OKA, QUE.- A change of leadership for police at the Kanesatake Mohawk reserve caused tensions to erupt yesterday and saw Grand Chief James Gabriel's house burn to the ground.

[. . . . ] The former police chief Terry Isaac and former deputy chief Larry Ross were reinstated to their posts as part of a move by Mr. Gabriel to crack down on crime. Tracy Cross, the interim police chief, described by Mr. Gabriel as too soft on crime, was relieved of his duties at the Mohawk reserve, 50 kilometres west of Montreal.

Mr. Gabriel contends the criminal elements feared the reinstatement of Mr. Ross and Mr. Isaac. "They know these two men will uphold the law," he said. "We're going to restore law and order, now more than ever."

VANCOUVER - [Mandeep Sandhu] who was briefly a member of a federal Liberal riding executive before being disqualified last month had his Victoria home searched by police and his computer hard drive seized.

[. . . . ] He was hand-picked for the Victoria-area riding executive by Dave Basi, a former ministerial assistant fired after a 20-month organized crime and drug investigation that resulted in raids at the B.C. legislature on Dec. 28.

[. . . . ] Les Jacques, vice-president of the riding, said Mr. Basi -- a major organizer for the federal Liberals -- more than doubled the memberships in the riding by signing up a large number of Indo-Canadians in the summer, just before the deadline for delegate selection for the annual general meeting.

''We had in the neighbourhood of 289 to 300 people ... signed up,'' Mr. Jacques said. ''In August, 439 Indo-Canadians were dumped on us by Mr. Basi and group.''

Mr. Jacques and his team worked with Mr. Basi's group to choose a slate of 10 directors to be acclaimed at the December meeting. They wanted an acclamation to ensure the riding executive would be cohesive in preparing for the upcoming election.

But on the day of the meeting, Mr. Basi made a last-minute change to the slate to add Mr. Sandhu's name, Mr. Jacques said.

''He made the change from the floor [of the meeting]'', said Mr. Jacques, 65.

[. . . .] Mr. Sandhu could not fulfill his position on the executive because he does not have a Liberal party membership. ''As far as I'm aware he holds a membership to the federal NDP,'' Mr. Jacques said.

U.S. authorities filed criminal charges yesterday against a Saudi student who ran a Montreal-based Internet site that was allegedly used to recruit and raise money for Islamic terrorists.

[. . . . ] Mr. Al-Hussayen's brothers are medical doctors in Calgary and Toronto. His uncle, Saleh Abdel Rahman Al-Hussayen, visiting from Saudi Arabia, travelled from Canada to the United States shortly before the Sept. 11 attacks, staying in the same Virginia hotel as three of the men who hijacked American Airlines Flight #77, the plane that was crashed into the Pentagon. The uncle was interviewed by the FBI then, but ''feigned a seizure, prompting the agents to take him to a hospital, where the attending physicians found nothing wrong with him,'' the U.S. has alleged in court documents. He has returned to Saudi Arabia.

[. . . . ] Mr. Al-Hussayen solicited money for the Palestinian Hamas and ran Web sites, for the Islamic Assembly of North America (IANA), the Saudi-based Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, the Saudi company Dar Al-Asr, two sheiks and ''entities through which he provided material support and resources to terrorists.'' He faces a possible 15-year sentence if convicted.

"We think the new Conservative Party has to attract more people like those of us who support the Red Tory Council - conservative Canadians who, for example, support individual entrepreneurship, free and fair global trade, bilingualism, same-sex marriages, and streamlined government services that help the truly needy. We're going to work hard to make sure that our concerns are at the front and centre of today's conservative political debate."

Ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, currently in the custody of U.S.-led coalition forces, suffers from cancer of lymph glands, the Kuwaiti Al-Anba daily reports.

SHAWNIGAN LAKE -- Police dismantled a marijuana grow operation about two weeks ago in a Shawnigan Lake home owned by David Basi, the former assistant to Finance Minister Gary Collins and the man at the centre of B.C.'s latest political scandal.

