Brazilian football god Ronaldo got himself into a sticky situation on Monday night.

The xenophobia that has become a dominant feature of Italian politics lately, helped pave the way for Gianni Alemanno's mayoral victory in Rome.

Alemanno, who served as agriculture minister in Berlusconi's last government, will be a mayor-with-a-mission. He has vowed to get tough on immigration. His "Pact for Rome" includes the following: “Immediately activate procedures for the expulsion of 20,000 nomads and immigrants who have broken the law in Rome.”

Fittingly for a one-time neo-fascist whose cosmetic adjustment to the mainstream was mainly about political convenience, Alemanno's office is located close to Piazza Venezia. This is the famed piazza where Il Duce, Benito Mussolini, strutted and ranted mere decades ago.

Xenophobia is alive and well in Italy. The Northern League has been successful in riding an anti-immigrant ticket since the entry of Romania and Bulgaria into the EU. In the general election it increased its share of the vote by 8%.

The anti-immigrant aspect of the League's platform shouldn't be underestimated. Northern League mayor of Cittadella, Massimo Bitonci, passed an ordinance banning the poor, the homeless and the unemployed from living in his town. Terms such as "the homeless" are also euphemisms for immigrants. A leading campaign promoter for the League, Roberto Calderoli, is famous for tearing open his shirt and displaying a T-shirt bearing one of the notorious Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

The anti-immigrant backlash has been a cushion under the rising fortunes of Gianni Alemanno. He was aided by a murder that made headlines throughout Italy. In 2007, an Italian housewife named Giovanna Reggiani, was sexually assaulted and beaten to death by a Romanian man as she was making her way home along a little used road. The crime led to a public outcry. Squatter camps were demolished across Rome, and a draconian "decree law" was passed authorizing the expulsion without trial of EU citizens deemed a threat to public security. The law has proved to to be tricky to implement, and now Alemanno has been elected with a mandate to carry out what the Romando Prodi government threatened.

Extremist rhetoric is becoming more commonplace in Italy. Giorgio Bettio, a counsellor from Treviso, went so far as to propose in the council chamber that if immigrants commit a crime against an Italian, ten immigrants should be punished for it. This was a notorious method of punishment used in Nazi concentration camps. His remarks were condemned by his colleagues, but Bettio claims people stop him in the street to thank him for speaking out.

Gianni Alemanno is no stranger to rhetoric of this sort. In his youth he was a member of a neo-fascist party. He was arrested on a number of occasions. Once for beating up a leftist, and at a later date for throwing a molotov cocktail. He was also arrested for attacking police during a visit by President Bush Sr.

In 1995 Alemanno and associates attempted a makeover. The National Alliance was formed from the Italian Social Movement, the ex neo-fascist party, and from conservative elements of the former Christian Democracy in an effort to play to the middle-of-the-road voter. Alemanno has altered his image from the neo-fascist tough to a skillful politician known for his ability in the legislative arena. Some of his supporters though haven't left fascist politics out of the new mix. After Alemanno's victory a number of them celebrated on the steps of the Campidoglio city hall with "saluti Romano" - the stiff arm salute used during the Mussoloni era. In the past Alemanno referred to Mussolini as one of his heroes.

Supporters of Alemanno who want to play down his fascist associations, point to his love of organic food and zen meditation as a sign presumably of his "alternative" side. He won't be the first fascist with surprising personal tastes. Hitler was a fanatical vegetarian, and many fascist leaders have been known to have a keen interest in the esoteric aspects of life, including the darker side of the occult.

After his win Alemanno said: "I will be the mayor of all Romans: for those who voted for me, and those who didn't ... We won't get dragged into the past when we're heading toward the future."

It remains to be seen.

"The great masses of the people…will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one." (Adolf Hitler)

R.T. Naylor, is an economics professor at McGill. His book Satanic Purses: Money, Myth and Misinformation in the War on Terror was published in 2006. This is an important book. It hasn't had as much exposure stateside as it deserves, due in part to prevailing media thinking that buys into the official War on Terror line.

Naylor draws on his extensive knowledge of international black markets, money laundering, terrorist financing and smuggling to challenge the Bush administration's global-fantasy-network of terrorists and financiers, all allegedly weaving a diabolical scheme to bring the West to its knees.

