|
Sun Media Newspapers -- January 6, 2006
Canadian Muslims grade the candidates
OTTAWA -- An influential group representing Canadian Muslims has drafted a political hit list for candidates in the upcoming federal election.
Last campaign, the Canadian Islamic Congress encouraged its community members to "hold their nose and vote Liberal," but this time the group has graded individual candidates to determine who deserves to be elected and who should be booted from office.
"Traditionally the community voted Liberal because we thought the Liberal party is in the centre of the political spectrum," said congress president Mohamed Elmasry.
"But Paul Martin in the last 18 months took the Liberals way too far to the right."
Elmasry said Martin has presided over a government that has allowed civil liberties to erode, citing racial profiling and a proposed no-fly list as examples. Several of the PM's cabinet ministers have also expressed satisfaction with the controversial anti-terrorism legislation, he said.
The report grades more than 400 candidates in 107 ridings across Canada and will be circulated widely across Canada.
All federal party leaders were graded a 'B' except NDP Leader Jack Layton who earned an 'A.'
"His party policy on civil liberties and foreign policy are tuned to Canadian values of social justice and promoting peace abroad," Elmasry said.
Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew, Transport Minister Jean Lapierre, International Trade Minister Jim Peterson, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, Heritage Minister Liza Frulla and Social Development Minister Ken Dryden are among those graded 'F' for their stand on civil liberties or pro-Israel foreign policy.
A committee of 30 members graded the candidates based on track record, stand on issues, party records and published platforms.
The A-list included 37 Liberals, 23 New Democrats, 12 Bloc Quebecois, nine Conservatives and two Independents. On the F-list were 30 Liberals, 10 Conservatives, four NDP and one BQ candidate.
The Kitchener - Waterloo Record - January 6, 2005
Islamic Congress grades candidates
By Mirko Petricevic
Candidates running for reelection in four local ridings received top grades yesterday in a report card released by the Canadian Islamic Congress.
"We're not using the word 'endorsing,' " said Mohamed Elmasry, president of the Waterloo-based congress.
"But we're saying this is a huge amount of homework (by the congress) and please consider it very seriously."
The congress graded more than 400 candidates in 107 ridings where Muslims form five per cent or more of the population.
One-third of the candidates were interviewed face-to-face by congress volunteers. Two-thirds were contacted by e-mail.
The grades were based on a combination of a candidate's voting record in Parliament, if applicable, party platform and responses to questionnaires, Elmasry said.
Those whose record and responses largely agreed with the congress' positions got an A. Those who fell short but didn't differ greatly from the congress received a B. The rest failed.
"B is still a good grading," Elmasry said.
In the run-up to the last federal election, the congress said favourable candidates were those who would support public health care, increase long- term affordable housing, reduce child poverty and support policies that make it easier for qualified immigrants to work in their professions.
The congress added two new issues while researching this year's report.
Elmasry said they want candidates to support improved civil liberties by pushing for a review of anti-terrorism legislation and by opposing a government plan to create a passenger airline no-fly list without, in the congress's opinion, adequate court oversight.
The congress is also not happy with the Liberal government's foreign policy toward Afghanistan, Iraq and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The congress issued a similar report card on MPs before the federal election in 2004.
In that report, three local Liberal candidates received A grades.
But Lynn Myers, who won in Kitchener-Conestoga riding, got a B.
This year, Myers was boosted to an A, Elmasry said, because congress committee members believe he would work to implement a review of anti- terrorism legislation.
Conservative Gary Goodyear, running for re-election in Cambridge, also got an A.
"Although we don't like too many of the Conservative policies, overall we felt that he can be a moderating Conservative member of Parliament."
Liberals Andrew Telegdi, in Kitchener-Waterloo, and Karen Redman, in Kitchener Centre, are the other two candidates running for re-election in this area.
Everyone else running in this area received Bs.
For the 2004 election, the congress urged Muslims to "hold your nose and vote Liberal," Elmasry said.
But this year, the congress says the Liberals have moved too far right.
The congress also cited the federal government's recent changes in foreign policy to support Israel during various votes at the United Nations.