The drug raid, at 3260 Shawnigan Lake Rd., happened during the Christmas holidays. It was around the same time police raided Basi's office in the legislature as part of a 20-month investigation into organized crime, commercial crime and drugs.

[. . . . ] Bob Brown, who lives across the street from the grow-op, said he was advised by police from Victoria to keep quiet about the raid on the grow-op.

[. . . . ] Indeed, in May 1996, police raided a grow-operation at a Surrey home belonging to then attorney-general Ujjal Dosanjh.

Dosanjh's tenant pleaded guilty and paid a $1,200 fine.

Neighbours living near Basi's Shawnigan Lake property said the house had been vacant for some time.

[. . . . ] "It's been vacant a couple of years."

[. . . . ] On Friday, Considine issued a statement from Basi in response to a media report that police are investigating whether Basi was involved in a drug-trafficking ring and a potential breach of trust regarding the sale of B.C. Rail.

"David Basi is unable to comment on any specifics of the police investigation, as the matter is before the courts and is the subject of a sealing order by the Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia [Patrick Dohm]."

[There is a good description of how the grow-op business is run . . . .]

Pot Seized in Canada

1994: 6,472 kilograms

1995: 5,500 kilograms

1996: 17,234 kilograms

1997: 50,624 kilograms

1998: 59,598 kilograms

1999: 23,829 kilograms

2000: 21,703 kilograms

2001: 28,746 kilograms

2002: 54,372 kilograms

MONTREAL - A Quebec City lawyer will face a disciplinary hearing before the provincial bar association for comments about Haitians and Jamaicans he made in November. Yves-Andre Le Bouthillier, representing an alleged pimp, told a reporter prostitution was part of Haitian culture, "just as smoking cannabis is part of Jamaican culture."

The BBC was accused last night of operating double standards over its suspension of Robert Kilroy-Silk for his comments about Arabs while it continues to use a contributor who has called for Israelis to be killed.

Tom Paulin, the poet and Oxford don, has continued to be a regular contributor to BBC2's Newsnight Review arts programme, despite being quoted in an Egyptian newspaper as saying that Jews living in the Israeli-occupied territories were "Nazis" who should be "shot dead".

Andrew Dismore, the Labour MP, said he found it hard to understand why the BBC had moved against Mr Kilroy-Silk but had not taken any action against Mr Paulin.

"I am not defending anything Mr Kilroy-Silk has said, but I was greatly upset by what Mr Paulin said, and I think the rules should apply to people equally," said Mr Dismore. "Mr Paulin said awful things about Israel and Jewish people. He should have been kept off BBC screens while his own comments were investigated. I was surprised that that did not happen. It smacks of double standards on the part of the BBC."

Mr Paulin made his comments in the Egyptian weekly newspaper Al-Ahram almost two years ago, saying that US-born settlers in the occupied territories should be shot dead. "I think they are Nazis, racists. I feel nothing but hatred for them," he said, adding: "I never believed that Israel had the right to exist at all."

Within days of the article appearing, a number of academic institutions, including Harvard, cancelled planned readings by the poet. The BBC, however, did not seek to remove him from Newsnight Review. Mr Paulin subsequently denied accusations of anti-Semitism.

[. . . . ] "It is important to remember that we are a free society because we have free speech. What is happening to Britain? There was a time when things like this would be shrugged off. I think the reaction to the column brings into disrepute some major organisations: the BBC, the Commission for Racial Equality, which all felt the need to complain, and the Metropolitan Police, which feels the need to investigate."

Ann Widdecombe, the former Conservative home office minister, said Mr Kilroy-Silk had been unfortunate in his use of language, but she insisted that the BBC had no right to censor free speech.

Ibrahim Nawar, an Egyptian, is the Head of the Board of Management of Arab Press Freedom Watch, a non-profit organisation based in London that works to promote freedom of expression in the Arab world.

"I fully support Robert Kilroy-Silk and salute him as an advocate of freedom of expression. I would like to voice my solidarity with him and with all those who face the censorship of such a basic human right.