"Satanic Purses" presents a convincing argument that far from there being a monolithic terror organization of the Al Qaeda variety, in fact terrorist attacks are most often locally initiated and financed. The common driving force behind these acts is poverty, alienation, a sense of oppression and powerlessness.

There are lots of people in the world willing to do awful things but there's no financial connection that links extremists together — the only thing that binds them is a sense of injustice and commitment. (R.T. Naylor)

Messages and images in the media re-enforce the idea of a global terror network. A favorite of channels like Fox News is the dated video from Afghanistan of mujahideen in-training. This video has been played and replayed for years. It conveys the impression that the West is facing a coordinated and financed enemy with global reach. This is a neo-con fantasy and it serves their interests in a number of ways. Propaganda of this type justifies the build-up of the military. It justifies the existence of a huge arms industry. It validates the activities of so-called military contractors. It also justifies the increasingly intrusive domestic crackdown, that has led to erosion of privacy rights and due process.

Naylor describes the Al Qaeda legend as "one of the most useful political fantasies in history." Local groups operating around the world are given the "Al Qaeda" brand name as part of the propaganda effort. Disparate groups with no link to each other at all are presented as interconnected pieces in a global terror puzzle.

Acts of terror, far from being funded by a web of sinister financiers, are most often carried out with local funding. The 1993 World Trade Center attack cost only around 400 bucks to organize and execute. Even 9/11 cost less to implement than many believe.

The terror war and the propaganda that accompanies it is in large part smoke and mirrors. The significance of players engaged in localized resistance is often exaggerated in an effort to make a connection with bin Laden and his alleged affiliates.

Next time you watch Fox news, keep in mind the title of the Public Enemy tune - "Don't Believe the Hype."

Barack Obama is clearly the Democratic candidate of choice. On paper he is unbeatable. There is no way he can lose the pledged delegate lead, short of imploding.

Hillary Clinton claims she is more electable. If the superdelegates were to hand her the nomination despite being behind on the pledged delegate count, it would fracture the party and might very well pave the way for a McCain victory - a victory that would be aided by the many Obama supporters who would almost certainly sit out the vote as a form of protest.

Clinton's quixotic candidacy is being driven by ego, hubris and an inappropriate conviction of entitlement. Narcissism touches everything she does - all the way from her carefully choreographed cosmetic image to stories she has been spinning that don't stand up under scrutiny - the Bosnia "under fire" fiction being the most recent example. There seems to be no limit to what she is prepared to say and do if it looks as though it might enhance her image in the eyes of the voting public. Despite claiming to be opposed to the "politics of personal destruction" she has become one of its chief exponents.

Recently in an attempt to look tougher than her opponent, Clinton made a statement on ABC-TV that demonstrates her willingness to talk like uber-Bush on steroids. She said she would "totally obliterate" Iran if it ever attempted an attack on Israel. What kind of insane talk is that? The term "obliterate" in this context adds up to genocide. The attacks on the Kurds by Saddam pales beside a proposed atrocity of this dimension.

In a recent article "End It Now", superdelegate James Zogby had the courage to say what many are thinking:

... Given the behavior of the Clinton campaign to date, and the expectation this behavior will continue, I believe that prolonging this agony will only create deeper division. For this reason, it should end now. My fellow superdelegates should wait no longer. As party leaders, we are uniquely positioned, and have the responsibility, to speak out. Indecision only serves to enable bad behavior. It is time for us to either demand that the behavior change, or act to end this now.

The Catholic Church has made it easier to manufacture saints in a timely and efficient manner. Now new-saints-in-the-making are fast tracked as a result of more efficient guidelines for assessing the saintlike attributes of proposed candidates. At one time the Church charged a so-called Devil's Advocate with digging for dirt on prospective saints, but that office has since been abolished.

You have to wonder what type of criteria the Church uses to gauge "saintliness" when you consider that there has been a movement to push for the canonization of Girolamo Savonarola. Exactly what is saintly about about a 15th century fanatic with apocalyptic fantasies who orchestrated the burning of books and art is difficult to fathom. Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer, the founder of Opus Dei, was also given the papal nod despite being a well known fascist sympathizer and anti-Semite.

So it should come as no surprise that a few years ago the Church saw fit to canonize Padre Pio, a pious fraud who wore fingerless gloves to cover up what he claimed were stigmata - alleged supernatural wounds that mimicked the wounds of Christ. Except in Pio's case the evidence suggests that the "supernatural agent" was carbolic acid - administered secretly to keep his wounds weeping.

