Canadian abondoned in Kenya, while gov't officials go MIA and do nothing

The story of Canadian citizen Suaad Hagi Mohamud trapped in Kenya is shameful enough, but the pathetic reaction of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon and Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan simply adds insult to injury.

Here’s what happened.

Back in May, Mohamud – who lives in Toronto – was visiting friends and family in Kenya. When it was time for her to come home, airport officials in Nairobi said that Mohamud’s passport photo did not look like her, claiming that she was an imposter.

Even after Mohamud showed all of her ID – including other government documents, even a drugstore loyalty shopping card – Kenyan officials said Mohamud’s lips in person didn’t match those in her passport photo. (Some reports say the photo issue was a ruse, and really, Kenyan officials wanted a bribe. The silliness of the claims even had Kenyan officials ruminating that Mohamud was her own twin sister.)

When Mohamud’s case was then handed over to Canadian officials in Kenya, they did nothing. Mohamud’s Canadian passport was cancelled, she was charged with criminally falsifying her identity, and thrown in jail.

In order to end the ordeal, Mohamud volunteered for a DNA test to prove her identity and to show that she is indeed the mother of her teenage son (who was back in Toronto).

Even after the DNA result, Mohamud wasn’t free to come home, since her passport was cancelled. So she remained a woman without a country.

Finally last week, she was issued an emergency passport and allowed to travel home.

During this entire ordeal, the Canadian government did nothing – NOTHING – to help a Canadian citizen held hostage in a foreign country.

Van Loan – who as public safety minister is the Canadian equivalent of U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano – dodged reporters and did nothing. Now, he has the nerve to announce a study to determine what went wrong. What went wrong? Mr. Van Loan, YOU are part and parcel of what went wrong.

Cannon – who as foreign affairs minister is the equivalent of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – then commissioned his own inquiry. Are these people serious? Just look in the mirror – there’s your answer.

Worst of all was Prime Minister Harper who, instead of aiding a Canadian in distress in a foreign land, gave this advice to all Canadian would-be travelers: “The Government of Canada does not control affairs in other countries. We do our best to aid those who are in various forms of difficulty, but ultimately we're not the sovereign government once people leave our territory.”

In other words, you are SOL. And this was the same week that former U.S. President Bill Clinton went to North Korea to rescue two American journalists. The contrast is startling.

This week, Harper not only said that his government would not apologize to Mohamud, but that he only learned of her case last week – even though it’s been making news for three months! This is as sad as Bush getting that memo about Osama bin Laden plotting to bomb the U.S., and then deciding to go golfing.

So what happened here? No need to wait for CYA government commissions. Either the Canadian government, as run by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, doesn’t care about Canadian citizens once they leave the country, or the Canadian government, under Harper’s Conservatives, only cares about some Canadians. Mohamud, after all, is a woman of color who was born in Somalia.

A letter to the editor in the Toronto Star even put it this way: “If hyphenated Canadians decide to go to obscure places in the world, they should do so at their peril.” (Ironically, the letter writer’s last name was McKenna, pegging him as a hyphenated Irish-Canadian.)

This is a sentiment that seems to permeate the highest levels of the current Canadian government. And a government that is so willing to toss one of its innocent citizens aside like this has clearly lost the right to govern.

Obama the marriage-equality hypocrite

Many gay and lesbian Americans feel double-crossed by President Barack Obama – and rightly so. After all, it was Obama’s clear stance against the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that led many to side with him over Democratic primary rival Hillary Clinton.

Let’s travel back to the summer of 2007, a time when no one was expecting the battle royale to come between Clinton and Obama. In fact, Clinton was all but assumed to be the next president.

Logo, the gay cable network, held a gay-focused presidential primary debate along with the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest gay civil rights organization. Inevitably, the issue of marriage for same-sex couples came up.

While both Obama and Clinton agreed on separate-but-equal civil unions over full marriage equality, they differed on DOMA. That legislation, infamously signed into the law under dark of night by then-President Bill Clinton, does two critical things:

1.   It says the federal government does not have to recognize a legally wed same-sex couple, even if they are legally wed in their home state.

2.   It says that other states don’t have to recognize a couple legally wed in their home state. (This is clearly unconstitutional because of the U.S. Constitution’s full faith and credit clause, which means – among other things – that if a straight couple elopes to Vegas, when they go home to Idaho, their Nevada marriage must be recognized.)

At the Logo debate, Clinton – ever the pragmatist – said that as president, she would advocate repealing part of DOMA, but not the portion dealing with full faith and credit. She explained that it would not be politically feasible to repeal DOMA fully over the next presidential term.

Obama, however, went all in. He not only called for the full repeal of DOMA, but also noted that this has been his position since he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2006.

