with Pakistan. I myself have written about their Hudood Ordinance (which thankfully has now been struck down), but when you have to criticize a single issue, do it on that issue, objectively. For example, I take issue with India's caste system and their nationalist Hindu party making a tough time for converts here. Doesn't mean I go India-bashing or those who disagree are "India supporters". This is a progressive blogspace, we can all disagree in a civil manner here.

If someone disagrees with the Afghanistan mission, or wants to bring them home (Kennedy and Dion) if the mission is not defined, that does not make them any less patriotic. If someone thinks Pakistan's Musharraf is our moderate ally fighting against extremists, that does not make them any less willing to stand up for our soldiers in Afghanistan. Let's leave the 'wrapping ourself in the flag syndrome' to our neighbours down south.

Is Quebec A Racist Province?

In my experience, yes - they have a problem.

The very statement that Quebec is a racist province could be termed racist itself. However, the recent ejection of a female Muslim soccer player for wearing the hijab is merely one incident in a long line of incidents that just reinforce the belief that Quebecers, despite crying foul for being discriminated against by English Canada, themselves have a problem with racism.

Consider:

A Toronto Sun report last month found that Quebec was the province where a majority of the people saw themselves as racist (59%). A day later, a private Muslim girls' school in Montreal was vandalized, with hooligans shattering 15 windows and damaging a school bus. [Canoe]

In a diverse society, "religious symbols have no place in public space," Parti Quebecois Leader Boisclair said.

Mario Dumont, leader of the Action democratique du Quebec, said Quebec should quit bending over backwards to accommodate minorities.

"We must make gestures which reinforce our national identity and protect those values which are so invaluable to us," Dumont wrote in a letter to be sent to Quebecers.

Unpopular with his political opponents, Dumont's position seemed to strike a chord with some Quebecers.

A Montreal elementary school had to hire guards last April after a Filipino mother alleged that her son was chided by a lunch hall monitor for the way he ate. The school's excuse - "Oh it had nothing to do with the traditional Filipino manner of eating, but bad manners."

Two Orthodox Jewish schools have been firebombed in the past couple of years.

Hérouxville, a small town in Quebec, published a new code of conduct for immigrants, stereotyping Muslims and Sikhs amongst others. It banned kirpans and head scarves except on Halloween, and said women can drive and write cheques but cannot be stoned to death.[CBC]

It was Quebec that had a problem with a kirpan.

My own experiences in Quebec has not made a favourable impression on me. As a rule, many Quebecers of French descent has behaved rudely with me when they found out I did not speak French. Why is it that when the rest of Canada has no problem with reasonable accommodation for diverse cultural and religious practices, it is Quebec that must make a fuss, all the time?

Neo-Con Logic: How To Stop A War

Will their be a war this summer?

I think it is 85% a sure thing and their is nothing less than a massive strike on Iran that can stop the war from happening. - Yoni

Yes, that's right. To stop a war that hasn't started yet, we must strike first which will definitely not start a war.

Right. Got ya.

How's that "will be greeted with flowers as liberators" plan coming along?

Stephen Harper - Shame On You

Today Stephen Harper has proved himself to be a man without class. I am ashamed to have such a man as Prime Minister.

Despite all the politics that politicians play - there were unwritten laws that you do not harm the family of parliamentarians, you do not drag them into the fray.

Harper has consistently proved that he will sink to any low if he thinks it will help him. During the election three years ago he called Paul Martin a child pornography supporter (or something like it). Today, he was engaged in a drive-by smear on the family of a Sikh Member of Parliament, based on an unproven story of a tabloid newspaper, with neither the accused present to defend himself, nor the allegations proven in any court of law.

As such, Harper has shown himself to be below the dignity of the chair he now occupies. When the next election comes, I want this moment to be played again and again in all the immigrant communities that Harper will no doubt try to court. No wonder we immigrants see the Conservatives as a party of racists, bigots and old farts.

Gloves Come Off - The Star

Iraq - What A Mess

This picture sums up my mood on Iraq perfectly. It's time for Conservatives to admit - Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein. Every day I open the paper or read the news I hear about people being killed in Iraq - and it's in double digits.

People are dying there. Every day. By the dozens. Others, hundreds of them, now lie injured or permanently disabled. Under Saddam, people had security. As long as you didn't say anything against him, you were fine.