[. . . . ] "I would also agree with Mr Kilroy-Silk's comments on the oppression of women by totalitarian Arab states. Women in Saudi Arabia even have to struggle for the right to walk unaccompanied in the street or to drive a car.

[. . . . ] "I condemn the decision to axe his programme and call for the BBC to reinstate him forthwith. Indeed, the treatment of Mr Kilroy-Silk is very worrying because it indicates that censorship is now taking place in liberal, Western countries like the United Kingdom. These countries should instead be setting an example to the oppressive Arab regimes that violate freedom of expression on a daily basis."

A representative of the Muslim Council of Britain, which has protested against the article, was damning about Mr Kilroy-Silk's comments on the Dubai-based pan-Arab TV station Al-Arabiya.

[. . . . ] Al-Arabiya, a competitor to Al-Jazeera, aired a lengthy report on the controversy.

Its London correspondent said Mr Kilroy-Silk had been "inaccurate by mixing up what is Arab, Muslim and Iranian" and "failed to distinguish between the terrorists who carried out the 11 September attacks and the 200 million ordinary Arabs".

[. . . . ] Mr al-Tamimi saw a connection between the article and what he called a campaign against Muslims in the West.

"There are suspicions," he said, "that Kilroy's article is part of an intensive campaign that started with the statements made by Ariel Sharon, the prime minister of the Zionist entity, in which he accused Muslims in the West of being behind growing anti-Semitism."

[Ah, yes, it all started with a Jew, of course. NJC]

[. . . . ] Al-Quds Al-Arabi [Arab nationalist paper] welcomed the BBC's decision to take Mr Kilroy-Silk's morning TV talk show off the air pending an investigation of his comments.

[. . . . ] "The BBC did not suspend Kilroy-Silk's show due to pressure from and protests by Arab embassies," it asserted.

"It suspended it because of the fierce campaign led by Arab and Islamic groups, including the new generation of the community."

"This success," the paper continued, "clearly indicates the rise of a national Islamic lobby in Great Britain and marks the end of the Jewish lobby monopoly in the British media and political scenes."

Mr. Kilroy-Silk, who has said he deeply regrets "the great distress and offence" caused by the column, has said the article was reprinted in an error caused by his secretary and Sunday Express editors that has been compounded by the BBC and "the forces of political correctness."

He defended himself yesterday in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph and asserted his right to speak his opinions freely: "If I am not allowed to say there are Arab states that are evil, despotic and treat women abominably, if I am not allowed to say that, which I know to be a fact, then what can I say?"

[. . . . ] The BBC's decision has drawn criticism from free-speech advocates such as Michael Howard, the Tory opposition leader.

Robert Kilroy-Silk, the BBC television presenter suspended after launching a vitriolic attack against Arab states in a newspaper column, yesterday defended his right to criticise despotic Middle Eastern regimes.

In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Mr Kilroy-Silk said: "If I am not allowed to say that there are Arab states that are evil, despotic and treat women abominably, if I am not allowed to say that, which I know to be a fact, then what can I say?"

It seems to me as I sit up here in the peanut gallery that our western politicians are truly afraid to confront these people. Robert Kilroy-Silk went out on a limb and told it as he saw it. In doing so he scared the hell out of a lot of people but the bottom line remains.

Just what did he say that was so wrong?

Muslims DO have a death cult. They DO send their kids out to blow themselves up. They DO amputate limbs to punish people for certain crimes. Women ARE oppressed in this culture. These are not abstract ideas -- they are fact!

This culture is very sick!

The Muslim Council of Britain denounced the BBC discussion show presenter's piece as a "gratuitous anti-Arab rant".

In the Sunday Express piece, the former Labour MP referred to Arabs as "suicide bombers, limb-amputators, women repressors".

The Commission for Racial Equality has also reported the matter to the police.

[. . . . ] The BBC has suspended his Kilroy chat show while it investigates the matter.

[. . . . ] The corporation said it "strongly dissociated" itself from the comments, which did not reflect its views as a broadcaster.