After that exchange, many LGBT Americans took a second look at the race – and while many still sided with Clinton, more and more jumped to Obama.

DOMA, therefore, was a decisive issue for a large number of gays and lesbians looking at the presidential race.

It’s no wonder so many are angry with Obama right now.

Not only is he dragging his heels on high-priority LGBT issues such as repealing DOMA and the military’s anti-gay “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy (which he promised to overturn), but his administration’s recent defense of DOMA is nothing but despicable.

In a brief submitted in the case of Smelt v. U.S. challenging the constitutionality of DOMA and California’s anti-gay Proposition 8, the Obama administration argues that DOMA is a “cautious policy of federal neutrality.” What!?!?! During the campaign, Obama called DOMA “abhorrent.”

As pointed out by the New York Times in a June 16 editorial, this “neutrality” argument is “an odd assertion since the law clearly discriminates against gay couples. Under the act, same-sex married couples who pay their taxes are ineligible for the sort of federal benefits – such as Social Security survivors’ payments and joint tax returns – that heterosexual married couples receive.”

Then there’s the brief’s comparison of same-sex marriage to incest and pedophilia. As the Times put it, “The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the ‘traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.’ In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s ‘full faith and credit’ clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.”

And to top it all off, the brief argues that DOMA does not discriminate against gays; it merely limits federal benefits to those in opposite-sex marriages. So the Obama administration is saying that a gay man isn’t being discriminated by DOMA because he could go off and marry a woman to get the benefits!

This is twisted and shows ignorance and the kind of wedge-issue politics that Obama spoke out so strongly against during the campaign.

Then after all this odious offense, Obama has the nerve to throw crumbs in the form of partner benefits for federal employees only.

This is hypocrisy and anti-gay demagoguery worthy of George W. Bush. Is this really the change we can believe in that a majority of Americans voted for?

NY’s new senator can bridge state’s urban-rural divide

Enough already with the criticism about New York Gov. David Paterson’s appointment of upstate Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand as the state’s junior senator to replace now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Gillibrand is a strong choice who is poised to serve the entirety of the Empire State very well.

In fact, Gillibrand was a good choice for a number of reasons:

1. She is not Caroline Kennedy, who proved to be unqualified and not ready for prime time.

2. She is from upstate, and it’s about time New Yorkers north of Westchester had someone in Washington who truly understands their issues.

3. She is unquestionably pro-gay, even supporting marriage equality for same-sex couples. This will make her one of only a few U.S. senators to take such a strong stand for equality.

4. She is a Republican slayer. She first won her House seat, representing the heavily GOP district surrounding Albany, in 2006 by beating incumbent Republican Congressman John Sweeney.

5. She is a woman, and after Clinton’s historic presidential run – and those 18,000 cracks in the glass ceiling – it is a plus for a qualified woman to be chosen to replace Clinton in the Senate.

Despite all the pluses, however, Gillibrand has been criticized for being too pro-gun. Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, who represents part of suburban Long Island and is a staunch gun-control advocate, has even promised Gillibrand a Democratic primary challenge in 2010.

But this criticism has little to do with Gillibrand and says much more about how urban New Yorkers just don’t understand rural issues in the rest of the state. Yes, Gillibrand has a perfect voting record as rated by the rabidly pro-gun National Rifle Association (NRA). But that doesn’t mean Gillibrand is a gun zealot. It means that she understands the culture of guns in her rural district is very different from gun culture in the state’s urban centers.

Howard Dean, until recently the head of the Democratic National Committee, understood this difference. No one would argue Dean is a conservative – in fact, he lost the 2004 Democratic presidential primary because he was perceived as too liberal. But as governor of Vermont for over 11 years, he was consistently endorsed by the NRA. That’s because he understood the culture of guns in his largely rural state, a place where deer season is celebrated but with one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the country.

As for Gillibrand, she has already signaled her understanding of this issue statewide. Upon being appointed by Peterson, she said, "I will look for ways to find common ground between upstate and downstate. There are so many issues where we can come together, … where we can reduce gun violence and protect our children and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but also protect our hunters' rights."

I’m no fan of the NRA, and I certainly don’t understand killing animals for sport, but I do understand that guns are viewed differently in urban and rural parts of the country. Gillibrand understands that difference as well, and that is a good thing for someone hoping to represent all of New York state.

Hate for Blogo getting in the way of good Senate pick

The state of Illinois – like the other 49 – deserves to be represented by two U.S. senators. But with Barack Obama resigning his Senate seat in order to assume the presidency, it falls to the governor to appoint a replacement until a special election can be held in 2010. The problem is that the governor is Rod Blagojevich, who is alleged to have tried to sell Obama’s seat to the highest bidder. But no matter how much you may dislike Blogo, he did the right thing by naming former state Attorney General Roland Burris as the next senator from Illinois.