We know about Pio's acid habit thanks to research by Italian historian, Sergio Luzzatto, who managed to unearth damning documents. A letter in Pio's hand asked a female acquaintance to obtain carbolic acid 'in strict secrecy' from a pharmacist.

The canonization of Padre Pio seems more of a concession to his cult-like appeal than to higher considerations of saintliness, because two successive popes viewed the friar as a hoaxer. In fact reports commissioned by the Church on Pio's activities claimed that he had regular sex with women, sometimes in the confessional or in his cell, and that he scourged himself with a metal tipped whip.

Sado-masochistic inclinations might explain the fascination with stigmata. Pio had a history of self-flagellation that went back to his youth. When he entered the monastery of San Giovanni Rotondo at age 31, there were reports that he would awaken from sleep covered in blood.

The recent exhumation of Pio's corpse has become a grotesque religious carnival. Evidence of his charlatan-like behavior tends to get overlooked when the Church sees a huge PR opportunity. Some 800,000 pilgrims have booked to view the saint's corpse before Christmas.

The case against Macleans has been dismissed by Canada's Human Rights Commissions. The magazine featured an excerpt from Mark Steyn's book, "America Alone" that caused a bit of an outcry. The Canadian Islamic Congress, at least those speaking in its name, took the view that the Steyn piece was "flagrantly Islamophobic."

I can see where the complainants are coming from however, while their impulse to evoke human rights is understandable, I would have stayed their hand. Steyn mines the fears and prejudices that haunt the American psyche and supplies a narrative that I have argued reflects bigotry, prejudice and pessimism in respect to Islam ... but then half of America thinks the same way.

Some of the racist comments attributed to Steyn aren't actually his own. He's too chicken to say it without parenthesis when it comes to the risky stuff. He borrows, plays semantic games. He makes use of others' comments as cover, just so if he's ever accused of racism, he can claim he never actually said that. The "breeding like mosquitoes" reference to Muslims, sometimes attributed directly to Steyn, originally came from a Norwegian imam named Mullah Krekar.

Rex Murphy, whose neo-Dickensian prose style should be edited by half, went on in a March column about the foolishness of making the Macleans business into a human rights issue. He praised human rights initiatives when addressing the excesses of the Nazis, "the horrors of totalitarianism" etc - nothing like hammering home the obvious. He also seemed to be placing Macleans magazine on a pedestal, leaving the impression he might have a few unstated ambitions of his own, and so not entirely an impartial ref.

In speaking of what he views as overkill in the Macleans' case, Murphy poses the rhetorical question ... "someone or some group been hauled off to a gulag?" Steyn isn't writing for or about Canadians, so maybe Murphy needed to widen his scope a little. Steyn is writing primarily to an American audience, and yes many Muslims have indeed been dragged off to "gulags" around the globe, otherwise known as CIA detention centers.

Steyn was a cheerleader for the war in Iraq, a country invaded on the back of a pack of lies and turned into a virtual slaughterhouse. No human rights bleats from Murphy on any of that, despite Steyn's clear allegiances.

Murphy dismisses as no-human-rights-concern-of-any-sort, articles in a magazine that might "tick you off". Tick you off? Just that?

Okay then, by way of comparison, let's take a hypothetical Muslim journalist who writes a regular column that presents Jews as Zionist conspirators burdened with a horribly archaic and comical religion. The writer views Israel the way some neo-cons view Mecca, as the heart of darkness. His writing is larded with anti-Semitic jokes and snide put-downs. He has a well established international reputation as a Jew baiter, albeit a clever and witty one, never short of all sorts of engaging theories about the threat posed by the Jews. Let's face it, this isn't some 'out there' point-of-view, a good portion of the global reading audience would have sympathy for such a thesis.

Does anyone believe that a Muslim journalist writing in this vein, even in an ironical, tongue-in-cheek fashion, would get so much as a foot in the door of a newspaper in Canada, let alone star treatment from Macleans editors, dead keen to publish a chapter from his new best seller? And does anyone believe that if he got his excerpt published in Macleans, there wouldn't be screams of anti-Semitism and threats of lawsuits coming from elements in the Canadian Jewish establishment?

