Thumbs Up For Julie Burchill

Julie Burchill has a wonderful piece in the Sunday Times about her recent first trip to Israel. It is a must read for both those who support Israel and those who do not. For those who support Israel, because you will realize you do not stand alone. For those who do not, because you will hopefully realize what your prejudices and hatred are causing you to miss.

The French

Someone sent me several witticisms concerning France. Among them were two quotations from Mark Twain:

"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country.

France has usually been governed by prostitutes."

The reason I bring it up is because I read that according to AFP the Israeli Ambassador, Nissim Zvili, has written letters to the Municipality of Clamart, to the state prosecutor’s office and to Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin. He requested that the Arafat death certificate be corrected to show his place of birth as Egypt and not Jerusalem.

One may say who cares where he was born, as long as he is dead. Nonetheless it should be corrected because of the symbolic implications. All biographers agree that his place of birth was Cairo, but the French base their revision on the fact that when his daughter was born the forms included his self-serving assertion that he was born in Jerusalem.

Records of births and deaths are the purview of the French Interior Minister, Dominique de Villepin. Does the name sound familiar? It should. In his previous incarnation he was the French Foreign Minister. You remember the fellow who flew around the world in less than 80 days to try and persuade all and sundry not to support the US and its coalition partners’ plans with respect Iraq. But as Norman Scwartzkopf aptly pointed out: "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."

And so Dominique stopped traveling and became Interior Minister. What is it the French say: plus ca change, plus ca la meme chose. Or to paraphrase: whatever the office, the man is the same.

I think it was Regis Philbin who quipped, "the only time the French want us to go to war is when the Germans are sitting in Paris drinking coffee." But that is not quite accurate. When France’s former colonies are concerned, and without UN approbation, they are quite prepared to go in shooting. Remember the Ivory Coast, which is only the latest example.

Yes, Mark Twain was right.

Canadian Government Bureaucracy

I have had a Canadian passport since the mid-50s. Generally, every five years I get my photo taken, arrange for the guarantor, fill up the form and line up with the other sheep to get the latest edition of the travel document. I believe originally I paid five or ten dollars. Today, if you want it sent by mail, it costs $85.00 However, should you wish to pick it up in person it costs $95.00. (As the late Jack E Leonard used to say: "I just tell 'em, I don't explain 'em".)

Off my wife and I went to the local Passport office. We were directed to a small room where you show your documentation and are assigned a number. We waited patiently, and when our turn arrived presented our documents. I was asked for my birth certificate and handed it over only to be told that since it was a Quebec certificate issued in 1984 it was not recognized. I would need one issued after January of 1994.

My 1999 passport had been issued on the strength of that birth certificate, as borne out by the expiring passport which I also produced. I was no less me that day than I was in 1999, and born in the same place and of the same parents as was the case in 1999. Thus I found it rather strange if not illogical that a valid birth certificate would cease to be a valid certificate because of its date of issue.

I asked to be advised of the statute or regulation that suddenly rendered me a non-person at which point I was issued with a number and told to ask for a supervisor.

Off we went to the next chamber, and waited for our numbers to be called (or rather flashed on a sign, to be more precise). Some forty minutes later the magic moment arrived. My wife, whose number was one ahead of mine, went off to her station and I to mine.

Again I asked basically the same questions and was told to take it up with the government of Quebec. Since I was applying for a Canadian passport, and so far as I was aware Quebec did not have the power to issue passports, that line of reasoning was beyond me. In response to my query about the statute or regulation that was applicable I was told to submit a request under the Freedom of Information Act. When I pointed out how ludicrous that was, I was informed, soto voce, that it was not a statute or regulation, but rather a departmental "policy decision".

So there I was, on the far side of sixty, and my government will not acknowledge that I was born in the manner and to the parents that they have always acknowledged in the past. Are they saying that my nine previous passports, which they issued, were based on a lie? Or are they saying that while I may have existed in the past, my existence is now in question because of a "policy decision" that was made pursuant to something that I must determine by applying under the Freedom of Information Act?

The real problem is even if I apply, how can they respond to someone who apparently does not exist because his birth certificate was issued in the wrong year?

Since I am quoting comedians today, it was Red Buttons who used to say: "Strange things are happening."

The Meaning of Democracy

To paraphrase the late Winston Churchill: Democracy is the worst form of government ever devised, save for all the others. Certainly it has its drawbacks, but it is a fair measure of the will of the preponderance of the population.

As a Canadian, I trust I will be forgiven my lack of comprehension of the American left, who, ironically, are generally referred to as Democrats. It seems that many of them would like to leave their country now that George W. has been reelected. This after he was elected with a majority in excess of 51%. That is true chutzpah. By the way Bubba never even came close to a majority. I believe the best he got was 48%.

Clearly those who are proposing to vote a second time, with their feet, are not serious. It is like Alex Baldwin's threat during the 2000 election, but so far as I am aware he is still in the US. Or again, Robert Redford saying he would move to Ireland if Dubya was reelected. It seems he too is staying put. But should he actually go through with it, Ireland's loss would be America's gain.

Will the liberals never grow up? They behave like children who, if they do not win the game, take their ball and go home.

The fact is the majority of Americans voted for George Bush. Unless my understanding is wholly deficient, that is an end to the matter. The country comes together and works for the greater good of the nation as a whole. To do otherwise is an invitation to anarchy.

The British parliamentary system has a quaint name for the losing side. It is referred to as the 'loyal opposition'. Loyal not to the winning side, but to the nation. It seems to me, an admitted outsider, that if the Democrats are ever to come back (albeit, from my perspective it would be no great loss if they did not) they will have to come to terms with this concept.

To paraphrase Churchill yet again: If they open a quarrel between the past and the present, they will find that they have lost the future.