This was a strong choice for a number of reasons. First, Burris is the right kind of senator under the circumstances. He has already proven that he has support statewide, having served as comptroller from 1979 to 1991, and then as attorney general from 1991 to 1995. (As opposed to Caroline Kennedy, who is trying to be the new Hillary Clinton in New York.)

Not only is he qualified and respected, but he is also likely to serve only until the special election. As he turned 71 this year, he would likely not run for re-election. This is good, since no candidate would then have the benefit of incumbency after only being appointed to the job.

As a bonus, Burris is African American. In fact, Burris made history as the first African American elected statewide in Illinois. At a time when Obama’s resignation will leave the U.S. Senate without any African-American representation, the choice of Burris is a wise one.

During a Blagojevich press conference announcing his choice, he said, “Please don’t allow the allegations against me to taint this good and honest man,” referring to Burris. Sadly, too many others are simply ruled by their hatred for Blagojevich – who may be smarmy, vulgar, and mentally unstable, but has yet to be found guilty of any wrongdoing.

In fact, Blagojevich initially did something that was even better than appointing Burris – he tried to get the state legislature to approve legislation that would take the power of appointment away from him and allow for a special election. But the Democratically controlled legislature, even though they are of the same party as the governor, refused Blagojevich’s request.

Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, also African American and a Democrat, added to the nonsense when he said that he would not certify the governor’s choice of Burris.

But if anybody hates Blagojevich more than his state’s legislature, it’s the nation’s. The Democratic leadership of the U.S. Senate released an open letter saying they would not seat anyone Blagojevich appoints. Even Illinois’ other senator – Dick Durbin – signed the letter, which read in part: “This is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat. Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus.”

Even Obama jumped on the bandwagon, stating that he agrees with Senate Democrats and that he just really wants Blagojevich to resign.

All this is simply political hatred getting in the way of good government.

OK, Blagojevich is a bad man. But no one questions Burris’ integrity or qualifications, and no one is arguing that Burris would be a poor choice for senator. So all these politicos with a hate on for Blogo need to put that aside for just a few minutes to allow the people of Illinois to have its other senator.

Caroline Kennedy just ain’t qualified

It’s official. The New York Times reports that Caroline Kennedy – daughter of President John F. Kennedy – has told New York Gov. David Paterson that she wants to be appointed to the U.S. Senate. The only problem is that she’s just not qualified for the job.

Paterson has the power to appoint a new senator from New York once its junior senator – Hillary Clinton – leaves her seat to become President-elect Barack Obama’s secretary of state. And Paterson has much to consider. After all, New York is hard hit by the current economic crisis, is an economic engine for the nation, and needs someone who can hit the ground running.

But as the Times put it, Kennedy “has not held a full-time job in years, has not run for even the lowliest office, and has promoted such non-controversial causes as patriotism, poetry, and public service.” In fact, she has purposely kept herself largely out of the public spotlight until her recent campaign forays on behalf of Obama. Therefore, her political views are largely unknown.

What makes her qualified to be senator? Oh yes, she’s a KENNEDY – a name that makes older Democrats all fuzzy on the inside. Of course, there are Kennedys who continue to work hard for the sake of the nation – Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Congressman Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, to name two. But they earned their stripes, have well-known political positions, and have enjoyed continued and long-term support in their respective states.

Some Democrats are giddy over the idea of sending another Kennedy to Washington. And that would be fine if said Kennedy won the seat fair and square. But what has Caroline Kennedy done to earn this seat, aside from campaigning for Obama and being a Kennedy?

New York State is busting with a talented political farm team that could be tapped to fill Sen. Clinton’s shoes (or pantsuit) – counting everyone from Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown (who is African American).

At the very least, actress, businesswoman, and lobbyist Fran Drescher – who has also said she wants the senate seat – went on “Larry King Live” to explain her political beliefs to the nation. Kennedy has yet to talk publicly about what kind of senator she would be. Kennedy refused comment to the Times, instead giving some friends permission to speak on her behalf. If she really wants to be a senator, Kennedy needs to start talking for herself.

Clinton, before she began running for the Senate, went on a listening tour of upstate and western New York to make sure she understood the state beyond the five boroughs and the Hudson Valley. Cuomo, as a statewide official, is already familiar with these other parts of the state, and Brown is mayor of the largest city in western New York. Has the Manhattan-centric Kennedy even been to Brooklyn, let alone Plattsburgh or Tonawanda?

Democrats reveled in pointing out how unqualified Sarah Palin was to become vice president. But if Palin – who is a governor and served as a mayor – wasn’t qualified for a job that doesn’t have much responsibility, Kennedy certainly isn’t up for the job of senator.

