92181541
Update on the Stephen Harper situation:
So I emailed Stephen Harper and I copied my own member of Parliament, John Reynolds who runs with the same herd. I also copied my letter to Libby Davies from the New Democratic Party and John Manley from the Liberal Party. Here is the letter I sent:
Dear Mr. Harper:
On Friday I read an article you wrote in the National Post in which you say:
"Last night at Stornoway I hosted a reception for ambassadors and representatives of nearly 50 countries that have now joined the coalition. I did that on behalf of our caucus, and I believe on behalf of the silent majority of Canadians, to tell them -- to tell these countries and to tell their people -- that in this fight we Canadians are not and cannot be neutral any more than we can be for Saddam, that we are with our friends, with our allies and with our own troops, and that we support them for freedom, for democracy, for the reconstruction of Iraq and for the liberation of its people."
Mr. Harper this was a betrayal of Canadians� trust in you. The reason I say this is that several of the countries in the coalition are not even democracies. Were you presuming to speak for me when you complimented the representatives of the dictators that run Uzbekistan, Ethiopia and Eritrea on their commitment to democracy and freedom?
Or perhaps you wanted to lend my voice to the support to places like Azerbaijan where the government killed demonstrators last year who were protesting the President�s attempts to install his son as successor.
Or perhaps you were expressing your admiration for the freedom enjoyed by the people of Colombia, over 4000 of whom have been killed by extrajudicial paramilitary groups in the last year.
Mr. Harper, Rwanda and Saudi Arabia are members of the coalition. Please tell me that you did not invite them to your gathering and praise their commitment to freedom and democracy.
Please tell me that you at least expressed some concern to the ambassador of Uzbekistan at his country�s somewhat stubborn reluctance to stop systematically suppressing freedom of thought and religion and their use of torture on political prisoners.
I have compiled a list of the coalition members with their recent human rights abuse citations by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. You may view it at https://www.chriscorrigan.com/parkinglot/coalitionabuse.html
You may wish to refer to it before making any further arrangements for social gatherings involving these countries.
As a taxpayer, whose money funds Stornoway [his official residence], I would like you to provide me with a list of countries which were represented at that party in which you told the coalition that you supported their commitment to freedom and democracy.
You can send me the list by email reply. I would appreciate receiving it within the week.
Sincerely,
Chris Corrigan
Now that’s all well and good, and I really am interested in the people who were at that party. It will be curious to know who the leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition counts among his friends.
At any rate, I wasn’t intending on raising this issue on my weblog, and further irritating the 50 people a day who come here looking for more interesting stuff except that I got this reply from John Reynolds, my own member of parliament:
O T T A W A
Dear Sir or Madam:
Thank you for taking the time to write to me by e-mail on such an important issue. This response explains the position of our Leader and the Canadian Alliance. The question of military involvement in any action is one of the most serious that citizens and their elected representatives can ever consider. In the final analysis, disarming Iraq is necessary for the long-term security of the world, to the collective interests of our historic allies and therefore, manifestly, it is in the national interest of this country. Existing United Nations Security Council resolutions have long provided for the use of force to disarm Iraq and restore international peace and security to the area. Security Council resolution 678, adopted in 1990, authorized the use of all necessary means, not only to implement resolution 660 demanding Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait, but also to implement all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security to the area.
Resolution 687, which provided the ceasefire terms for Iraq in 1991 - a ceasefire, not an armistice - affirmed resolution 678. Resolution 1441 itself confirmed that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations, a point on which there is unanimous international agreement.
Iraq's past and continuing breaches of the ceasefire obligations now negate the basis for the formal ceasefire. Iraq has, by its conduct, demonstrated that it did not and does not accept the terms of the ceasefire. Consequently, authorization for the use of force in Security Council resolution 678 has been reactivated.
I would point out that this view of international law is not new. In fact, our own Canadian deployment of troops to the Persian Gulf in 1998 in Operation Desert Fox, strongly supported at the time by the current Prime Minister, was undertaken on the same legal basis. The Clinton administration understood and argued, as the Bush administration does now, that existing Security Council resolutions clearly allow for the use of military force.
As you may be aware, more and more Canadians are agreeing that Canada should be supporting our historic allies in enforcing U.N. Resolution 1441 to disarm Saddam Hussein. However, the Canadian Alliance position has always been based on principles, not polls and I appreciate that you also feel strongly about this matter based on your principles.
Thank you again for making me aware of your opinion. You have helped me to have a better understanding of how many Canadians including many of my constituents' feel about this serious situation.
Sincerely,
John Reynolds, Member of Parliament
West Vancouver - Sunshine Coast
>
Now I have no idea what “>” means unless he is trying to send me a virus or something. And all this hot air about the UN Security Council resolutions is interesting, but since the war started no one has raised that issue anymore. It’s all about regime change and liberating people, and I haven’t heard the number 1441 for a while now.
And then he goes on to say that the Canadian Alliance bases it’s positions on principles and not polls which partly explains why it isn’t government, and also causes to me to wonder who the “silent majority” are that Mr. Harper speaks of. How does he know there is a silent majority if he didn’t do a poll. And anyway, all the polls done in Canada state that Canadians are, in the majority — silent or otherwise I suppose — against this war. When you take Quebec out of the equation the numbers drop to only 54% against the war, but the Alliance keeps saying “my Canada includes Quebec” and so far I have never heard them use the rider “except when they skew poll results.” So if we accept that Quebeckers are Canadians, and Canadians in the majority are against the war, it leaves Stephen Harper and his party all alone with just their principles. And that’s fine. Except when he invites the representatives of dictators to his mansion and thanks them on my behalf…and trust me, by all accounts I’m firmly in the majority position on this war.
At any rate, I didn’t nit pick with Mr. Reynolds response. It’s hard doing battle with a form letter. So instead, I sent him a short note about public relations etiquette. This is what it says:
Dear Mr. or Mrs. Reynolds, as the case may be.
OK, I'm kidding, but you get the point.
Form letters are offensive. I didn't send you one, so maybe you can have someone respond to me with a little more courtesy.
Instead of thanking me for asking you a question, it would be a lot more polite to simply send me an email saying "Mr. Reynolds gets a lot of email. Your letter is important to us and we will respond to it personally as soon as we can. Thank you for writing, and look for our response to you soon."
That would have assured me that you were actually trying to come up with an answer to my question.
So please answer my question. And please don't send me anymore form letters.
Chris Corrigan
Now I feel like this game has descended into a mad charade and so I’m posting the correspondence is here at my weblog. I will keep you, dear reader, informed of any progress. Don’t hold your breath.