I lived through a dictatorship (UAE). It's not as bad as people think. It's stupid to hear people who have never been outside of their city telling me what's good for a place thousands of miles away.

It's also time to remember that Stephen Harper was in favor of the Iraq war. If it was up to him, Canadian soldiers would now be dying in Iraq.

Canada's Water Is Nominated For An Oscar

Great job by Deepa Mehta. Her movie, Water, a Canadian entry under the "Best Foreign Language Film" category, is nominated for an Oscar.

This movie was brilliant in many ways. First, it showed how strict, fundamentalist and literal interpretation of religious texts is a danger to human civilization's progress. Second, it cast a light on discrimination that many Indians face in India even today.

Second, rather than disparage India, it cast her in a more progressive light as Gandhi is shown as a religious man who is also liberal. Mehta's statement that "water is good only when it's flowing, and stagnant water is a danger", is so apt and true.

What are the chances of its win?

It's a tough question to answer. The Academy is mostly white and India is big now, so rewarding Water might be seen as a slap to India's face.

Its first rival, Days of Glory, is a good movie that already had one practical result - the picture has shamed the French government into granting pension increases to Algerian soldiers who fought for the French before being discarded by them. The Academy also loves movies about war and its aftermaths.

After the Wedding is more of a personal/family drama type of movie. It also has part of its setting in India, but is mostly about a Danish person. I would be surprised if this won. It's a good film, but not that good.

The Lives of Others is a German movie, set before the fall of the Berlin wall, about a spy, the lives he spies upon and how he becomes involved. Just like many European movies it has lots of closet sex, dark and gritty scenes and a slow narration. Maybe some members of the Academy might vote for this movie to send a message to the current US administration about spying and civil rights.

The final rival is Pan's Labyrinth, a Mexican movie. Another war movie. Latin setting. Won lots of awards at Film Festivals. Could just sneak this one too.

Little Blog Post On the Little Mosque

I loved the show.

As a Muslim it is a great feeling to have a show where the focus is on normal Muslims. Not the evil bad Muslim terrorist. Not the token patriotic Muslim. Not the token translator. Not the harem dancer.

Normal, everyday Muslims facing normal everyday issues.

Kudos to CBC. Kudos to Canada.

As for the show itself, while not laugh out funny, it was warm, cosy and left a hard-to-suppress giggle throughout. I actually found myself wishing it wouldn't end, and felt a pang of disappointment when 9 pm appeared. It did have a couple of really hilarious moments (the dead body in the laundry, the 'you do not choose which country we deport you to', to mention a few). I see myself buying the DVD for the set when it comes out. I hope they can contain to keep it fresh and tackle some issues while at it.

If anyone has any questions about an Islamic aspect of the show they did not understand, you can always email me/comment here..

Khan Optics Bad For Dion

I have said it before, and have no problems repeating it here: Khan was wrong to work for the Conservatives, and Bill Graham should not have allowed it to happen. Now, however, the optics of the situation makes Stephane Dion look very bad. And in politics, optics and perception is a big part of the game.

Dion is casted as the villain in this piece, when he allegedly gave an "ultimatum" to Wajid Khan. And Khan therefore stated that he had to choose between his country and his party. In reality, the choice, in my opinion, was between the position of just another backbench MP, or a backbench MP with a "special advisory" position.

Dion should have offered Khan a future cabinet position (as either in "special advisory capacity" to the Foreign Minister, or some other junior cabinet post in that capacity). And no, it's not a bribe. We are offering him that position for the same purported expertise that Harper has made Wajid Khan his special advisor.

Personally, I don't like Wajid Khan.

In my own opinion, Khan has no unique characteristics that makes him suitable for that role. So he is Muslim, of Pakistani descent, and was a member of the Pakistan Air Force. How does that make him better qualified than anyone else? We have lots of academics, and one can easily pick another academic of South Asian descent, preferably Muslim. The Pakistani air force that he is so proud of, and where Khan served as an officer and pilot from 1966 to 1973 [source], was part of the same Pakistani military that committed genocide in 1971, as documented vigorously since. Wikipedia also states Khan actively took part in the war of 1971. As a Canadian Muslim of Bangladeshi descent I want him to clarify his role in that war and ask whether he had any innocent Bengali blood on his hands.

