The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
Freedom and terror What price freedom? This is a familiar refrain referring to the human costs and sacrifices needed to become a free nation. In democratic states like Canada, the U.S.A., and Britain it means individual freedoms such as the right to vote, an unbiased court system, the right to work, etc. Canada's development as a nation, hardly oppressive under Britain, was mainly a constitutional development, not revolutionary as in the U.S., but it still required considerable human sacrifices in two world wars, as Canada joined in the fights for freedom and development into a free and independent nation within the British Commonwealth. Canada also joined the Americans in the Korean conflict, but since that time our armed forces' policy has been dominated by "peacekeeping" i.e. sending in troops to keep peace between warring factions who do not want peace. With our borders protected from invasion by the Americans to the south, our armed forces have been allowed to deteriorate and are underfunded, underpaid and under equipped, in contrast to the U.S.'s "warrior policy." The much hated Vietnam War (the only one the U.S. has not won) was not supported by Canada and saw 125,000 "Draft Dodgers" come to Canada. Fifty per cent of them remained in our country after the U.S. government declared in 1977 that they would not prosecute the "dodgers". They were everywhere, I even had two on separate teaching staffs, both industrial arts teachers. Neither talked about the war, their flights, or about politics. This summer, some anti-war resisters in Nelson, B.C. announced plans to erect a monument to honor Vietnam War resistors, and the Canadians who helped them. This caused a furious reaction from the powerful U.S. Veterans of Foreign Wars organization who called on President Bush to ask Paul Martin to stop this "tribute to cowards." And a "slap in the face" to those who have served in the American and Canadian military. Although many of the "draft dodgers" settled in B.C., there is apparently little support for the monument. The city of Nelson is opposed and asked the group to scrap the idea. The organizers more or less agreed, but said they may relocate the statue. Neither tourist oriented B.C., George Bush, or Paul Martin need a controversy of this type at this time when Canadian-American relations are at a low. The Canadian Left continues its anti-American comments and hostilities. They applauded the lack of Canadian support for the U.S. in Iraq, although they said little about our involvement in Afghanistan, and are solidly opposed to any involvement in a missile defence system. They say little about the fact that defence of our country rests entirely with our neighbour to the south. There are more and more positive comments about Brian Mulroney's free trade agreement, as it has had a booming effect on the Canadian economy. Those formerly opposed who uttered dire predictions of harm to Canada ? such as the Canadian Labour Congress, are now solidly in favor. Although there are some troubling incidents with U.S. protectionism, both Canadians and Americans seem in favor, and Mulroney is somewhat vindicated. Left wing writers continue their fear of the U.S. and of U.S. domination of Canada. One in an article entitled: "We're Not U.S. Carbon Copies", takes great pains to distance our culture from that of the Americans, attacking U.S. military patriotism and the Bush administration with such statements as: "Consistency is not a virtue, and decisiveness in itself may be devoid of sanity." He goes on to claim that Bush has "Fostered a world-wide anti-Americanism" and claims we should be comforted because we, unlike Americans, look to the International community and agreements to promote world peace. This talk flies in the face of history as it was fear of reprisals in the cold war that kept the peace for 50 years, together with military alliances such as N.A.T.O. International organizations such as the United Nations have been hardly able to control wars, rebellions and massacres anywhere. Believe it or not, terror is not a new concept, although recent terrorist tactics are different to say the least. There have been terrorists throughout history, a lot of them in control of states or countries, such as Ghengis Khan and Josef Stalin who killed hundreds of thousands and likewise for Saddam Hussein who murdered and terrorized his own people. All history buffs know of the "Reign of Terror" during the French Revolution (1789-99). Fanatical terrorists Maximillian Robespierre, and Georges Danton argued successfully for beheading the king and many other royalists. Not surprisingly both were killed by Madame La Guillotine in 1794, a fitting end for both and what many today feel would be a proper punishment for modern terrorists. See 'Civilized' P.# Con't from P.# Members of the more civilized world saw the realities of terrorism in the 9/11 attack on New York. Suicide bombers were common in the Middle East but never in North America. America's response: - "Get Em" referring to Bin Laden and his supporters, expanded to include states which harbor or may harbor terrorists or are a threat to America. To the Bush administration, this hunting down of terrorists and using pre-emptive strikes is the way to make America safe. This approach has been adopted by the Russian President after several terrorist attacks in his country including the horrific Beslan school massacre which killed 430 people. With the Chechen rebel leader taking credit, Vladimir Putin proclaimed Russia will strike terrorists at home and abroad and rejected any bargaining with the rebels. The former communist also spoke out against those who urged Moscow to initiate peace talks with the Chechins saying: "Double standards in dealing with terrorism are disastrous for global security," and adding that the attempts to appease terrorists is a "condescending justifying attitude to murderers, which amounts to being an accomplice to terrorism". He most certainly has a point in that concessions to terrorists appear often to be viewed as weakness and justification for their actions if not approval. However, the U.S. and other democracies were upset at some of Putin's actions in limiting democratic freedoms in Russia including press censorship. His restrictions were apparently with the approval of the Russian people who want a crackdown on the rebels. Russia of course has no history of democracy except recently, and suffered for centuries under autocratic rule. There are some who still advocate appeasing the terrorists. One New Yorker magazine writer claims the Bush government has by its actions fostered a world wide anti-Americanism with the invasion of Iraq strengthening, not weakening Islamic terror? Another "peace researcher" expounds the "Needs Theory" - which claims that political systems which prevent individuals from meeting key needs: such as identity, recognition, security, autonomy, participation and dignity ? will produce hostile behaviour. He contrasts needs theory with reality theory that claims deviant and murderous behaviour (such as murdering hundreds in a school) are caused by evil individuals who are personally to blame and must be killed or contained. The needs theorists believe that societies which allow needs to be met will be rewarded with conforming behaviour ? so find the causes of terrorism, and resolve it by talking to the terrorists. Does this sound to you like "Ivory Tower" drivel? Are there any times in history that the so-called needs theory worked? Remember, the attempts to apply this theory to Hitler by "appeasing" his needs in 1938, led to a World War that killed millions.