If you want to argue that our hypothetical Muslim writer would merely "tick off" a few people with his writing, but hey no big deal ... please do some mushrooms before going there. A Muslim writer doing "a Steyn" would be ritually crucified as an anti-Semitic hate monger and reviled from coast-to-coast in the mainstream media, most especially if he cast doubt upon conventional wisdom governing the Holocaust.

It's a rigged game - a double standard. We all know what the 'order of things' is in Canada. We all know the hypocritical cultural vantage point from whence the Murphys of this world wax noble. None of this should surprise anybody.

Meanwhile Steyn should be encouraged to write more, and poach less - his review of the Da Vinci code allegedly being a case in point. He should also be encouraged to avoid recycling old stuff. A lot of us would like to see that hole get a whole lot deeper with lots more original material.

Jerusalem's Church of the Holy Sepulcher turned into the equivalent of a pub free-for-all recently, with Greek and Armenian worshipers trading punches. Israeli police waded in to try and break up the warring factions.

The fracas was set off when Armenian worshipers took it upon themselves to throw a Greek Orthodox priest out of the church. Palm fronds, traditionally used to celebrate the return of Jesus to the Holy City before he was crucified, were employed as weapons to beat the police officers.

The Church of the Holy Sepulcher is shared by various branches of Christianity, each of which jealously guards its turf. Two Muslim families and their predecessors have long served as 'keepers of the gates' ... kind of like a neutral ref in a tense stand-off between competing factions.

It is ironic in the extreme that followers of "the Prince of Peace" got into a punch-up on the very site where many Christians believe Jesus was crucified and buried.

Israeli police offered no comment on the escapade.

The Israeli activist organization Shovrim Shtika (Breaking the Silence), has published 39 testimonies from Israelis who served in the army. This is disturbing stuff. One soldier who was based in Hebron is candid about the type of criminal behavior that had virtually become normalized.

He speaks of incidents in which Palestinian drivers were pulled over, windows smashed and the occupants beaten. He is candid about a theft of tobacco from a Palestinian shopkeeper who was beaten "to a pulp" for objecting. In another incident he refers to stun grenades being tossed through the windows of mosques while people prayed.

According to another testimony, Israeli soldiers have been known to engage in gratuitous thuggery. A soldier from the Kfir Brigade speaks of being with groups of soldiers "many times" when Palestinian taxis were hijacked. The drivers were forced to sit in the back and provide information about places where the inhabitants have a hate on for Jews. They would then go there and "make a balagan" - Hebrew for a big mess.

Iftach Arbel served as a commander in Hebron. He claims that the Jewish settlers in Hebron are "pure evil". He describes how they raise their children to throw stones at Arabs, attack Arab homes and even loot possessions. In his opinion the only solution is to "remove the settlers."

Up until fairly recently the Catholic Church undertook a type of faith-based welfare in Ireland. It ran schools, children's homes and orphanages. In addition to brain washing the children in its care, the decades of Catholic control has resulted in a catalog of crime as victims of sexual abuse and other violations come forward with the truth of what they had to endure.

In 2002, the Church paid 128 million in cash and property to the State, but the total is more likely to be between 1 billion and 1.3 billion euros. Prior to the 2005 deadline, a staggering 14,500 applications were made by individuals for sexual, emotional and physical abuse.

Despite his claim to be "ashamed" of the crimes committed against children, Benedict hasn't lifted a finger to discipline any of the bishops tainted by the scandal. Moreover as a BBC documentary makes clear, there is reason to believe he was instrumental in creating the climate of secrecy that enabled offending priests to fly beneath the radar.

The long shadow cast by the Church in Ireland has left wounds that will never be healed. There was talk of bankruptcy in the Irish church prior to the 128 million pay-out. Frankly, they should lock their own doors and toss away the key. They have betrayed their mission, and in the process have destroyed the lives of untold numbers of individuals in their care.

Pope Benedict, who says he is "ashamed' of the child abuse scandal that has damaged the American church, managed to set his personal afflictions aside as he was welcomed with White House pomp and ceremony. At his side, George W. Bush, a president who unleashed a maelstrom of death and destruction upon the people of Iraq based on a pack of lies.

