It's High Time Canadians Started Listening to Bill O'Reilly at Fox News

The Conservative Movement, that has been gaining momentum since the 1960s, has made one of their missions, destroying progressive agencies; especially those that support the Welfare State.

In the U.S., they honed in on ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), that advocated for low- and moderate-income families.

What bothered Conservatives the most about ACORN, however, was their voter registration drives, that encouraged the poor and disenfranchised to take part in the democratic process. They knew that anyone involved with the organization would not vote Republican. Conservatives have always worked to make sure that they didn't vote at all, and ACORN stood in the way of that.

I had written before of one such attack on the group's integrity, perpetrated by two young warriors, Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe.

I only shared the story because it exposed the kind of tactics used by the American Leadership Institute, created by Morton Blackwell, and its Canadian affiliate, the Manning Centre for Building Democracy, created by Preston Manning.

ACORN would take a much bigger hit, however, when it was discovered that Dale Rathke, the brother of ACORN's founder Wade Rathke, had embezzled almost a million dollars from the group. ACORN executives handled the matter internally, not to cover up a crime, but because they knew that word of an embezzlement would be all the ammunition conservatives needed to shut them down.

They were right.

The right-wing noise machine went into overdrive, calling for their immediate defunding, and without so much as a public hearing, the government was forced to stop financial aid to a group that had done so much for so many. ACORN went into receivership and were forced to close their doors.

Fox News, not wanting to draw attention to their advocacy work, instead equated the agency with "voter fraud", despite there being absolutely no evidence to support it.

Bill O'Reilly has since coined the term 'The ACORN Factor', to describe any voter fraud and subsequent defunding, promising to seek out perpetrators and make sure that their punishment was swift.

Of course he only meant liberal groups. If he wanted to include conservative voter fraud, it would become a full time job and require a staff of thousands. Google 'GOP voter fraud' and see how many stories pop up.

Pundits, not wasting an opportunity to expose the hypocrisy, are now suggesting that if O'Reilly wants to defund any group engaged in voter fraud, they should start with the Republican Party.

Harper Government: No Single Acorn but the Whole Damn Forest

Not since before Confederation, when voting booths were often scenes of violence, in an attempt to suppress the vote; has Canada experienced such mass voter fraud, as perpetrated by the Conservative Party of Canada.

The Robocalls scandal, which was national in scope, was a blatant attempt to steer voters, already identified as not supporting Conservative candidates, away from the polls.

Using Bill O'Reilly's ACORN factor would mean that we must defund the CPC.
But if that isn't enough to convince you, how about their attempt to sneak the so-called Fair Elections Act, which is now being challenged in court; past us?

This act will make it difficult for students, seniors and First Nations to cast ballots, but will also make it next to impossible to detect voter fraud.

Elections Canada will be gutted and attempts to encourage voting, no longer part of their mandate.

Not only is the Act unconstitutional, it is undemocratic, as it clearly is designed to give Conservatives an unfair advantage.

Voter Fraud. The ACORN factor. Defund the CPC.

But let's not stop there.

Dean Del Mastro. ACORN factor. Defund him.

Mark Adler. ACORN factor. Defund him.

Rick Dykstra. ACORN factor. Defund him.

Shelley Glover. ACORN factor. Defund her.

Lisa Raitt. ACORN factor. Defund her.

And how about registered charities and non-profits that shill for the Party, like the Fraser Institute, The Canadian Taxpayers Federation and Charles McVety's Canadian Christian College that was actually accepting "charitable" donations for the CPC?

In fact, it was McVety, Jim Flaherty's former campaign manager, who brought Karl Rove to Canada to teach Canadian conservatives how to cheat; so he should definitely lose any funding or tax exempt status.

Yes Canadians should listen to Bill O'Reilly. Once in a while he actually makes sense.

With or Without Permission Debauchery is Still Debauchery

Debauchery usually has a sexual connotation, but can also be used to describe any overindulgence.  Political debauchery is quickly making its way into our vernacular, as we witness overindulgence in campaign spending, attack ads and ugly divisive rhetoric.

Whether we're watching the impassioned faces of the Tea Partiers in the United States, or listening to the often senseless barbs tossed about in the House of Commons, we can see that these pleasure seekers have found their vice.

Not that there's anything wrong with political passion.  That kind of passion not only fuelled the Civil Rights Movement, the Woman's Rights Movement, implemented child labour laws,et al, but has been responsible for our very democracy.

Political engagement, not war, has created our modern civilization.

But just as debauchery can destroy lives, political debauchery can destroy nations.

The New Drug of Choice - Hyerpartisanship.

I don't think anyone could argue that our politics has become ugly and getting worse.

When someone from one side of the room in the Commons, accuses someone on the other side of something, you rarely get an explanation. Instead they pull out a piece of paper with some quote from a newspaper "proving" that the accuser had once engaged in similar behavior.

Political debate is being reduced to "I know I am, but what are you?"