As a Muslim, had I lived in his riding, I would have to seriously question how he was best serving my interests. In my opinion, we have a Prime Minister who is so pro-Israel that he cannot acknowledge the poverty and destitution of Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank, the fertile breeding grounds for terrorism. Harper also refuses to acknowledge reality in Afghanistan, that our mission cannot go on as planned and we need a change in direction. So how much of Wajid Khan's advice is Harper taking? And what is his advice?

Saddam: 1 down...

To me, BBC's leading paragraph summarizes Saddam the best.

He brought little but war and suffering to a people who should have been among the most prosperous in the Middle East, given the oil wealth the country sits on.

That is the crux of the despot that was Saddam. There is a twinge of sadness that is the result of any loss of life, but with Saddam's death I can only say one thing.

1 down. Many more to go.

As Abu Sinan said, "Why should this one die whilst we send others money, arms and political support to the other dictators? This is the same man who received arms, money and political support from the USA."

Saddam was a cruel man. Those of us who do not like the US administration or its policies should not fall into the trap of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' mindset. No present day Western leader in his or her most evil moments can come an iota close to Saddam's brutality. This was a man who had his own son-in-laws killed, who had his brother-in-law shot when he grew too powerful, who made a man divorce his wife so Saddam could have her, who had wives of his officers raped to teach them a lesson, who let his sons loose in Iraq, who gassed Kurds (no one asks where the gas came from btw), and so on. His list of crimes go on.

Death by hanging was a much more humane way for him to go compared to how he treated his foes.

I believe though Iraq was a much better place under Saddam than it is now. As long as you didn't speak up against Saddam or his cronies and kept a low profile you have a good (read: secure) life. Whether the death of 30,000 Iraqis ('more or less', as Bush callously stated, showing how much he values Iraqi lives) and the collapse of infrastructure of a country was worth the price to bring this one man to the gallows is a question history will decide.

A Muslim's Merry Christmas

I would like to wish a very Merry Christmas to everyone.

Ten years ago when I landed in Canada from the Middle East I would not have said that. Call it my evolution over the decade I am in Canada but now I realize wishing someone well on their occasion of joy does nothing to diminish what is yours, but only adds to the mosaic that is ours. Yes some people may argue that Jesus (peace be upon him) was not really born on December 25, but you know, ultimately in this instance it's not what is right but what is good. And no one can deny that Christmas is a good time.

Yes, even though I may not celebrate Christmas in the religious sense as having a Christmas tree or going to church (I am a Muslim after all) I do enjoy the festive season. As the days get shorter and darker, as the temperature falls and a sense of gloom descends with the weather that will not falter until March, it's nice to slip into the malls and marvel and the embellished decorations and glitzy lights. It's fantastic to see crowds of people roving around with smiles on their faces. And yes, you can't deny it, people are generally in a better mood in December, and you can't but help being caught up in smiling and being festive - good behavior is infectious. Not to mention all the bargains that can be had.

Add to that all the free food you can eat at various Christmas parties and the sense that you are under no pressure (after all I don't have to buy gifts, look for and decorate a Christmas tree or have a dysfunctional family over for dinner) I would dare to say Muslims have a better time over Christmas than many Christians themselves!

Of course our Eid is coming up shortly (December 31) so there is that pressure to come. Fortunately we have Boxing Day (in Canada) in the middle (December 26) to shop for our gifts.

Orchard's Importance In Dion's Liberals?

Read an interesting article in the StarPheonix on the role of David Orchard in the victory of Dion at the recent Liberal convention. A few interesting excerpts.

If delivering support to the winning candidate means anything in politics, then David Orchard's star must surely be on the rise in the Liberal party. The longtime critic of free trade, two-time candidate for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative party and new Liberal can be credited for playing a significant role in Stephane Dion's rise to the Liberal leadership.

...

In fact, every Dion delegate from Saskatchewan but one was part of the Orchard camp.

...

There were many reasons why Dion won, but he obviously would not have had the horses to overtake Kennedy without Orchard's support.

...

This turn of events raises some very interesting questions about Orchard's future. There's no doubt he intends to remain active in Liberal politics, and there are a number of issues he intends to press.

...

Should he decide to run for the Liberals and actually win a seat, he might even have a shot at a cabinet post.