So the congress is urging Muslims, and Canadians at large, to vote for an individual candidate rather than a specific party.
The only federal party leader to receive an A is Jack Layton, leader of the New Democratic Party. All the other leaders received Bs.
The congress is not a registered charity so is not restricted in the amount of political activity it conducts, Elmasry said.
View the Canadian Islamic Congress report on election candidates at http://www.canadianislamiccongress.com.
Islamic Congress seeks to engage voters
through candidate grading report
January 5, 2006: The Canadian Islamic Congress today released its research report, "Vote You Must -- Grading Candidates for the 2006 Election," in which the organization's Political Action Committee evaluated candidates from more than 100 ridings where Muslims make up a sizable voting group. This is the first CICPAC to include university students in their twenties.
Prior to the 2004 federal election, CICPAC made history by releasing "Towards Informed, Multi-issue and Committed Voting." That report broke new ground by grading Canadian MP's on their activity record in Parliament during the previous four years, using as criteria a series of 20 national and international issues that reflected CIC's major concerns.
The 2004 report is posted at: http://www.canadianislamiccongress.com/election2004/Election2004.pdf
Candidate grading in the 2006 report "are designed solely as informed
suggestions: the onus is primarily on you, the voter, to do your homework and on that basis to vote for the best candidate in your riding," said the CIC statement.
Candidates whose views, track records, and public statements closely match those of CIC received an "A," while those who are opposed got an "F". The remaining candidates were graded as "B". Only the A-list and F-list are published: if a candidate is not on either one, he/she belongs by default to the B-group.
Grading of the 2006 candidates is based on four key criteria:
i) Their track record to date as MPs, if any.
ii) Their views on significant issues, irrespective of their party's official line.
iii) Their parties' track records in Parliament since the last federal election.
iv) The published political platforms of their parties for the 2006 election.
The report includes eight points:
1. Voting is a Civic as well as a Religious Duty
2. Towards Informed, Multi-Issue and Committed Voting
3. Not Voting IS Voting
4. The Liberals under Paul Martin have shifted substantially to the Right
5. Our Strategy for 2006 - Vote for the Best Candidate
6. Your Vote Counts, Regardless
7. CIC's Views on Some Key Issues
8. Grading Candidates for your Consideration
December 30, 2005
Election 2006: You must vote
By Dr. Mohamed Elmasry
"We must either breed political capacity or be ruined by Democracy, which was forced on us by the failure of the older alternatives," said Bernard Shaw. "Yet if Despotism failed only for want of a capable benevolent despot, what chance has Democracy, which requires a whole population of capable voters: that is, of political critics who, if they cannot govern in person for lack of spare energy or specific talent for administration, can at least recognize and appreciate capacity and benevolence in others, and so govern through capably benevolent representatives? Where are such voters to be found today? Nowhere."
Shaw's insight is so sad, and regrettably, so true.
History itself offers the best evidence that democracy is no guarantee against the rise to power of extreme rightwing movements. After all, in 1933 one small German city gave its whole majority vote to the Nazis.
The triumph of extremism is not inevitable of course, but to avoid an outcome like that of Germany in 1933, citizens of democratic societies must vote -- in a big way. Nothing renders nominal democracy more vulnerable to decay than an apathetic electorate.
Take the current U.S. administration as a measuring yardstick. Then we must ask ourselves: Would we Canadians want to vote for someone like George W. Bush in the coming federal election on January 23? Or instead vote for candidates who hold opposing views?
In a mid-December speech just before the Iraqi elections, Bush said "We can not - and we will not - leave Iraq until victory is achieved." But what is victory? According to Bush, "victory" will be when extremists and Saddam loyalists are no longer a threat to Iraq’s democracy, when Iraqi security forces are self-sufficient, and when Iraq is no longer a "safe haven" for terrorists.
But this is a victory which can never be realized, because all three criteria on the president's list are too vague to implemented, let alone defined. Bush knows it and so does his administration. But how can you tell that to an extremist?