Recently we have learned that the NDP is being charged with the mishandling of public funds, when they peppered ridings about to hold bi-elections, with Party campaign ads, using their Parliamentary envelopes and letterhead. They also took advantage of free postage, which is only permitted, or at least is supposed to be only permitted, to send notices to constituents.

They have been told that they will have to repay 1.17 million, the amount deemed to be the cost of the inappropriate use of public money.

Instead of paying up, apologizing, and promising not to do it again, they have decided to fight the decision, even if it means delaying summer break.

NDP leader Thomas Mulcair claims that the decision was made in a "Kangaroo Court" and that the other parties are guilty of the same crime.

He's right.

It's hard to look at this "ten percenter", sent out by the Conservatives, and not see it as partisan campaigning.

However, the other parties being wrong too is not a defense, it's an excuse.

The abuse of mailing privileges hit a peak in 2009, when it was determined that MPs had spent ten million dollars on what mostly amounted to Party PR. The Conservatives were the biggest spenders at twice what the combined opposition spent, most echoing their campaigns. "Not a leader", "Just visiting", always with a poll asking who was on the right track?

The practice has become less frequent, mainly due to public outrage, but I still receive nonsense suggesting that Justin Trudeau is in over his head or Thomas Mulcair wants to raise taxes.

Mulcair also claims that he received permission for the mailings from the Speaker of the House, who denies he ever approved them.

It does seem highly unlikely, that if the NDP asked if it would be okay to spend more than a million dollars of public money to campaign for upcoming bi-elections, that the Speaker would have said "sure".

So this is not about Kangaroo Courts or secretive House of Commons committees; it's about elected officials, who have become so hyper-partisan, that they see it as OK to use our money to guarantee their Party's political success.

The word debauchery comes from the French word debauchee, which means to “entice from work or duty.” It's pretty clear that duties are being neglected when the lure of oneupmanship and beating the system, take precedence over doing what they were elected to do.

No one campaigns on abusing tax dollars and I doubt they would win if they did.

So How Do We Clean Up This Mess?

Politicians are not the only ones guilty of being hooked on partisan porn. Debates on Twitter and Facebook, some healthy and some not so healthy, often become about defending your own Party's wrong doing, while pointing out the wrong doings of others.

In the last Ontario provincial election, NDP leader Andrea Horvath, constantly referred to the Liberals as "corrupt", claiming that only she could clean up government.

A ridiculous statement. At one time or another, most, if not all, governments, have had at least one member, who bends or breaks the rules.

To really clean up government, we need to clean up politicians who look for ways to abuse the trust we place in them.

The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives is Found in Their Victims

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Bill Maher commented a couple of weeks ago that to him the difference between liberals and conservatives, is that conservatives lack the ability to feel empathy for anyone else.

I think that sums it up nicely.

And I don't mean the original conservative party in Canada, who had a social conscience, but the new definition of a conservative*.

What do they protest?

Don't touch my guns. Don't raise my taxes. Keep out of my business.

My, my, my. Me, me, me.

And there is such a profound hatred for their fellow human beings. Gays, Muslims, feminists, immigrants ... white Judea-Christians sit here, everyone else to the back of the bus.

And they dismiss those fighting for social causes as being "special interest" or "Left-wing fringe groups."

But what do liberals* protest? Poverty, homelessness, injustice. And most of the protesters who march are not poor or homeless and have never been the victim of injustice. But they have the ability to empathize.

Altruistic vs egocentric.

I know right off the bat there will be many calling themselves conservative who would refute this by saying that they give to the food bank, volunteer at soup kitchens, etc. but that does not change the fundamentals of the movement.

Conservatives want all charity to be handled by religious organizations, but that just feeds their egocentricity, because it puts them in control of people they believe are beneath them.

And it is this that AstroTurf organizations are feeding off, and it is how they have so easily been able to take control of the right-wing, conservative movement.

FreedomWorks

When Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law, he said "We must stem the spread of foreclosures and falling home values for all Americans, and do everything we can to help responsible homeowners stay in their homes." Foreclosures in the U.S. are of epidemic proportions, so the reason for this was to help those who needed it most.

The backlash from the right was immediate. Bailing out corporations was fine, but Obama wanted to bail out ordinary Americans. Americans without jobs. Americans with few prospects.

This was Socialism.

So they took to the streets. But not on their own. An organization dubiously called FreedomWorks, set up a website called AngryRenter.com. They claimed to work for "prudent renters" outraged over the government bailout for "irresponsible homeowners".

But as Michael Phillips of the Wall Street Journal discovered, this group were not renters, nor was this a spontaneous uprising.

AngryRenter.com is actually a product of an inside-the-Beltway conservative advocacy organization led by Dick Armey, the former House majority leader, and publishing magnate Steve Forbes**, a fellow Republican. It's a fake grass-roots effort -- what politicos call an AstroTurf campaign -- that provides a window into the sleight-of-hand ways of Washington. (1)

And Republican Dick Armey and his FreedomWorks, is also behind the current Tea Party movement. And what they have been able to do is nothing short of a miracle.