[. . . . ] Judith Vidal Hall, Index on Censorship
She told Today: "I don't think in a country with a free media and a plural society and a commitment to a right of reply, you ever solve anything by banning, removing, censoring."

Censorship could lead to driving debate "underground, where it festers", she said.

[. . . . ] Police are investigating Mr Kilroy-Silk's comments after a complaint by the Commission for Racial Equality.

WE ARE told by some of the more hysterical critics of the war on terror that "it is destroying the Arab world". So? Should we be worried about that? Shouldn't the destruction of the despotic, barbarous and corrupt Arab statesand their replacement by democratic governments be a war aim? After all, the Arab countries are not exactly shining examples of civilisation, are they?

[. . . . ] Indeed, the Arab countries put together export less than Finland. We're told that the Arabs loathe us. Really? For liberating the Iraqis? Fors subsidising the lifestyles of people in Egypt and Jordan, to name but two, for giving them vast amounts of aid? For providing them with science, medicine, technology and all the other benefits of the West? They should go down on their knees and thank God for the munificence of the United States.

What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on September 11 and then danced in the hot, dusty streets to celebrate the murders? That we admire them for the cold-blooded killings in Mombasa, Yemen and elsewhere? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb-amputators, women repressors? I don't think the Arab states should start a debate about what is really loathsome.

I live in the Middle East, have done for 17 years. Can I go to church in Saudi Arabia? Can I wear what I want to wear? Can I drive a car? Can I travel or work without my husband's permission? Can I speak out in the media when my religion or others are called infedels or worse? Can I criticise the government or people of this Kingdom? Can I make a mistake in the eyes of the law and be forgiven? Can I be free?

I choose to live here for many reasons and that entails 'living like the locals' so be it, I cannot complain (I am not allowed to)

In late December, Mohamed Hussein Fadlallah, spiritual leader of the Lebanese radical organization Hezbollah, released to the Western media a letter in which he complained of a "stripping of liberties from Muslims, even when they have not disobeyed the law," and warned of an emerging climate "hostile to religion and to Muslim citizens." The tone was not unusual for a Hezbollah letter. What was unusual was the addressee. For the broadside was launched neither at George Bush nor at John Ashcroft but at French president Jacques Chirac, who until recently was hailed as a hero among Arab radicals for his opposition to the American invasion of Iraq. Last March, Chirac was mobbed by hundreds of thousands of Algerian well-wishers in the streets of Oran. Even Fadlallah in his letter (which is reproduced on the French Middle East website www.proche-orient.info) professed himself "mindful of France's political role--under your administration--in Lebanese, Arab, and French matters, and the convergence of our positions, along with our interests, despite differences on certain points."

Fadlallah's gripe is a law now being rushed to the French National Assembly that by February will, in many settings, forbid women and girls to wear Muslim headscarves. On December 11, a Chirac-appointed blue-ribbon commission under the direction of the centrist politician Bernard Stasi recommended a ban on "conspicuous" religious symbols--including headscarves, yarmulkes, and "large crosses"--in schools, hospitals, and other public buildings. There were other things in the report, including the proposal to add two new national holidays--Yom Kippur and Id al-Adha, the Islamic feast of Abraham. [There were other aspects of the law, as well. . . . ]

But the commission's proposals on the veil dwarfed everything else. The French are obsessed with Muslim headwear, with an intensity that can mystify foreigners. There are a dozen books on the veil selling briskly in French bookstores now, and to rattle off some of their titles puts one in mind of a Monty Python routine: One Veiled, the Other Not; The Veil That Is Tearing France Apart; A Veil Over the Republic; Drop the Veil! (by the Iranian feminist Chahdortt Djavann), and "What the Veil Veils"

[. . . . ] Banning the veil is not about Anglo-Saxon constitutional niceties, it is about a clash of civilizations. France's Muslims bring higher rates of practice and much more passion to their religion than France's post-Christian secularists bring to the defense of the Republic. Those Frenchmen who cling to the order of la?cit? have begun to fear that Islam is strong enough to overthrow it. That is a problem for people of all non-Islamic religions. Devout Catholics have at times been shabbily treated under la?cit?, and many likely think the world it structures is arid and unspiritual. Yet in a country where the public square is dominated by la?cit?, Catholics are able to practice their faith unmolested. What guarantee do they have that they will be able to do so in a public square dominated by Islam?