The pope's claim that he is "ashamed" of pedophile priests, overlooks the key role he played in enabling their activities. In 2001, then Cardinal Ratzinger, issued a secret Vatican edict, an updated version of "Crimen Sollicitationis" that made clear to bishops that the interests of the Church were to be safeguarded first and foremost. A key element in the document was secrecy. Church leaders were encouraged to obtain information from complainants, the accused and witnesses, but to refrain from reporting to the police. Some in the Church have interpreted the call for secrecy as an attempt to cover up scandalous conduct.

The BBC documentary, Sex Crimes and the Vatican, claims that Ratzinger enforced the document for 20 years. Father Tom Doyle, a canon lawyer (since relieved of his duties) has been highly critical of the Vatican's handling of abuse cases. Doyle is adamant that the document was a written policy to cover up sexual abuse:

What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen. When abusive priests are discovered, the response has been not to investigate and prosecute but to move them from one place to another. So there's total disregard for the victims and for the fact that you are going to have a whole new crop of victims in the next place. This is happening all over the world.

The pope hasn't disciplined or demoted any US bishop tainted by the scandal. Moreover, in the diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, Fabian Bruskewitz remains the only bishop in the US who refuses to comply with the annual sexual abuse audits. He also refuses to implement points in the National Charter. Bruskewitz is a reactionary holdout who not only hasn't been disciplined by the pope, but hasn't even been required to put these needed protective measures in place. This says a great deal about the contradictions that lie behind the pope's show of contrition.

A different type of hypocrisy can be seen in the Pope's dealings with Islam. Despite claims that he seeks to reach out to Islam, in 2006, in the German city of Regensburg, Benedict chose to quote from a 14th century Byzantine emperor. The quotation is a flagrant provocation: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith."

It's hard to imagine that the pope could be so naive that he failed to recognize the insult contained in these words. His claim that he was simply seeking to demonstrate that dialogue with Islam is never easy is hard to take at face value. Why on earth would you choose such an obviously provocative passage in order to make that point?

When the Muslim world reacted with anger Benedict began to back peddle. Despite his claim that he wants to reach out to Muslims in the spirit of goodwill he has continued to undercut his words with provocative actions that set back his agenda. He hopes for example to have more churches constructed in Muslim countries in the Middle East in order to meet the needs of Christians living in those countries. Giving the symbolic finger to the Muslim world doesn't help with such initiatives.

Recently the pope staged what can only be described as a politicized "show baptism" of the Egyptian born journalist, Magdi Allam. This conversion was so provocative that the pan-Arab newspaper Asharq-al-Awsat likened the baptismal water to "gasoline on the fire" of cultures. Allam is somewhat like a male version of Oriana Fallaci, given to inflammatory warnings about the nefarious influence of Islam in Europe. He is the author of a book entitled "Long Live Israel."

Along similar lines as the feigned naivety Benedict assumed after the Regensburg misstep, some Vatican insiders have been putting about the unlikely story that the pope wasn't aware who he was baptizing.

Joseph Ratzinger is oddly devious. He has a reactionary view of the role of the Church and incubates negative attitudes toward Islam, and yet he puts on a show in an effort to disguise his obvious prejudices. How can Muslims trust a Christian leader who conducts himself in this fashion, let alone dialogue with him in a spirit of open accord?

After the Regensburg speech 138 Islamic scholars of liberal persuasion wrote a letter to the pope. Recently a small group of Islamic scholars arrived at Rome airport, in order to attend a Catholic-Muslim forum. They waited for transportation, but eventually gave up and made their own arrangements to get to the Vatican. This may seem like a small incident, but it speaks volumes. If the pope was seriously interested in opening avenues of goodwill and communication, surely it would have been a small matter to ensure that his guests weren't left idling in an airport lounge.

Behind the high sounding words and sentiments expressed by pope Benedict, what is lacking most all is genuine transparency, especially when it comes to the child sex abuse scandal.

Brigitte Bardot's unconditional compassion for animals doesn't extend to fellow humans, especially if they happen to be Muslim. Bardot has taken on a second career of sorts as a celebrity defendant. She recently went on trial for the fifth time in France for insulting Muslims. The prosecutor in the case, Anne de Fontette, is asking for a tougher sentence, adding "I am a little tired of prosecuting Ms Bardot."

The one-time sex kitten is married to Bernard D'Ormale, an associate of right wing demagogue Jean-Marie Le Pen who heads up the National Front.

Bardot's hysterical excesses when describing the influence of Islam on French society knows no bounds. It's unclear if she reads Mark Steyn, but she seems to be infected with a similar virus, at various times describing Muslims as barbaric, cruel etc and out to exterminate the French.