They have been able to turn public anger away from the corporate hand outs and toward the victims of the economic meltdown. Wall Street was not responsible. Workers were. Lazy Americans were. Too many demands.

Read the signs above carried by a group of Tea Partyers. "Honk if you're paying my mortgage". "Don't spread my wealth, spread my work ethic". If they were really concerned with these issues they would demand that more be done to find work for those falling behind. You can't spread "work ethic" without first spreading "work".

But these protesters lack the ability to empathize. They can only flaunt.

Glen Beck tells them to ignore Obama when he claims that all Americans deserve a piece of the pie. He wants to keep all of his pie.

They are creating a culture of greed.

And what do they teach their children? It's fine to encourage them to stand up for themselves, but they should also be encouraged to stand up for those unable to. That's what's missing in this movement.

And that is how we must frame the next election campaign. The difference between liberals and conservatives is just that simple.

Michael Ignatieff wants to put an end to the corporate tax cuts. Jack Layton has always opposed them and Elizabeth May wants to roll them back.

They want to make "victims" of the greedy. Conservatives want to make "victims" of those already suffering.

"Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor." Thomas Jefferson

Footnotes:

*When I mention liberal and conservative I am not referring to political parties, only values.

**Steve Forbes is also on the board of directors for a group called the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. According to SourceWatch:

In early 2001, a tightly knit group of billionaire philanthropists conceived of a plan to win American sympathy for Israel's response to the Palestinian intifada. They believed that the Palestinian cause was finding too much support within crucial segments of the American public, particularly within the media and on college campuses, so they set up an organization, Emet: An Educational Initiative, Inc., to offer Israel the kind of PR that the Israeli government seemed unable to provide itself.

Another member of that group is Alykhan Velshi, who is currently Jason Kenney's Director of Communications and Parliamentary Affairs.

Sources:

1. Mortgage Bailout Infuriates Tenants (And Steve Forbes) 'Angry Renter' Web Site Has Grass-Roots Look, But This Turf Is Fake, by Michael Phillips, Wall Street Journal, May 16, 2008

Is Thomas the Tank Engine Trying to Indoctrinate Children?

There's kind of an interesting story about the children's show Thomas the Tank Engine, that many will dismiss; but I think deserves at least a bit of discussion.

A political scientist from the University of Alberta, has studied the program and found that it promoted a Conservative ideology. Was that the shows intent? Did it's creator have an agenda?

I don't think so.

First off the program was based on a series of books written by a pastor in the 1940's. Therefore, the characters are more reflective of that era. When producer Britt Allcroft first brought Thomas to the TV screen in 1979, she tried to capture the innocence and magic that inspired her, after reading the books.

She herself is a strong female role model, and though she ultimately lost the company she helped to create, she is still an astute businesswoman.

But that doesn't mean that Shauna Wilton is wrong. We do have to be careful about what our children are watching, and be ready to counter or discuss what messages they may be getting, even if unintentional.

Study: Thomas pushing conservatism
December 12, 2009
Reuters
OH THOMAS: A Canadian researcher claims Thomas the Tank Engine pushes a 'conservative political ideology' on to kids.

A researcher has blown the whistle on Thomas the Tank Engine, saying the classic series was pushing "conservative political ideology" on to kids.

Storylines written for Thomas and his steam-powered friends appeared to "punish individual initiative", the Canadian study found, while female characters were shunted into support roles only.

Political scientist Shauna Wilton, who is an assistant professor in the Department of Social Sciences at University of Alberta's Augustana Campus, said parents should be more mindful of children's programming.

It played a major role in shaping a child's conception of the world and in the case of Thomas the Tank Engine, it was not always constructive.

Dr Wilton said the show conveyed a number of positive political values such as tolerance, listening, communicating with others and contributing to the community.

"It also represents a conservative political ideology that punishes individual initiative, opposes critique and change, and relegates females to supportive roles," she said.

Dr Wilton analysed 23 episodes of the model train-based series, which is shown in 130 countries. She said there were storylines in several episodes that divided the characters into different social classes and punished those who tried to gain individual power.

"Any change is seen as disrupting the natural order of things," she said.

Of the 49 main characters listed in the show, only eight were female and Dr Wilton said this reflected a general bias towards male characters across all of children's programming.

"We tend to think of children's TV shows as neutral and safe but they still carry messages," she said.

"Eventually, these children will attain full political citizenship and the opinions and world outlook they develop now, partially influenced by shows like Thomas and Friends, are part of that process."

Australia's Professor Sue Grieshaber said children gained the ability to think about the subtle messages contained in programming, like Thomas the Tank Engine, from about age four or five.

She said that in this case, Thomas' storylines may have been written years ago and they could reflect views from "a bygone era".

Parents and teachers should point these cases out to children where they saw them, said Prof Grieshaber who is Professor of Early Years Education at the Queensland University of Technology.