Liberals choose expediency over democracy

The Liberal Party national executive had two choices in naming an “interim leader.” They could have come up with some way of hearing from Liberal Party members from across the nation. Or they could have limited the discussion to a small group of by-invitation-only guests. Unfortunately, they chose the latter.

As a result, now-former leadership candidate Bob Rae withdrew from the race on Dec. 9, aware that he would be unable to win over as much support in the Liberal caucus as enjoyed by Michael Ignatieff, the only leadership candidate left standing.

Rae, however, was not the only victim of the party’s decision. Democracy, party building, and grassroots involvement were also left as road kill along the path leading to Ignatieff’s coronation. (Ignatieff is now set to take over as interim leader, with the convention slated for May becoming a pro forma – if constitutionally mandated – event to pick a “permanent leader.”)

While there is no doubt in my mind that the nation would be well served with Ignatieff as the next prime minister, I am concerned about how the party executive’s decision will play itself out.

Firstly, this decision tunes out the voices of workaday Liberals, including all those volunteers whose involvement is so crucial to campaigns. Just look at the recent Democratic primary process that chose Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. Democrats choose their presidential nominee through a combination of elected delegates (those elected by party members through voting) and super-delegates (party officials, members of Congress, and other high muckety-mucks.) With the elected delegate count so close, the super-delegates actually had the numbers to overturn the voters’ decision and throw the election to Clinton. While the super-delegates had the right to do that, they knew that if they had chosen that path, party members would have revolted. The same could happen here by completely shutting down the leadership process and picking the leader behind closed doors.

Secondly, I fear that without a contested leadership race, the party will not be able to do the groundwork necessary to rebuild. Without an opportunity to hash out the competing visions of the party brought by Rae and Ignatieff, workaday Liberals won’t get the chance to open the hood of the party, check its oil, kick its tires, and really diagnose what led to such a disappointing election result. (And no, simply changing leaders won’t do the trick.)

But also, without even Liberals getting a chance to pick their next leader, I fear that Canadians in general will feel like Ignatieff is just being thrust upon them, anticipating his next coronation as prime minister. Ignatieff and the party now will have to work that much harder to convince all Canadians that he is the right person to lead the nation after the disastrous, selfish, and deceitful tenure of Stephen Harper.

To his credit, Rae was gracious, practical, and well-spoken in his press conference announcing his withdrawal from the race. As he said, “Our own ambitions are less important than the greater interest of the Liberal Party and the greater interest of the country.” The party now has to show that its coronation decision is indeed in the best interest of the party and the nation.

All Liberals must have a say in new leader

Wounded Liberal leader Stéphane Dion must go ASAP. And the Liberal leadership race must be expedited. However, that increased speed in picking a new leader should not come at the expense of democracy. All members of the Liberal Party have a say in who the new leader will be.

Certainly, a new Liberal leader must be in place by the time Parliament reconvenes on Jan. 26. But that leader should not simply be installed by the federal Liberal caucus, which plans to meet behind closed doors on Dec. 10.

Not surprisingly, leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff has not spoken out against this closed-door strategy. Most likely, that’s because he has the majority support of fellow MPs – as well as the 58 Liberal senators – and would likely be named the new leader without any input from the grassroots. (Technically, he would be named “interim leader” by the party’s national executive, with the leadership convention still slated for May. But the convention delegate vote, which would choose a “permanent leader,” would become a mere formality.)

Also unsurprisingly, Ignatieff’s competitor, Bob Rae, favours a more open competition that would consult Liberals from coast to coast to coast through phone and email balloting.

While both Rae and Ignatieff would personally benefit from the system they and their supporters are advocating, Rae’s position is the one that is in line with open democracy, party revitalization, and grassroots involvement.

As Rae and others have pointed out, if the choice of party leader is left up to Liberal MPs, only 77 ridings will be represented in the decision-making process. This caucus-only solution leaves Liberals from 231 ridings – those that do not have a Liberal MP – in the dark and out in the hallway while the decision is made. Most troubling of all is that the areas of the country that need the most Liberal rebuilding – namely Quebec and the West – will be the areas least involved in the process.

Just as Rae was right when he walked out of a Mississauga leadership debate last month that was closed to the media, Rae is right again about what is needed in this selection process. Whatever the party decides to do, the process of picking the next leader must be democratic, open, inclusive, and transparent.

Rae and others have said that the party needs a contest, not a coronation. That’s true, because coronations don’t work. The Republican Party in 2000 coronated George W. Bush as its leader – and we see how well that turned out. And just this year, it was supposed to be a coronation for Hillary Clinton, but when that turned into a real contest, the people had something else in mind.

In Canada, as in the U.S., parties must listen to the people.