[full article]

Ignatieff Smacks Down Day

When the then-Liberal government began belatedly, timidly asking for Arar's release from his Syrian torture chamber in the fall of 2002, opposition leader Stephen Harper was dismissive. The Liberals, he claimed, were "hitting the snooze button on security matters". His colleague, Stockwell Day, even argued the government's "lack of vigilance" had allowed a notorious terrorist like Arar to avoid detection and detention in the first place. [source]

"I have in my possession a letter from the former Commissioner dated November 2, in which he notes his intention to clarify his initial testimony," said Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion today. "Given that the Prime Minister's national security advisor must have known about these inaccuracies, why did the Minister of Public Safety tell Canadians on Monday (Dec 4) that the commissioner ‘still has the confidence of the government’?"

Today, in Question Period, Stockwell Day had this to say:

"Why these folks across the way refused to deal with it then and let an innocent man languish in prison?"

Ignatieff's response was smack on.

"This government, when it is in a tight position, has become accustomed to blaming the previous government."

"You are the government now. When are you going to start to act like one and take responsibility?

Stéphane Dion Is A Loyal Canadian

Stéphane Dion as a French citizen is OK by me. He has done more for Canada than Ezra Levant ever has and ever will. When the call came, he stood by Canada in opposition to his peers and despite it being an unpopular move, called for the Clarity Act. I am proud that such a man is the leader of the Liberal Party.

Ezra Levant (and the nature of Cons as a whole) is also hypocritical. He should then criticize any MP who has American citizenship. As I noted previously, Peter Worthington (another stauch Conservative) once wrote:

The view that "a Canadian is a Canadian" and all should be treated equally may need revising.

However that should not include American-Canadians, because:

If someone wants to be a Canadian, that person should give up citizenship in his birth country.An exception should be made with the U.S. on grounds that we are geographically, traditionally and culturally close.

Ofcourse. You cannot serve two masters. Unless it's the US. Then it's OK.

People may not give up the citizenship of another country for many reasons. They may wish to retire there. They may have property or business there and the citizenship helps ease the legal paperwork. This is the 21^st century.

Canada is a multicultural country, one in which people can pride themselves on being Canadian without being forced to forget where they or their family came from. It is insulting to many of us that Levant questions the Canadian-ness of any dual citizen, particularly one of such stellar qualities as Mr Dion.

Beware the Extremists - 2

Let's see if I understand this properly.

	Same Sex (or being gay)	Adultery (having sex with someone you are not married to)
Sin?	Yes (mostly)	Yes (most definitely, clear and unambiguously stated)
Destroys the institution of marriage?	Debatable	Most definitely.
Number of Canadians involved?	Negligible portion of the population	Significant portion of the population - and I am counting premarital sex, one-night stands, live-in, common law - all of which are 'sin', as defined by religion.
Number of protesters against	A lot	Zero
Number of politicians against?	Quite a few	Zero

This is where I stop understanding. If you are going to apply religion, why apply it selectively? Why not all of it? If you believe homosexuality is a sin and that is why you are opposed to gay rights in Canada you should also be supportive of legislation to punish adultery, as well as a host of other things your religion tells you to.

Conservatives will rally against a Muslim who wants allow voluntary arbitration by religious clerics but will endorse (and associate with) their own candidates who want to implement their version of Sharia. Calling it 'traditional' does not make it any less than an equivalent of Sharia - it is still religious law. A lot of it doesn't even make sense.

I am a definitely straight Muslim. I believe homosexuality is a sin and gays are living in sin and all that. There is no way around it, that's what God said to us and you are free to reject it if you like. At the same time, I know in Canada I have to live with people whose values and religious beliefs are a lot different than my own. I would not like my rights as a minority curbed, so why should I deny another minority their rights?

And why is that always the people to deny others the rights are always the same 'type' of people? First they supported slavery because the Bible allowed slaves. Then they didn't want Sikh RCMP officers to wear turbans in the name of 'tradition'. Now they are targeting gay rights. Will Harper become the first Prime Minister to take away a right?

And they call us religious fundamentalists.

See also:
Beware The Extremists - 1
Contraception and you

Tags: Canada Conservative Party

Jane Pitfield Grabs My Attention

"but her pledge to build two kilometres of new subway line each year for 25 years drew some scepticism. She reiterated her claim that the subways could go in for $100 million a kilometre, although the new subway line to York University will cost more than twice that." [Star]

That's the best idea to come out of a councillor in decades. I don't care how much it costs. I don't care if garbage pickup is once every two weeks. I don't care if she flip-flopped (allegedly). This single issue will most likely clinch the deal for me.