"You can point things out to children and say why are all the people in the Thomas story males? Can you name any female engines?" she said.

"Or what sort of roles did the females have? Four- or five-year-old children can think about these issues if you point them out."

----------------

What comes to mind for me was a show called 227, starring Marla Gibbs, who had played the Jefferson's feisty maid. It was based on a play that was set in the 1950's, but was supposed to have been made more contemporary.

I remember watching an episode with my daughter, who was about 9 or 10 at the time, and Gibb's character Mary Jenkins, suddenly shot up and stated that she had to get upstairs because her construction worker husband Lester would be home soon and expected his dinner on the table.

My first impulse was to cover my daughter's ears, but I realized that was silly. Instead I joked about it, but starting paying more attention to the message. The main female characters were a gossipy housewife and a slut. We never watched the show again.

More on Jim Flaherty's Secretive Bailout of Our Financial Sector

Despite repeated warnings, Jim Flaherty made side deals with his pals at AIG. Then when the economic crisis came in with a bang, he scrambled to cover his tracks, announcing that he and the Harper government put measures in place to make our banking system more sound.

What he didn't say was that it involved essentially purchasing for taxpayers, all high risk mortgages that he allowed to infect our banking system in the first place.

This has made it look like we're doing better than most countries when in fact we are on the brink of a major bust, if unemployment continues to rise. The Canadian taxpayer now owns more high-risk mortgages than anyone else.

Naturally, they have the opposition parties over a barrel because if they push this it could expedite the housing market collapse. However, Canadians deserve to know just how fragile our economic recovery really is.

CMHC's growth fuels worries over new risks

The federal government has quietly given Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. more financial muscle, raising concerns the multibillion-dollar agency is expanding at an unprecedented pace with little oversight.

For the second time since the beginning of 2008, Ottawa has raised the amount of mortgage insurance CMHC can have outstanding. The increase moves the cap to $600-billion, up from $450-billion and nearly double the $350-billion limit in place at the end of 2007. ...

But is it prudent for the Canadian taxpayer to back high-risk mortgages at a time when our own financial security is so fragile ? This was a bank bailout.

Is There More Trouble Brewing over the Ethics of This Unethical Government?

There appears to be a new story brewing from within Stephen Harper's office, over a lobbying firm; Navigator Ltd., that is currently under investigation.

Actually, this is sort of a scandal within a scandal because when groups like this do come under investigation, it is supposed to be confidential; yet somehow this was leaked to the PMO.

Navigator Ltd. are the masters of spin and often used to soften the blow for politicians involved in criminal investigations. They handled or mishandled Michael Bryant's 'accident' that resulted in the death of a cyclist. The above video represents eye wittiness accounts of the incident.

"In the aftermath of Darcy Allan Sheppard’s death, Michael Bryant led an aggressive campaign to spin the story in his favour. It was suggested that after calling his lawyer, his second phone call was to hire the public relations firm, Navigator Ltd. In fact shortly after the altercation, many people have speculated that a Navigator representative attempted to prevent the media from filming Bryant in the back seat of a police cruiser."

However, this case involves Jaime Watt, head of the company and a former Mike Harris crony:

"Navigator is led by conservative strategist Jaime Watt, who made his name as an architect of Mike Harris's Common Sense Revolution. He is also a convicted fraudster whose criminal past, which he did not disclose, forced him to resign from the Harris government in 1995. Since then, he has managed a number of Conservative campaigns."

Those Conservative campaigns include Brian Mulroney's during the recent Oliphant inquiry and Jim Flaherty's bid for leadership of the Ontario PCs. He is also closely connected to Harper's chief of staff Guy Giorno.

Lobbying czar probes firm with ties to Tories
PMO suspending communication with officials affiliated with Navigator Ltd. while investigation takes place, government source says
DANIEL LEBLANC
OTTAWA — Globe and Mail
October 27, 2009

The Prime Minister's Office is cutting off communications with officials affiliated with Navigator Ltd. while the federal watchdog of lobbying looks into the practices of the plugged-in firm, a government official said yesterday.

The specific purpose or target of the Commissioner of Lobbying's inquiries is not known, but the PMO has moved pro-actively in hopes of limiting further controversies during this heated political season.

There are close ties between Navigator officials and senior members of the Conservative government, starting at the top. Navigator chair Jaime Watt was a senior strategist in Mike Harris's Ontario government, and he is a friend of PMO chief of staff Guy Giorno, another veteran of the Harris team.

Mr. Watt was also a senior organizer for Jim Flaherty, now the federal Minister of Finance, during the 2002 Ontario PC leadership race.

Navigator's lobbying activities in Ottawa are conducted as part of a partnership with Ensight Canada. Robin Sears, who is affiliated with both companies, said he is unaware of any activity involving the Commissioner of Lobbying.

"We have no knowledge of any inquiry being made, we have no knowledge of any suggestion on the part of anybody within the government about such an enquiry," Mr. Sears said. "Until such time as somebody can put some names and faces on the claim, it strikes us as a little doubtful."