Such questions show why this law, which looks illogical and off-the-point to foreigners, is nothing of the sort. France's problem is not some short-circuiting of individual freedom due to a faulty constitutional code--in fact, looking at the problem that way is what has led France to delay acting on the veil for 15 years. The problem is finding a way to deal with Islam while it is still, as condescending editorialists put it, the second religion of France, and before it becomes, more simply, the religion of France.

I spent the holidays deciding whether to run for the leadership of the federal Conservative party -- and decided to stick with my day job.

[. . . . ] 3. I believe Stephen Harper is the only viable leader for the new, merged party. He has experience, he has made no mistakes and he will fare better than anyone can imagine against the Liberals' current prime ministerial replacement. For starters, the combined entity should ensure success in the 30 ridings where vote-splitting cost Conservatives seats in the last election.

Stephen has done a soldierly job of shepherding his sometimes rancorous caucus; dealing with a mean-spirited press and putting aside himself and party for the greater good by agreeing to unite the two parties on the right. He's also a man of principle. Stephen's caucus had 63 seats, but made a deal with the withering PCs, with only 15 seats, that equally weights all ridings across the country for leadership voting purposes. This is principled and inclusive, but it means ridings with only dozens of members and no track record of electoral success would be as important in determining the outcome as would be Alberta or B.C. ridings with huge, and bedrock, support.

That's the type of integrity the Liberals, who stuff ballot boxes and ridings, have never tolerated.

[. . . . ] 5. I also know the media's job will be to find controversy, which means that if controversy doesn't exist they will speculate; take bogus leaks from unknown, partisan sources; and occasionally ambush to capture off-the-cuff quotes. When prodding doesn't work, they will pry and dig up quotes and comments from enemies, rivals and alienated relatives. If all else fails, they will shamelessly print dirt obtained from the other parties.

Alliance caucus leader Stephen Harper has named Michael Fortier, a former candidate for the Progressive Conservative leadership and long-time Tory activist, as one of the co-chairs of his leadership campaign.

Mr. Harper touted Mr. Fortier's ?deep PC roots, great business contacts across the country, and wealth of progressive, new ideas.? in a press release Thursday.

Society looks down on big, evil corporations that mine developing countries of their natural resources, pay their governments and citizens pennies in taxes and wages and make millions or billions in profits.

But Canada is allowing a similar practice to occur when it lets companies drill for oil and gas in the Atlantic provinces and keeps the tax dollars in Ottawa. Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams wants to change that, citing a memorandum of agreement between the federal government and Newfoundland called the Atlantic Accord.

The accord, signed in 1985, was meant to protect Newfoundland and Labrador's interests while allowing for offshore oil and gas exploration. Williams says the agreement provides legal justification for seeking 100 per cent of offshore oil and gas revenues - the vast majority of which now go to Ottawa.

[. . . . ] It seems counterintuitive that energy companies and Ottawa could get fat off the profits of such wells while the Atlantic provinces are struggling with increasing debts and joblessness rates.

CALGARY -- A native band is suing the federal and Alberta governments for $20-billion in a bid to recoup alleged natural resource losses and make existing deals -- worth countless more -- with oil and gas companies illegal.

The Stoney First Nation alleges in a 12-page lawsuit filed recently in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench that Ottawa and the province have deprived it of "substantial revenues" on a huge swath of "traditional lands" related to logging, mining and energy exploration.

The Stoney band, located about 30 minutes west of Calgary, wants the court to quash all provincial and federal government leases, permits, contracts and licences issued for natural resource extraction on land from the Montana border all the way up to an area just north of Edmonton.

The band, which seeks $10-billion from each level of government, said trust and fiduciary duties have been broken over the past 127 years.