I have to now pay more attention to her.

And best of all, she has the hair of a mayor.

Tories Worried About ...

Here's another story that some of the Blogging Tories don't want you to see. After all, it would destroy their nice little fantasy that we are out to violently take over the world.

For their kind information, the soup kitchen at Nugget Mosque serves over 600 people a day during some of the busiest weekends.

Whereas from the Blogging Tories we get post denouncing women's rights to clothe themselves as they see fit, 10 ways to fight Islamofacism (BTW wtf is Islamofacism), alleged persecution of Christians, and so on. Coupled ofcourse with a post on how the Court Challenges Program is not dead enough.

Stephane Dion said it best: "Liberals, we need to get back to power as soon as possible."

Being Murdered While Black

When someone tells me that there are no racist police in Canada or that racism is not a problem for immigrants in Canada that person is usually not of a visible minority. I would be one of the first to believe that yes, there is some racism in Canada. However, even I am loathe to concede that the delay in the conclusion of the murder investigation of Chantel Dunn has anything to do with racism.

[Star]

Jane Creba was shot in broad daylight in one of the busiest intersections of downtown Toronto while shopping in one of the busiest days of the year. She was totally a random figure and was not connected in anyway to the shootings.

Chantel Dunn was killed as she left the darkened Northwood Community Centre near Jane St. and Sheppard Ave. W., on a dead-end street in a quiet residential neighbourhood. She was connected to the killers - the bullet was meant for her boyfriend. And her boyfriend, Shane Morrison - as I suspected when I read the first paragraph - though not a member, was associated with a gang that became divided. Rivalries escalated, and one group shot at the former high school basketball star to send a message. He was hit, but the fatal bullet struck Dunn.

The public outcry that followed Creba's shooting was because the bullet could have hit anyone on that day, and people were outraged at criminals that displayed such brazen disregard for human lives. In comparison, the killers of Dunn clearly aimed at her boyfriend, according to the police.

I am all in support of the black community when they want to complain about racism. However, in Chantel Dunn's case, if you want to blame anyone for the delay in the investigation, blame an uncooperative Morrison. If you want to blame anyone for bringing death to Dunn, blame Morrison.

Moral of the story: Stay away from gangs and gangmembers. They kill.

Tags: Jane Creba Chantel Dunn

Harper Exactly Right On Reverse Onus

I don't usually find myself in agreement with the Toronto Sun, so today is a rare day. Their editorial today praises Mr Harper's recent decision to place a reverse onus on a criminal convicted for the third time, a plan opposed the Liberals and the NDP. To quote:

We were particularly amused to see the federal Liberals and Toronto mayor David Miller criticizing Harper's proposal almost as soon as he announced it.

Remember in the last federal election when former Liberal PM Paul Martin and Miller, along with Premier Dalton McGuinty, announced they favoured placing a reverse onus on people accused of gun crimes who seek bail?

They said that following a wave of shootings in Toronto leading up to the horrible Boxing Day massacre on Yonge St.

So, to review, less than a year ago they advocated placing the onus on someone simply accused of a gun crime to prove he was not a threat before being granted bail.

But now they're against a law to place a similar onus on repeat offenders who have not just been charged, but convicted of violent crimes not just once, but three times?

The Conservatives have got it right on this occasion.

I always felt the Liberals started to lose support around Boxing Day, and not because of the RCMP investigation into the income trust tax scandal. It was after the shooting of Jane Creba on Boxing Day. Toronto had been struck by gun crime for the last year, and the government seemed to do nothing. I lived in Toronto, and I always voted Liberal, and I was frustrated at the Liberals.

Especially when Paul Martin unveiled his good-for-nothing plan to ban guns that were already banned. Especially when he suggested a policy of reverse onus on a person not yet convicted of anything. That showed to me that the Liberals were desperate, willing to do anything and say anything to cling on to power, and such governments rarely do any good.

Though I disagree with Mr Harper on most issues, on the problem of crime he has got it exactly right. As I wrote before to the Sun,

There are two aspects to dealing with crime - social and judicial. We need social policies to distribute wealth to the poor, to provide education and health care. We need to identify and assist "at-risk" youth. But once a crime is committed, the criminal no longer deserves our sympathy. We don't need to find reasons why they committed the crime. We have to provide justice to the victim - by hunting down the criminals and punishing them with a tough sentence that will act as a deterrent to others. The criminals involved in the Toronto Boxing Day shootout had the same health plan, education and opportunities in life as their victims. Where is the "exclusion?"

