Segacs’s World I Know

Annan uses the W-word:

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan sharply criticized the United States on Thursday for seeking another exemption from the International Criminal Court, particularly in light of the Iraqi prisoner scandal.

“The blanket exemption is wrong. It is of dubious judicial value and I don’t think it should be encouraged by the council,” Annan told reporters.

Wow. I didn’t think that Kofi Annan was capable of using the term “wrong”. I figured it went against his moral relativist sensibilities. I guess criticizing the U.S. is an exception, right?

New evidence about Montrealers’ links to terror emerged in the U.S. report on 9/11.

It sure is comforting to know that our tax dollars pay bureaucrats in Ottawa to allow these guys to come live here.

They’re happier in England today. Well, except for these guys.

Another violent day in Iraq, as a suicide car bomber blew himself up outside an army recruitment centre, killing at least 35 and wounded another 150:

Visiting the scene of the blast, Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi vowed his people would prevail in the face of mounting violence before the June 30 political handover from the United States.

“This is an escalation that we have been expecting,” Allawi said. “The government of Iraq is determined to confront the enemies.”

By the day, the world is losing confidence that this will happen. And as June 30th gets closer, things are only likely to get worse instead of better.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is refusing to negotiate with Al Qua’eda for the release of kidnapped American engineer Paul Marshal Johnson:

Al Qaeda has given the government until Friday to release jailed militants or it will execute engineer Paul Marshal Johnson, who was kidnapped last week. Saudi official sources have said the kingdom would not give in to al Qaeda’s demands.

[ . . . ]

De facto ruler Crown Prince Abdullah, showing no sign of compromise, has said the kingdom would deploy more forces and strike soon against Saudi-born Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda.

Washington said it would use every appropriate resource to gain Johnson’s release but would make no concessions to his captors.

For terrorism to succeed, governments must negotiate with it. The Saudi government knows better – not because it is a bastion of democracy or enlightenment, but because it knows that giving into even a small demand would only ensure more attacks. Contrast this reaction to how the Canadian government dealt with the kidnapping of our citizens, notably Fadi Fadel.

I find myself agreeing with both Paul Wells and Antonia Zerbisias (both via Damian Penny).

First, Paul Wells reacts to the debate:

What a bunch of braying jackasses. What a pathetic embarrassment, the lot of them.

And, believe it or not, uber-nitwit Antonia Zerbisias makes an actual good point (yes, it’s rare):

If there was a winner in this conflagration, it was probably Duceppe, who not only acquitted himself well in English but did so with more animation than he did in his native French.

Sad, I agree.

I was flying home from Toronto today but I caught snatches of the debate on the radio, and the end on television.

Two thoughts were running through my head for most of the debate: That it was actually kind of funny, and would be even funnier if not for the sad fact that these are the leaders of our country, and that it’s even sadder that Duceppe actually seems to be winning.

Harper seemed like he was already looking ahead to the prospect of a minority government, soft-pedalling his debates with Layton and especially Duceppe. Martin, for his part, looked like a tomato about to burst. Layton was just plain creepy with his fake smile that he wore the entire time. And is it just me or do you find it sad that Duceppe’s English is better than Martin’s French?

If I have to award points – and admittedly it’s tough – I’d give them to the following candidates:

To Paul Martin, for being the only candidate not to suck up to Gilles Duceppe.

To Stephen Harper, for being soft-spoken while everyone else was yelling like little children.

To Jack Layton, for actually managing to wear that smile for the entire time.

To Gilles Duceppe, for managing to use the words “fiscal imbalance” a record number of times in a two-hour period.

And last but not least, to the moderator, for staying awake.

The French election debate was a bit too boring to hold my interest for more than a few minutes.

Predictably, Paul Martin came under attack, as did Stephen Harper. Also not too surprisingly, most of the commentary seems to agree that Gilles Duceppe scored the most points, and Bloc voters are unlikely to swing back to the Liberals on the basis of this debate. If Harper thought he was going to win any seats in Quebec, he also probably blew his chance tonight.

But in general, the debate was scripted, rehearsed, and had few surprises.

Tremblay versus Trent was much more interesting. Who knew Peter Trent could (sort of) speak French?

Next up, we have the two debates – French tonight, and English tomorrow night. L. Ian MacDonald has high expectations for Stephen Harper:

For Stephen Harper, the French debate represents a significant opportunity. If the Conservatives have really moved into the mid-teens in Quebec, as reported by the CPAC-SES Research poll last week, then the debate offers Harper the possibility of taking his support to the next level of 20 per cent, where the Conservatives would actually start to win a few seats. That could help him close the deal in Ontario, where they like to vote for parties with support in all regions of the country.

[ . . . ]

The worst nightmare for the Liberals could occur in Quebec living-rooms tonight, if viewers turn to one another and say: “you know, this guy Harper, he’s not so bad, he speaks pretty good French.” The result would be not a breakthrough, but a beachhead, for Harper.

That said, it ain’t over till it’s over. History has shown that 2 weeks before an election, results can be vastly different than on election day. I predict somewhat of a swing back from the NDP to the Liberals, as voters on the left panic about the prospect of a Conservative government. I doubt that we’ll see that happening in Quebec, however, as Bloc voters seem intent on punishing the Libs. But with the Libs and the Tories neck-and-neck, I wouldn’t be so quick to write off Paul Martin just yet.

In the meantime, I’ve discovered that the number of candidates in my riding has jumped to 8. All the major parties are represented, as well as the Green party, the Marxist-Leninist party, the Libertarian party, and the Marijuana party.

Hmmm… the Marijuana party… maybe I’ll vote for them. I mean, I don’t smoke the stuff and have no particular interest in it, but on principle I happen to agree that it should be legalized. Besides, here’s a one-issue party that has a reasonable chance of attaining its goal and makes no pretence about wanting to govern in any other area. Hey, sounds good to me!

Or then again, maybe not.

The sad thing is, I don’t feel particularly motivated to vote for any of the candidates or parties. So many choices, but in reality, so few… no wonder participation rates are so low and voter apathy is through the roof. Votes matter in precious few ridings; in the rest, the conclusion is foregone and we might as well just stay home.

*Sigh*.

To my English friends: OUCH! As a Habs fan, I feel your pain.