[. . . . ] The Stoney First Nation was once one of the richest in Canada, collecting more than $50-million in revenue a year. But in 1999, a scathing report by an Alberta judge found corruption and deliberate diversion of money by a handful of its leaders, while finding that Ottawa turned a blind eye to the situation.

Ottawa ? In a conciliatory move toward native leaders, Prime Minister Paul Martin is scrapping an unpopular Liberal bill to change the Indian Act that sparked protests across the country.

Mr. Martin intends to chart a new course with aboriginals and not revive the proposed First Nations Governance Act, sources said.

The legislation "is dead," a source said yesterday. "It is clear now that governance is gone."

Former prime minister Jean Chretien brought in Bill C-7 in a bid to make the country's 633 native reserves more fiscally accountable. But critics said it had little public input and contravened natives' right to govern themselves. [without quality control, obviously -- NJC]

[. . . .] During his run for the Liberal leadership, Mr. Martin said the bill, introduced by former Indian Affairs minister Robert Nault, "poisoned" relations between Ottawa and aboriginals.

He symbolically signalled the shift at his swearing-in ceremony as the new Prime Minister last month by having a native elder perform a smudge ceremony, the first ever for an incoming prime minister. The ancient native ritual, done with an eagle feather and the smoke of burning sage, was performed at Rideau Hall as the Governor-General and Mr. Martin's new cabinet watched.

[. . . . ] Jim Bole, director of cereal research for Agriculture Canada, said the department will make no further investment in the crop it has developed with Monsanto since 1997. "There's still some testing going on that does involve our scientists, . . . but Ag. Canada is not contributing more funds toward it," he said in an interview from Winnipeg. "We're no longer developing Roundup Ready wheat with Monsanto."

Asked if the department's decision reflects concern about whether Canada's wheat customers would accept the new strain of wheat, Mr. Bole replied, "Yes, I think it does."

The contract between Agriculture Canada and Monsanto is confidential, but Mr. Bole said the company invested $1.3-million while the department invested $500,000. The department also gave the biotech giant access to state-of-the-art genetic material developed over many years of research.

Monsanto spokeswoman Trish Jordan played down the significance of the department's decision to end the collaboration, saying its purpose had been achieved and there was no reason to extend it.

Atlantic salmon from fish farms around the world is tainted with cancer-causing chemicals, especially salmon from European farms, but also to a lesser degree fish from Canada and the U.S., a new study says.

It's not safe to eat farmed salmon from any country more than once a month, according to authors of the study in the journal Science. A top Canadian fisheries official disputes this.

Cautious consumers reading the headlines in newspapers over the past couple of days might reasonably assume it is not safe to eat salmon.

The headlines, along with most of the television and radio stories about a major study into the accumulation of industrial pollutants in farmed and wild salmon, concentrated on the finding that farmed salmon have higher levels of PCBs than fish that grew up in the wild.

[. . . . ] The highest level of PCBs found in any of the farmed fish was only one-twentieth, or five per cent, of the level allowed by both the Canadian and U.S. authorities responsible for food safety.

The Vancouver Sun readers will recall, however, that the authors of the study concluded that people should sharply limit their consumption of farmed salmon, based on the same data set.

They did so because they chose to use the much more restrictive safety limits for PCBs in fish set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

[. . . . ] But it is instructive to note the most credible explanation for the gap between the EPA standards and the standards set by agencies responsible for food safety.

That explanation, from Science, the journal that published the study, is that the food agencies have to consider the trade-off between the health benefits from eating fish and the potential harm from the chemicals, while the EPA looks only at the potential harm.

OTTAWA -- Ethics counsellor Howard Wilson, who has exonerated many Liberal cabinet ministers of wrongdoing in the past 10 years, collected annual performance bonuses that could have ranged as high as $27,705 while serving former prime minister Jean Chr?tien.

A federal court was recently told that Wilson, whose salary range is $157,000 to $184,700, had received bonuses since taking the position in 1994. Like other federal executives, Wilson is eligible each year for up to 15 per cent of his annual pay in bonuses.