Tags: Crime Canada Reverse Onus

Converts Breaking The Law

I would urge everyone to watch Canada's entry for the Oscars, Water, an excellent film about injustices faced by widows in India due to religious fundamentalists. Another negative aspect to emerge from religion in India is the caste system, and today thousands of lower case Hindus converted to Christianity and Buddhism to escape the discrimination faced by lower-caste Hindus. However they will now face troubles from the law, as several Indian states have outlawed "conversion".

Thousands of people have been attending mass ceremonies in India at which hundreds of low-caste Hindus (Dalits) converted to Buddhism and Christianity.
...
Udit Raj, a Dalit leader, told the BBC that around 2,500 people converted to Christianity and Buddhism.
...
Similar mass conversions are taking place this month in many other parts of India.

Several states governed by the Hindu nationalist party, the BJP, have introduced laws to make such conversions more difficult.
...
Hinduism teaches that most humans were created from parts of the body of the divinity Purusha.

According to which body parts they were created from, humans fall into four basic castes which define their social standing, who they can marry, and what jobs they can do.

But Dalits fall outside this system and are traditionally prevented from doing all but the most menial jobs or even drinking from the same water sources as other castes. [BBC]

Tags: India Dalit

When Ignatieff Was Right ...

Despite my criticism and misgivings about Mr. Ignatieff, I stand behind him 100% when he issues a statement such as this:

Yesterday, Stephen Harper used my statement that war crimes were committed in this conflict to launch a personal attack on me and on my colleagues running for the leadership of the Liberal party of Canada.

Mr. Harper's remarks were a disgrace. A disgrace for a man who holds an office that is supposed to represent all Canadians. A disgrace for a man who is supposed to defend our constitution and our national institutions, including the integrity of our Parliament. There is no basis for Mr. Harper to suggest that the Liberal Party is biased against Israel. The Prime Minister showed a profound lack of respect to the official opposition and a profound lack of respect to the Canadian people who elected him.

For Mr. Harper, all issues are black or white. He believes that you're either with him or against him. He believes that the blind pursuit of ideology and power should trump all else.

It is because of this one sided, black or white, blind to the realities of the world approach that Mr. Harper failed Canadians this summer.

Mr. Harper and the Conservatives failed to address the damage that the conflict was doing to relations between the Lebanese and Jewish communities in Canada.

Never mind, failing to stake out the positive role that Canada could play in defusing the crisis.

Finally, by taking an entirely one-dimensional position on the conflict, the Conservatives may have weakened Canada's ability to contribute to the potential long term resolution of Middle East tensions.

Leadership means talking honestly and directly with Canadians. Leadership means putting aside the political game now and again to talk about what is in our country's best interests.

Canadians deserve a Prime Minister that helps Canadians from all communities to find a common language in which we can speak about difficult issues together.

One of the first facts about you learn when studying for your citizenship is that once elected, the elected official represents ALL the people in the constituency. A Prime Minister represents the office, not a partisian political party.

To see how good the Conservatives are at dividing Canadians, splitting friends against friends, and provoking rather than defusing, check this comment left on Michelle Oliel's blog by a conservative.

The liberal party is embracing an ever-growing muslim immigrant community that despises us. The liberals don't hate Jews or Israel, they are opportunists who will do anything to get votes. The writing is on the wall. Soon the muslim vote will mean more than the Jewish vote. Iggy's just being a good little red. Jews helped the liberal party get where they are and now they don't need you anymore, Michelle.

Iggy's words are typical of the left. Throw out an accusation for consumption of the unclean masses and hope it sticks. He said these comments to gain support of Quebecers and muslim immigrants in Quebec who are viciously anti-Semitic and viciously anti-Israel. My family is from Quebec and that's how it is there. To deny it shows you don't know Quebec.

Michelle, when Ignazieff wins your nomination and turns the entire party into an anti-Semitic basket-case, what will you do? Or you can sit back as they lie to your face that they're friends of Israel. Don't believe them. And look at Ottawa Liberal's comments for what the NEW liberal grassroots thinks about you as a Jew.

Stephen Harper, you are without class. I can't wait to defeat you out of office under the next Liberal leader, whoever it is.

Tags: Stephen Harper Michael Ignatieff