In 1998 Bardot was convicted of inciting racial hatred following comments she made about civilian massacres in Algeria. Some time later the Human Rights League and the Movement Against Racism sued her for racial discrimination and promoting racial hatred.

This time around the charge is once again 'insulting Muslims' and 'inciting racial hatred'. French anti-racist groups had a problem with remarks Bardot made about the Muslim feast of Eid-al-Adha.

Bardot has claimed that France is being invaded by 'sheep slaughtering Muslims' - she announced that she is "fed up with being under the thumb of this population which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its acts." A statement derived more from perception than reality.

Even though France is host to the largest Muslim population in Europe, it's hard to understand how a mere 8% of the French population could be responsible for Bardot's angst. The greater truth is that she has little or no comprehension of the day-to-day lives of French Muslims and listens too much to the anti-immigrant talk common in right wing circles. She herself has said that her right-wing husband never shuts up about politics.

It's sad to see the decline of a former icon of French cinema - once the model for the French Marianne - into this hate-filled figure. On occasion Bardot has had teary moments in which she appears to have regrets. One such moment occurred in court when she tearfully claimed that she never "knowingly wanted to hurt anybody."

She offered the following insight as a way of explaining her reactionary tendencies:

I was born in 1934, at that time inter-racial marriage wasn't approved of. There are many new languages in the new Europe. Mediocrity is taking over from beauty and splendour. There are many people who are filthy, badly dressed and badly shaven.

During an appearance on the US cable news channel MSNBC, Christopher Hitchens traded a few barbs with Andrew Sullivan on the topic of Obama and religion.

Sullivan is gay. At one point Hitchens tossed out a remark, apparently aimed at Sullivan's sexuality.

SULLIVAN: Two things. One, it's important to clear up that he [Wright] did not say "The Jews are going to get you" in some conspiratorial, classic anti-Semitic fashion. I think that's just —

HITCHENS: He [Wright] thinks only Jews are going to object to [Rev. Louis] Farrakhan and [Libyan leader Moammar] Gadhafi. Excuse me?

SULLIVAN: No, he didn't say "only."

HITCHENS: No, but —

SULLIVAN: Again, you keep playing with that quote. We're happy to have it on the record. And now you've made me forget my second point, which is —

HITCHENS: Oh, well, don't be such a lesbian. Get on with it.

Clearly a cheap shot - the type of goading remark that gets yelled from the back of the school bus. Some have argued that it's evidence of homophobia, but it was basically a snarky response of the off-hand variety, the type of comment Hitchens throws out when he's lubricated. He feels a need to keep up the bad boy image.

In an email to the UK paper The Independent, the sender, allegedly Hitchens (the paper refers to the sender as "the commentator"), offered this rationale:

"Don't know what came over me: the dear boy did suddenly seem extremely sapphic, yet I think my intuitions must have been scrambled all the same, since what I was actually thinking was: 'Andrew really wants to have Barack Obama's fucking child'. Clearly some confusion of categories on my part."

During the show, Sullivan gave no appearance of being insulted. Nor did he bring up Hitchens' remark when commenting on the MSNBC show at a later point. However it is part of a pattern we've been seeing with Hitchens, who is rapidly becoming a parody of his former self.

He can still put in a decent showing from time to time when going to bat for atheism, but the contrarian positions have become tediously predictable, as has the bad boy act. Hitch most of all risks becoming an aging parody of his former more engaging self.

In response to the recent Israeli incursions in Gaza, thirty three member countries in the 47-seat UN Human Rights Council endorsed a resolution that accused Israel of war crimes in Gaza. Nations that favored censuring Israel included China, India and Russia. Thirteen nations abstained.

Despite the overwhelming military force used in Gaza that resulted in 120 deaths, including children and non-combatants, one nation stood out against condemnation of Israel - and that nation was Canada.

The Canadian position has at times been even more unabashedly pro-Israel than the United States. Condoleezza Rice condemned continued housing construction in East Jerusalem on land annexed in 1967. By contrast, Canadian Foreign Affairs minister, Maxime Bernier, refused to condemn Israeli settlement activity in East Jerusalem.