However, news of the commissioner's work has circulated within the Harper government, which came to power in 2006 by vowing to clean up Ottawa.

"I have been told that the Prime Minister's Office will not have formal or informal communications with Navigator," the government official said on condition of anonymity.

A spokeswoman for the Commissioner of Lobbying could not be reached. The Prime Minister's Office refused to comment.

Navigator is based in Toronto, while Ensight Canada has its offices in downtown Ottawa and specializes in "government relations."

There have been clashes recently between the PMO and Navigator over the firm's work for former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney at the public inquiry into his cash dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber.

Navigator also recently oversaw communications for Michael Bryant, the former Ontario minister who is facing charges of criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death in an accident involving a cyclist on Aug. 31.

The Conservatives are hoping to avoid further ethical controversies after having been criticized in recent weeks for placing their logo on display cheques used by MPs to highlight stimulus spending.

Conservative Candidate Dumped for Honesty Over Abuse of Stimulus Money

Last week we learned from a Conservative candidate for Markham-Unionville that the party brass had informed him that no stimulus money would be coming to his riding until a Conservative was elected. They forgot to tell him to keep that under his hat, and didn't he announce it to the public on a televised panel show.

Naturally, he was dumped immediately. Harper would never put up with honesty.

Tory candidate dumped for frank TV comments

OTTAWA–A moment of candour has cost Gordon Landon a shot at federal politics.

Landon was dumped Monday as the Conservative candidate for Markham-Unionville after publicly musing the GTA riding was being shut out of federal infrastructure funding because it is held by a Liberal.

The York regional councillor says he complied with a request from the Conservative party to step aside, adding he is not used to people telling him what to say and think ... More Postings on Canada Action Plan Fraud:

Harper's Ignorance of Canadian History is Inexcusable

Stephen Harper was at the G20 and when asked a simple question about Canada, he went into his best 'Joe Canadian' impersonation, touting the virtues of a country he once lambasted as a

European welfare state in the worst sense of the term.

After suggesting that every country wishes they were us, and implying that his government saved us from sure ruin, he dropped a bombshell. "We also have no history of colonialism. So we have all of the things that many people admire about the great powers but none of the things that threaten or bother them," he said."

What the hell? Our entire reason for being is based on colonialism, much to the detriment of the aboriginal Canadians.

Maybe there are a few Canadians who don't know that, but our prime minister damned well should.

Blogger Derrick O'Keefe from Rabble sure got it right, when he said: "That the PM can not only harbour this delusion in his mind but also feel unembarrassed enough to verbalize it is a shocking testament to his own profound ignorance and to the pervasive racism-fuelled historical amnesia and denial in Canadian society."

Fortunately most people at the G20 are not as ignorant.

Margaret Thatcher and What a Stephen Harper Majority Would Look Like

Stephen Harper has always been a fan of slash and burn leaders and politicians, including Margaret Thatcher. She and others became the driving force behind his Reform Party's financial policies, which fit in well with their plans to tear down the 'welfare state' and foil what they deemed to be a 'socialist conspiracy'.

Like Thatcher, he was a devotee of Friedrich Hayek, the libertarian economist who believed that free-market capitalism was the best defense against socialist and collectivist thought.

However, the Reform Party also brought fundamentalist Christian dogma into their party platform, not simply because they firmly believed in theocracy, but knew that they could tap into religious fervour which would naturally gain them votes. Many policies were intentionally ambiguous to appease both the moderates and the extremists.

So when they said that issues on things like abortion and same-sex marriage would be determined in a 'free vote', the extremists heard that they would be abolished, while the moderates felt good that the people would decide. However, to Preston Manning 'free vote' only meant the free vote of his caucus, not the grassroots, on contentious issues.

However, from Ernest Manning's Socreds, to Preston Manning's Reformers, to Harper's Reform-Alliance- Conservatives - Northern Foundation - National Citizens Coalition; the ultimate goal is the abolishment of the welfare state in favour of free-market capitalism; with an evangelical twist. And they were going to do it, whether we liked it or not.

Ernest Manning stated that "The will of the people is bound to come into conflict with the will of God" and according to Murray Dobbin: "Throughout his political career, Ernest Manning was motivated by religion, and more specifically, by anti-Socialism: 'Socialism, to Manning, is a system which largely prevents the individual from attaining the state of grace and hence salvation ... Giving to the individual societal benefits such as free medical care ... breeds idleness... causing a break down in his relationship with God'."Manning argued that 'where the state imposed a monopoly on a service ... the sinful philosophy of state collectivism scored a victory'. (Preston Manning and the Reform Party. Author: Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 9)

Preston Manning stated when he was a member of the Youth wing of the Social Credit Party; "We (socreds) believe that Canada is drifting towards socialism even when the majority of Canadians are opposed to collectivism and the welfare state..." (Dobbin, 1992, Pg. 24-25)

And of course Stephen Harper weighed in: "Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it."