Of all the reasons to vault into the first Cabinet of Paul Martin being soft on terrorists shouldn't be one of them. Yet it is on the political resume of Tony Valeri, Canada's new Transport Minister.

[. . . . ] Last summer, the then-obscure Liberal MP for Stoney Creek, Ont., met with Muhammad Raad, the head of the "parliamentary caucus" of Hezbollah. The "Party of Allah" is a ruthless terrorist organization that the government Valeri belongs to had already outlawed. But Valeri shrugged off his critics.

Nor is he alone. Western politicians of a certain bent habitually whitewash their dealings with terrorist groups. Jean Chretien, the former prime minister, was similarly insouciant about appearing with Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's secretary-general and "spiritual head," at a Beirut conference in 2002.[. . . . ]

"These groups always have a mullah or an imam or someone they trot out," says Michael Ledeen, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. Ledeen argues this practice aims to create a veneer of legitimacy.

[. . . . ] Rather than being dazzled by these groups' token "good works," the pols ought to ponder which way the power really flows. Among legitimate political parties, non-governmental organizations and corporations, all functions are subordinate to central --and civilian -- control. Such entities may variously have a fundraising wing (or department), an operations wing, an administrative wing, a membership wing and many others, but there's no separate "political wing." The political function is not only at the centre, it forms the centre.

[. . . . ] A separate "political wing" suggests the group is structured for something other than politics. The Valeris of the world shouldn't be shocked to find an organization at heart dedicated to violence, which happens to have a few guys in suits (or robes).

[. . . . ] "The various branches of these groups feed off each other," says John Thompson, president of the Mackenzie Institute, a Toronto-based think-tank that studies terrorism. The civilian front can be subordinate to the terrorist core, as in the case of Hezbollah, or the two can be entwined, as with Sinn Fein-IRA.

[. . . . ] Valeri's new boss might do well to bone up on this lack of a distinction. Martin himself appeared at an event for a group that Canada's security service considers a front for the Tamil Tigers, an ultra-violent Sri Lankan secessionist movement that drew much of its financial support from Canadian sources.

[. . . ] "No country legally distinguishes between the fronts and the actual groups any longer," Thompson says. "The laws Canada passed following 9/11 make it as illegal to belong to a front organization or a fundraising arm as to the armed core."

Still, the Liberals added the "social and political wing" of Hezbollah to the government's list of banned organizations only after political pressure from the former Canadian Alliance party and legal action by B'nai Brith Canada.

[. . . . ] This is a rather long-winded way round to the story that growing numbers of Canadians are dissatisfied with CBC television.

Perhaps most Canadians hate the CBC; I don't. I hold it in contempt and watch it as little as possible. And I resent having to pay for it.

I agree with Link Byfield who wrote recently: " If private broadcasters answer to the advertisers, to whom does the CBC account? Not to the state. It is (quite properly) protected from political interference. And not to the public, for we are forced to pay for it whether we watch it or not. The answer is: to nobody. It is a sealed corporate culture, self-selecting, self-perpetuating, and accountable only to itself.

As a result, it is snotty, preachy, predictable, aloof and dull."

If there was one New Year's resolution that would encourage me, it would be a massive resolve to give up television.

Yes, I am guilty: I watch the Leafs and the news (particularly the 6 p.m. BBC news on Newsworld, an escape from the unctuous CBC), but I am prepared to give up even the Leafs if enough Canadians commit to the pledge: "Turn it off. Leave it off."

[. . . . ] In a poignant article called, "The Importance of Language" Dr. White now writes: "I have to make a public confession. I must retract what I said years ago. ... I'm taking 99.99% of it back. I suspect it is increased age and experience, but I'm here to say, 'Throw television out!' Better yet, take it out and shoot it! That way, no one else can pick it up and carry it off. The reason I am saying this is because I am beginning to understand the insidious nature of it. ... There are major changes occurring and the images that are flashed on the screen are doing work that is positively destructive ... touching the spiritual nature of man in a way that I can only call demonic."

Dr. White's point is not just that the content of television is depraved (though much of it is); his point is also that watching television destroys the ability to read, think, and comprehend.