The pro-Israel bias of the Canadian government, and the pro-Israel cheerleading of the Canadian Jewish Congress and Canada-Israel Committee has run up against a reality check in the form of the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians. The Alliance was set up by a woman named Diana Ralph and has the support of the well known Canadian author, Naomi Klein.

This isn't the first time Diana Ralph has spoken out against injustices directed at Muslims. Her father was a lawyer at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal in the aftermath of WW2 and she sees a troubling parallel between the targeting of Jews in Germany and the post-9/11 detentions of Muslims in Canada, the UK, US and Guantanamo Bay.

"My father taught me that we all have an obligation to protect justice and human rights ... I won't allow my country to betray its democratic character."

Ms Ralph believes that Israel should withdraw from the occupied territories, and that Palestinians who lost homes in the last 60 years should have the right to reclaim them. She takes the position that human rights are universal, and that no pass should be handed to Israel in its treatment of the Palestinians. She cites the situation in the West Bank and Gaza, where there have been critical shortages of water, food and medicine, and contends that turning a blind eye to "despicable acts" on the part of Israel, simply fuels anti-Semitism.

The alliance has adopted a set of founding principles, as follows:

• Human rights are universal and indivisible and should be upheld without exception. This is as applicable in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories as it is elsewhere.

• Palestinians and Israelis alike have the right to peaceful and secure lives.

• Peace and stability require the willingness of all parties in the conflict to comply with international law.

• There is no justification for any form of racism, including anti-Semitism, anti-Arab racism or Islamophobia, in any circumstance.

• The battle against anti-Semitism is vital, and it is undermined whenever opposition to Israeli government policies is automatically branded as anti-Semitic.

The recent appearance of General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker at the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committee, provided little in the way of new information. There were few surprises. The questions posed by the panel weren't very challenging, and the replies were vague at best with Petraeus at one point referring in abstract terms to the "geometry of the battlefield" and the "calculus" of diplomacy and politics. His reassurances rang hollow, because his measure of progress is suspect.

Petraeus' assertion that the Maliki government is in the business of cracking down on outlaw elements in order to unify Iraq under the rule of law is misleading. The divisions in Iraq are in fact deeper than they have ever been. Maliki is all about bolstering his sectarian power base. To present Maliki as national unity champ pushes the bounds of credulity.

Petraeus keeps pointing to the downturn in levels of violence, without speaking about the strategies that have gone into achieving this. The Americans are basically paying former Sunni insurgents to back off bombing and shooting. This policy masks underlying problems. How long will Sunnis be prepared to eat out of the American hand? Already there is restlessness in their ranks, with calls for more money, delivered with greater efficiency and speed. To call this an achievement on the "road to peace" is profoundly misleading. The General is right when he speaks of security gains as being "fragile and reversible."

Petraeus' statements about the drop in violence might need to be revised, and soon. US military statistics show that suicide attacks and Iraqi casualties have spiked over the last few months. The Iraqi death rate has been climbing, going from 568 in December to 1,082 in March. Likewise American troop deaths are trending upward. In December 23 dead, in March 38 dead.

Meanwhile Bush in his speech Thursday repeated the White House mantra that the surge is working. He said it had "renewed and revived the prospects of success." He then described Iraq as the "convergence point of two great threats to America in this new century: Al Qaeda and Iran".

The speech contained rhetoric that clearly suggests that Bush is prepared to launch another illegal war, this time against Iran. After listing the usual sets of grievances with respect to Iranian interference in Iraq, Bush said "America will act to protect our interests..."

Pat Buchanan also sees a war coming with Iran. He says it will be a "short, sharp war", but when these things get going they are rarely either short or sharp. What Bush will do should he take this fateful step, will be to open up the possibility of a wider regional war that could also involve Israel. It is both foolhardy and dangerous, but a course that is already being set, and in the minds of some analysts, unavoidable.

John McCain is still having trouble getting the Shia/Sunni thing sorted out. A while ago on a trip to Jordan, Joe Lieberman had to set him straight when he started rambling about Al Qaeda members being trained in Iran for operations inside Iraq. Al Qaeda is of course Sunni and Iran is Shia, a distinction McCain somehow overlooked.

Professor Richard Falk, the UN investigator into Israeli conduct in the occupied territories has drawn some heat with his Nazi references. Falk compared what he described as: 'the massive Israeli punishment directed at the entire population of Gaza', with the Nazi practice of collective punishment. He made the point that if the same type of extreme military action had been carried out by the Chinese against Tibetans or by the Sudanese government in its dealing with Darfur, the Nazi comparison would have been readily applied without objection.