Margaret Thatcher and the Welfare State

"There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher

"Harper asked Weissenberger to dig up the Conservative Party manifestos under which Margaret Thatcher had fought ... They admired the clarity with which she nailed her theses to the wall. 'No one who has lived in this country during the last five years can fail to be aware of how the balance of our society has been increasingly tilted in favour of the State at the expense of individual freedom.'" (Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada by William Johnson ISBN 0-7710 4350-3, 2005, Pg. 49)

Like Harper and all his various parties, lobby groups and think tanks; Ms Thatcher believed that all economic problems are a result of social programs, that created the welfare state.

This term was actually used to describe a series of programs aimed at reducing the hardships of the entire population, by providing services such as national health care, pensions and social assistance; with a redistribution of wealth. There was also a strong feeling after WWII, that if a nation was asked to sacrifice at a time of war, they should be taken care of during a time of peace.

But Margaret Thatcher was having none of it, and with traits which have often been used to describe our current PM; "... one of her (Thatcher's) own supporters described her as having 'a certain impatience with subtlety of feeling, a lack of sympathy with people unlike her..." (Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 8)

She arrived on the scene at a time when Britain was experiencing growing deficits and slow economic recovery, so her promises to turn the country's economy around were welcomed at first.

"The 'crisis' of the welfare state provided Margaret Thatcher with her opportunity to seize control of the political agenda and take the Conservative Party sharply to the right. In doing so she altered the course of British politics for decades and influenced political development in many other Western democracies .... she was crystallizing her thinking, largely through intensive reading of the works of Friedrich von Hayek .... with high unemployment and inflation fuelling the anxiety of Britain's middle class, Thatcher was ready to present her ideas for public consumption in a Conservative party policy document entitled 'Right Thinking.'

"This was not a manifesto for the faint of heart ... What Thatcher was proposing was nothing less than the dismantling of much of the infrastructure of the modern liberal democratic state. Government was the enemy (Harper feels the same way) ... The woman ... wanted to privatize, deregulate and otherwise reduce state intervention in the economy ... Most of all, she wanted to break the power of the unions, whom she loathed." (Jeffrey, 1999, Pg. 10-12)

Those in her own cabinet who opposed her revolutionary style, she referred to as 'wets' and one of her MPs, Julian Critchley once said "She cannot see an institution without hitting it with her handbag." From then on her demolition of the British system was referred to as 'handbagging.'

"In addition to the middle class, luck was on her side ... Many of her most drastic measures were implemented during the economic recovery, minimizing their impact in the short term . When she got into difficulties with the electorate and her party ... it was as much for her imperious leadership style as her draconian policies. There were many direct and violent confrontations with labour, and various groups whom the prime minister dismissed as 'special interest'. Society became visibly more polarized as the winners and losers of Thatcehrism emerged.' (Jeffrey, 1999, Pg. 14)

We have to remember that Thatcherism failed. She privatized everything, and since profit was now the trigger, it resulted in higher costs and less services. While these enterprises were raking in record profits, unemployment rose, resulting in the select few making significant gains at expense of the majority. We've seen the same thing under George Bush, resulting in one of the worst economic crises in recent history.

And of course her removable of controls left citizens vulnerable to health risks. The same thing happened under Mike Harris, when he reduced the number of water inspectors: Walkerton. Stephen Harper allowed the meat industry to inspect their own plants: Listeriosis.

We have to think long and hard before we give this man a majority. In fact we should think even longer and harder about giving him another mandate at all. With the size of Canada's debt and deficit, he will be able to implement the failed economic policies of Margaret Thatcher, fulfilling his career dream of dismantling the government of Canada.

Why Stephen Harper's Economic Plans Will Fail

I've said several times before that as an economist Stephen Harper makes a great shoe salesman. He apparently has a masters in economics, but has never worked as an economist, so why would we believe that he is the best choice to lead us out of this crisis? We can't.

One of the problems in studying Harper's past, is that his heroes; the ones who slash and burn their way through social programs, and sell off everything of value, have failed. Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Mike Harris.

Instead of learning from their mistakes, he is doomed to repeat them. He once told a professor that he was concerned that Canada's massive debt and deficit under Mulroney, could cause a run on the Canadian dollar. What does he think now?

If he had a majority with a 56 billion dollar and counting, we would have nothing left.

Brooke Jeffrey in her book Hard Right Turn, discusses the situation a decade ago. Mike Harris was the Ontario Premier, Ralph Klein was Alberta's, and the Reform Party were the Official Opposition on Parliament Hill.

She opens her book by saying that in Toronto there were rallies and demonstrations at Queens Park because of Mike Harris' cuts to health care, education and social services. Her cab driver volunteered the information that he had been fooled into voting for Mike Harris' "Common Sense Revolution", which he learned made no sense at all. "I didn't expect them to pick on blind people and little old ladies."