Bush staunchly defends a war against Iraq in which more than 2,000 Americans and more than 30,000 Iraqis have been killed. (As these are American figures, they are most likely under-reported... for both sides).
Iraq has become nothing less than a very expensive killing field, in which every death -- whether Iraqi, American, or Coalition forces -- has cost U.S. taxpayers more than 2 million dollars. That's 2 million, per person, totalling 200 billion dollars so far. But how can you tell that to an extremist?
Yes, George Bush did finally accept responsibility for relying on "wrong" intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. But that was long after U.S. media had published repeated pre-war assertions from French and German sources that American intelligence reports were flawed, or outright false. But how can you tell that to an extremist?
Bush has also stated that he would pre-emptively attack another country if he deemed it necessary; observers believe he is hinting at Iran and Syria as his next victims. In other words, the death, destruction and human misery so far inflicted on the Middle East through the American-led "war on terror" have not and will not weigh on this leader's conscience. But how can you tell that to an extremist?
And what do we make of the claim that Bush reportedly heard the voice of God, guiding him to attack Iraq? How did he know it was God and not the Devil? or maybe one of his advisers -- Bush advisers, that is?
Meanwhile, Bush's latest unrepentent admission is that he ordered spying on Americans at home. Instead of acknowledging it was a mistake, he called the disclosure of his spying orders a "shameful act" and asserted it was lawful for him to secretly order the wiretapping of phone calls made to and from the United States; this despite a 1978 law banning such interceptions without special court authorization. He stopped just short of calling those who "leaked" this scheme traitors.
He further tried to justify his illegal action by saying, "We know that a two-minute phone conversation between somebody linked to al- Qaeda here and an operative overseas could lead directly to the loss of thousands of lives." Once again, how can you tell that to an extremist?
Recent accounts from detainees at Guantánamo Bay, as reported by Human Rights Watch, reveal that as recently as last year the U.S. operated a secret prison in Afghanistan where detainees were subjected to torture and other forms of mistreatment. Other reports show that the CIA kidnapped people and flew them halfway across the world for pre- interrogation torture. The American Army official responsible for Iraq's notorious Abu Ghraib prison admitted recently to the Al-Jazeera television network that torture was routinely inflicted, in obedience to orders received from higher up in the chain of command; she further stated her belief that torture is an ongoing sanctioned activity.
But the question remains: How can you tell all this to an extremist -- especially to one who does not see himself in that ugly light? First, you must tell him to his face, regardless of diplomacy; and then you must inform the whole world, despite knowing that he is more powerful and can hurt you.
The best way of course, is not to have to face down a political extremist at all. In a truly healthy democracy, he would not attain such deadly power. That is why it is so important to take the proactive longterm view and vote for the alternatives to extremist government. By watching, listening, learning, speaking up -- and voting -- citizens of a any democratic country can deny power-hungry extremists the forum they crave. But vote you must.
(Dr. Mohamed Elmasry is national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress. He can be reached at np@canadianislamiccongress.com )
December 21, 2005
Muslim voters call on leaders to debate
civil liberties and foreign policy
The Canadian Islamic Congress said today that party leaders must debate two important issues: the post-9/11 erosion of Canadian civil liberties, and Canada’s foreign policy in the Middle East.
Many Canadian Muslims -- feeling that a centrist political party is best for the country -- have traditionally supported the Liberals, as they did under both Trudeau and Chretien.
Many now believe, however, that current leader Paul Martin -- supported by a few influential Liberals -- has steered his party slowly but surely to the political right.
This is evident in the emergence of two very important and disturbing trends:
a) the steady compromise of Canadian civil liberties, as evidenced by our government's refusal to amend the Anti-Terrorism Law and the soon to be implemented no-fly list (making Canada the only country other than the U.S. whose citizens could be listed without any judicial oversight); and
b) Canada's emulation of American foreign policy in key areas such as Afghanistan and Palestine. For example, Canada spends $600 million annually on its military operation in Afghanistan, but only $200 million on direct aid and support for Afghanis themselves. Canada also (for the first time) changed its voting at the UN to favour Israel, which has illegally occupied Palestinian lands for almost 40 years.
|