When the Israeli incursions into Gaza were taking place, the muted criticism in the media demonstrated yet again that a different standard applies to Israel.

The use of overwhelming military force in Gaza and the civilian death toll that accompanied it, seems to be just a part of the "right" Israel arrogates to itself when it comes to raining carnage on its neighbors. The victims of these incursions invariably include women, children and other non-combatants. Yet western media remains for the most part low-key in its coverage of these outrages, while Israel does all in its power to avoid having its policies held up to international law and morality.

At these 'exorcism events', often attended by as many as 400 people, Bazzoffi's associates would pretend to be possessed by demons. Bazzoffi would make a show of driving out the "demons" using ancient and cryptic rites. On occasion he spoke in Aramaic to add to the general air of mystery. Once the audience was hooked by the strange proceedings, the priest would offer to "heal" those in attendance, while soliciting contributions to his organization.

Prosecutors have been monitoring Bazzoffi since 2005. They have also put 13 of his associates under investigation. A seizure of personal documents revealed that Bazzoffi had more than $6 million in his bank account. He said that since House of the Sainted Archangels isn't a registered business, he decided to open a bank account in his own name and funnel the cash through there.

Bazzoffi denies he was performing exorcisms, preferring the less sensational term "blessings"... extremely profitable ones.

Dr Vini Khurana has issued a wake-up call on potential dangers by suggesting that prolonged mobile phone use could kill more people over time than smoking or asbestos.

Khurana is a top neurosurgeon with many awards to his name. He has reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of mobile phone use. Recently he placed the results of his research on a brain surgery website - www.brain-surgery-us. He cites a body of evidence that demonstrates a link between mobile phone use and brain tumors. Khurana believes the use of a handset for 10 years or more could double the risk of a tumor.

A number of clinical studies have made the connection between mobile phone use and brain tumors. One of the best known is a study by Swedish oncologist and cancer epidemiologist, Lennart Hardell. The Hardell research indicated that - " ...use of mobile phones for 10 or more years give a consistent pattern of increased risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma. The risk is higher for ipsilateral exposure (cell phone use preferentially on the same side as the eventually diagnosed brain tumour)."

Mobile phone technology is something users tend to take for granted. The importance of mobile phones in emergency situations is an obvious plus. The potential hazards of placing a gadget that emits radio waves to the side of the head, is a secondary concern for most.

The power generated by a handset fluctuates. Adaptive power control (APC), takes place on a continual basis and can go from a high of 2 watts to as low as 1 milliW. The selected power level depends on a number of factors such as distance from the base station, presence of tall buildings or other physical obstacles, and whether the handset is being used indoors or outdoors.

The effects of mobile phone radiation on human tissue can be classified as both "thermal" and "non-thermal." Thermal reactions occur when tissues are heated. This heating effect can cause molecular changes within cells, possibly leading to the cancerous transformation of the cell. Non-thermal effects occur over time and are connected with "pulsing" of the carrier signal. Studies have linked non-thermal exposure with DNA damage.

In a section of his research titled "emerging concepts and concerns", Professor Khurana offers useful insights and advice on mobile phone use. He points out that there is a growing body of evidence that brain tumors, such as vestibular Schwannoma and astrocytoma are associated with "heavy" and "prolonged" mobile phone use. Moreover these conditions tend to occur on the side of the head exposed to the mobile phone.

He has taken the additional step of issuing a warning about the growing evidence of the impact of mobile phone use on health:

"... unless the Industry and Governments take immediate and decisive steps to openly acknowledge and intervene in this situation, even while waiting definitive confirmation by large and well-constructed multi-centre studies worldwide, malignant brain tumour incidence and its associated death rate will be observed globally to rise within a decade from now, by which time it may be far too late to meaningfully intervene, especially for those who are currently children and young adults."

In a list of cautions, the professor recommends keeping mobile phone use down to a minimum. When using a mobile, he suggests increasing the physical distance between the device and the side of the head, by using "speaker mode" or "hands-free mode." Avoid turning the head into a "mobile antenna" by reducing use of Bluetooth devices and unshielded wire earphones. Finally he urges that the use of mobile phones by children should be restricted to emergency situations.