Not long after she was in Alberta and found the same demonstrations and rallies targeting Ralph Klein. "The premier and his controversial treasurer, Stockwell Day, were adamant the cuts would go forward as planned." They didn't need to, because Alberta was in the middle of an oil boom and had money to burn.

"The striking thing about Klein's comments was his choice of language. It was almost identical in tone and content to arguments Mike Harris had used to defend his actions in Ontario a few months earlier. Klein's refusal to consult in any meaningful way with the affected groups was equally firm.

"The success of Ralph Klein in Alberta in 1993 was dismissed by many as a regional fluke, but the election of Mike Harris in 1995 in Ontario raised serious concerns about the direction the country seemed to be taking. Neo-conservative politicians ... were now in power in two of Canada's richest and most important provinces.

"Concern turned to disbelief when the upstart Reform party of Preston Manning became the Official Opposition, after the 1997 federal election. Conventional wisdom said that the party was just another Western protest movement. Founded in white hot anger, it would soon fizzle and collapse ... I was less surprised than most observers ... but probably more distressed. My in-depth knowledge of Reform's extreme positions and unprecedented rejection of basic liberal values made me more inclined to take them seriously than most mainstream politicians, and I worried about the potential damage they could inflict on the fabric of Canadian society if they succeeded in becoming a force to be reckoned with."

"... Were we on a slippery slope, with even more right-wing governments in other parts of the country? Had there actually been a major shift in public opinion from the traditional centre-left majority? Were many Canadians abandoning their well-known compassion and tolerance for the politics of self-interest, anger and resentment, and if so why?

"...Both premiers (Harris and Klein) believed the protests and civil unrest were inevitable. The visceral opposition to their plans had nothing to do with the draconian measures they adopted to implement their radical agenda, or their steadfast refusal to consult with stakeholders.

"If Canada is to avoid the fate of Britain and the United States, now struggling to repair the damage caused by their decade of right-wing excesses (for the U.S. they suffered another horrible 8 years of George Bush), the very real and disturbing consequences of the neo-conservative agenda must be clearly understood by all Canadians." (Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 1-6)

What we have learned since then, is the reason why Mike Harris, Ralph Klein and now Stephen Harper, are following the same path; is because all three men were brought to power by the Fraser Institute, the National Citizens Coalition and Conrad Black. (Black also helped with the career of Margaret Thatcher). Ironically Klein, Harris and Thatcher were all forced into retirement by their own parties. Dare we dream?

Conservatives Secretly Trying to Create More Conservative Seats Under Guise of Democratic Reform

It was interesting in my journey to discover how a party grounded in bigotry was now running our country, to learn that the concept for this Reform-Conservative party was actually created in 1967; the brainchild of wealthy Canadian business interests, the Mannings Social Credit Party and the National Citizens Coalition.

Their goal was to create an American style Conservative party, mimicking the current Republican Party, who could keep citizens whipped into a frenzy over 'faith, family and freedom'. (Fundamentalist Christian, nuclear families only; an end to abortion and homosexual rights and of course the big 'f' 'freedom' - war!!!).

Scenes like the one above are becoming more commonplace, and will continue to be if we don't wake up and get these guys out. They just need a majority, and while Harper still polls rarely above a third of Canadian voters, they have crafted a way to gain more seats without gaining more votes. Gilles Duceppe will not vote for this and hopefully the Liberals and NDP won't either.

Steven Fletcher, the head of 'Democratic Reform', has been working like hell to remove any notion of democracy from a country I used to be so damned proud of. They are not just looking for a majority, they are looking for a social conservative (with all of it's ugliness) dynasty.

New federal ridings may be coming to the suburbs
September 25 2009
CTV.ca News Staff

The federal government is reportedly working on legislation to create as many as 32 new electoral ridings across suburban areas of B.C., Alberta and Ontario.

Democratic Reform Minister Steven Fletcher is spearheading legislation on the proposed changes, according to The Globe and Mail. They could be presented to Parliament as early as this fall or early 2010, and would increase the number of MPs in the House of Commons to 340 from 308.

The rumoured changes are seen partly as a response to the Canada's changing demographic landscape. The country's population has been growing mostly due to immigration, and particularly near the larger cities in Alberta, B.C. and Ontario.

At the same time, Parliament has passed measures to protect smaller provinces and rural ridings from losing their voice on Parliament Hill. That's skewed the country's federal electoral map away from the more populous areas.

As a result, Alberta, B.C. and Ontario would be expected to share the additional ridings.

"What you've got here is the notion of democracy versus the notion of history and how this country started," Tom Clark, host of Power Play, told CTV News Channel on Friday. "It is why Prince Edward Island still has as many seats as it does. Even at four, it is grossly overrepresented in the modern world."

"At the same time, if you went strictly by representation by population, you would be denying the geographical reality of the country. So it's a very tough mix and a tough balance to strike."

The new ridings would in all probability go to suburban areas around the major cities of Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary and Toronto, communities typically with younger and more ethnically diverse residents. If the electoral reforms are eventually passed, they would hand more power to that traditionally underrepresented segment of Canadian society.