A book requires exposition, plot, development, resolution -- but not television. Dr. White tells of a colleague who tried to teach David Copperfield to a Grade 9 high school class. "Students couldn't remember who the characters were or lock on to a sequence of events. They say: 'Nobody's blown up. Nothing's happening. This is boring.' And of course the vocabulary of the great books is now beyond them."

So, there it is -- a New Year's resolution. Watch less. Read more.

Lawyers for Air Canada have criticized attempts by a group of bondholders to question a number of witnesses -- including the airline's chief financial officer and a representative for the Hong Kong businessman -- as an attempt to needlessly drag out the insolvent company's restructuring.

The questioning, to be done by the debtholders' lawyer, is an attempt to obtain evidence prior to an Ontario court hearing on Tuesday to seek approval of Victor Li's amended deal to be equity partner with chairman Robert Milton's Air Canada.

"The steps you propose appear intended to [delay matters] through adjournments and dilatory examinations," David Byers, an Air Canada lawyer, said in a letter to Aubrey Kauffman, who is representing bondholders.

"Delay may serve your clients' objectives, but does not serve the stakeholders of Air Canada as a whole."

[. . . . ] Mr. Kauffman also wants to question representatives from Seabury Securities, the airline's financial advisor; Cerberus Capital Management, the Wall Street hedge fund that lost out to Mr. Li; and GE Capital Aviation Services, the airline's largest plane lessor that has arranged US$1.5-billion of financing for Air Canada.

But a lawyer for Mr. Li's Trinity Time Investments has rejected Mr. Kauffman's request.

[. . . . ] Meanwhile, lawyers for the airline's unsecured creditors committee want to take part in any cross-examination of witnesses, saying they have questions of their own.

Trinity will pay $650-million for a 31% stake in Air Canada, but amendments to his deal provide for more shares to be acquired by unsecured creditors. A rival offer from Cerberus won the support from some bondholders because they believed it would give them a better chance to recover their debt through holding more Air Canada shares.

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A couple was charged Friday with agreeing to circumcise two young girls in what is believed to be among the first cases filed under a federal law banning female genital mutilation.

Todd Cameron Bertrang, 41, and Robin Faulkinbury, 24, were arrested at their Canyon Country home after an FBI agent posing as a father of an 8-year-old and a 12-year-old contacted Bertrang via e-mail, then met with him to discuss the procedure.

[. . . . ] Female circumcision, which may involve the removal of the clitoris or all the external genitalia, is a traditional procedure in some African cultures but has been condemned by the United Nations.

Goodale Continues Liberal Tradition of Low-Balling Surplus -- Canadians to be Denied Tax Relief for Year End Spending Spree but there is sure to be lots of cash for pre-election spending.

Ottawa - Opposition Finance Critic Monte Solberg seized on Finance Minister Ralph Goodale?s recent comments . . . claiming the cupboards are bare. "There is never enough money to cut taxes but it seems there is always plenty to fund useless programs and pet projects like the gun registry," stated Solberg.

Solberg argued that a more realistic surplus for this year would be around $7.8 billion. This government also hiked direct program spending by 40% and continues to waste money on initiatives such as corporate welfare, regional development, and subsidies delivered by departments such as Canadian Heritage. "Mr. Goodale would like to dampen expectations for the hard-pressed Canadian middle class but it's a sure bet he will have lots of cash for a year end pre-election spending spree," continued Solberg.

The Liberal shameful fiscal legacy remains the HRDC boondoggle, the corrupt sponsorship program, and the useless and expensive firearms registry. The poor management of Canada?s economy by the Chretien-Martin government has pushed Canada?s global competitiveness below economic luminaries such as Ireland, Finland, Iceland, and the Netherlands. Our standard of living reflects this high tax, high spending, and high debt levels.

"We still have some of the highest personal income tax rates in the G7. Canada can do much better and it seems this Liberal government prefers to finance wasteful projects and bribe Canadians with their own money rather than refund taxpayers their overpayment of taxes through deep, substantive, across the board tax relief." concluded Solberg.