Will Dion give Ken Dryden the boot?

As many of our readers know, the Ryerson Free Press is monitoring certain aspects of the election that are not always on the mainstream media’s radar, such as post-secondary education and the war in Afghanistan. These issues are nevertheless critical to Canadians.

Most recently is the news of Ken Dryden, Liberal candidate for York Centre, who caught the attention of some when he called for the collective punishment of Palestinian people in Gaza. At an address on September 24 at Beth Emeth synagogue, Dryden was reported to state the following: "Stop all aid that flows into Gaza. While that may seem a harsh measure that will hurt Palestinian civilians… it is the right thing to do at this time."

The Liberals have gotten off pretty easy during this election campaign for their history of supporting Canada's war effort. During this election they have painted themselves as a peace-loving party, exemplified by their support for American war resistors and commitment to end Canada’s role in Afghanistan by 2011.

However, the Liberals are just as culpable for Omar Khadr's arrest and seven-year detention at Guantanamo Bay as are the Conservatives. They could have toppled the Conservative government on any number of votes, including the budget where billions of dollars was earmarked for military expansion, but instead they let it quietly pass.

Sins of omission are often worse than sins of commission. But that's not the case for Dryden. His words about cutting aid to Gaza were loud and clear.

With the exception of a short piece from John Turley-Ewart, Associate Editor of the Financial Post, most of the major media outlets seemed to miss the comments made by Ken Dryden. As Turley-Ewart points out, there appears to be a vast gulf between the media’s treatment of those who promote intolerance and those who promote Islamophobia.

Dion has already fired one candidate for her volatile comments pertaining to the Jewish community. The question now is will he follow his own example and consult with the Arab community about this latest infraction committed by another one of his candidates?

Canadian Death Toll in Afghanistan Nearing 100 as Federal Election Looms

Today, the 97th Canadian solider was killed in Afghanistan. This would otherwise be top news on most Canadian news sites, if it had not been for the fact that the writ dropped this morning, launching the Canadian political scene into a federal election.

With 2,500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan right now, Canada’s role in the occupation of Afghanistan should be a major theme in the October 14 Federal election. But be sure that both the Liberals and the Conservatives will do everything possible to keep this issue out of the media. The Liberals slyly committed Canadian troops to the NATO-led occupation of Afghanistan after tens of thousands of Canadians demonstrated vigorously to keep Canada out of Iraq. By 2006, under the Conservatives, Canadian troops were leading offensive operations in Southern Afghanistan where some of the fiercest fighting was taking place.

To put Canada’s role in perspective consider the following numbers. It costs Canadians on average $1.3 million per day to keep soldiers and military equipment fighting in Afghanistan. By February 2009, the planned end of the mission, it is estimated that the bill will reach about $4.3 billion. This includes over $1 million spent in funeral services.

Despite these numbers, the continued unpopularity of Harper’s direction in Afghanistan and the growing Canadian anti-war lobby, it is expected that a Conservative government will keep troops there beyond the planned pull-out date. In fact, they are getting help from Former Liberal Cabinet Minister John Manley, whose panel looking into the matter, not only called for an extension to Canada’s involvement in the war, but for the troop commitment to increase by another 50% and for more high-tech equipment to be committed.

With the Americans planning to play an increased role in the Afghanistan war, insiders are bracing for the situation to become much more “nasty”. It is highly likely that the number of troops dead will reach 100 before Canadians go to the polls on October 14. The only real uncertainty is what kind of backlash the Conservatives and Liberals will face in the federal election for getting Canada into this situation.

Canadians to help construct the "Great Wall of Kandahar"

The Canadian Press reported yesterday that Canadian Forces have agreed to help with the construction of a wall that will surround Kandahar University, Afghanistan.

The wall will be “a three-kilometre perimeter of stone, brick and iron around the school campus”. Its main purpose, according to the article, will be to keep out thieves, make it safer for women to attend school and stop sheep herders from using the area around the university for sheep herding and grazing.

This endeavour will cost the Canadians approximately $500,000.

Hasn’t history demonstrated that building walls to keep out various threats instead of trying to develop proactive solutions is not a sustainable practice? Canadians would do well to challenge the use of our resources for this project.

However, if we think hard enough we might be able to imagine some bright sides to this new project: maybe the wall will help protect students from Canadian soldiers who will be building it. With at least 6500 people killed in Afghanistan in 2007, perhaps Afghans will actually appreciate the added security from NATO troops.

However, if the Canadian Armed Forces are representing Canadians overseas and doing it through taxpayers’ dollars, having troops build a fence around a university is yet another example of a band-aid solution that will not go very far in addressing the root problems of the conflict there.

Afghanistan is a nation that has faced occupation after occupation, where today, warlords still control many of its regions. The bottom line is that, with or without Canadian walls, Afghanistan will not find peace while it is occupied by foreign troops.