Changing the electoral map in such a way may also play in the Conservatives' favour. That's because the party stands a good chance of picking up additional seats in suburban Alberta and B.C., and potentially Ontario as well.

"Some are saying this is the route not only to getting rid of minority governments, but it could be a route to a Tory majority," Clark said. "This might create a new dynasty."

Stephen Harper's Conservative minority government proposed to redistribute the federal elections ridings last year as well. But the bill was never passed into law, partly due to complaints from Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty. He felt the province wouldn't receive enough additional parliamentary seats under the proposed changes.

The Bloc Quebecois is expected to oppose redrawing the electoral map. The Bloc has come to hold about two-thirds of Quebec's 75 ridings in recent elections. Since Quebec's population is not growing, however, adding seats elsewhere would erode the Bloc's political clout.

If passed, any reforms could take several more years to come into effect.

If it takes several more years we need to make sure those years do not include these Rerform Conservatives. The Manning's Political Realignment, drafted for the wealthy corporate sector and brought to fruition by the National Citizens Coalition and the Northern Foundation, must never be allowed free rein. They want to completely dismantle all social programs, including support for senior citizens, women and non-Anglos.

But is little Stevie Fletcher any better than little Stevie Harper? You be the judge.

Bloc Quebecois youth wing calls for resignation of Tory minister The Canadian Press
August 15, 2009

QUEBEC CITY - The youth wing of the Bloc Quebecois is calling for the resignation of federal Democratic Reform Minister Steven Fletcher.

The Bloc is taking issue with Fletcher for re-iterating this past week the Conservatives' intention to eventually do away with per-vote subsidies.

He said Canadians are frustrated with the notion their taxes help fund a sovereigntist party. Bloc youth wing president Jean-Francois Landry says Quebec voters shouldn't be considered second-class citizens.

At the youth wing's general council meeting in Quebec City Saturday, Landry called Fletcher's comments unacceptable and undemocratic.

At the University of Manitoba, Fletcher berated left-leaning student politicians, and referred to their newspaper as a a 'socialist rag'. The students called him an embarassment.

Obama Knows That Stephen Harper is Putting us on the Wrong Side of History

There is another great Facebook Group calling for changes to the Conservative Environmental policies. By change, I mean to actually have one.

Canadians deserve better than this.

Obama shines, Harper absent
Toronto Star
September 24, 2009

U.S. President Barack Obama cut a bold figure on the world stage yesterday, delivering a forward-looking, energetic message to the United Nations General Assembly. George Bush has left the building. America is engaged again, and claims no monopoly on wisdom. The U.S. is canvassing for partners to tackle issues that bedevil the world.

But will the world rise to the challenge?

Are UN member states prepared to blunt the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, and to reduce nuclear arsenals generally? Are they ready to fight terror in Pakistan and Afghanistan, support Mideast peace, curb global warming and reform the world economy?

"Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone," Obama said. "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

It was a powerful, principled appeal. And it would have been good to have had Prime Minister Stephen Harper tell the world how Canada intends to do its share. We are, after all, lobbying for a seat on the Security Council next year, and we have a stake in the issues Obama raised.

Sadly, however, Harper was absent as Obama and others rolled out their nations' views on world issues, before they moved on to the Group of 20 economic summit today.

Yesterday, while Obama spoke to the General Assembly, Harper was in Oakville, touring a Tim Horton's "innovation centre" and touting his government's tax policies. And on Tuesday, when Obama and others addressed a conference on climate change, Harper had a grip-and-grin with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

It was the third year in a row that Harper was missing in action at the UN General Assembly.

Jean Chretien also sometimes skipped the General Assembly when he was prime minister. But given the heightened attention this time, with Obama participating, Harper seems to have missed a golden opportunity to give prominence to Canadian views on global issues.

Harper explained that the speaking slot he was given by the UN was for tomorrow, when he'll be in Pittsburgh at the G20 meeting. (Harper's place at the UN will be taken by Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, but because he is not a head of government, his address is slotted for Saturday night, when no one will be listening.) Harper also noted that, while he wasn't at the climate conference on Tuesday (where he wasn't invited to speak), he did attend the subsequent dinner.

Could Canadian officials have wangled Harper a better spot on the General Assembly roster and an invite to speak to the climate conference? Was Harper telegraphing his scorn for the General Assembly? Was he embarrassed by his government's dismal record on climate change? Whatever the case, for Canadians at least Obama's bold presence made Harper's absence all the more striking. (The Reform Party wanted to get rid of the UN)

Canada's stature won't be enhanced by these missed opportunities. And it's not much of a strategy for securing a Security Council seat.

Women Are Not a Left-Wing Fringe Group Mr. Harper

After Harper's 'true colours' speech was revealed, we once again saw his disdain for women's groups and can have some idea of what a Harper majority might look like, especially if that majority is presiding over the largest deficit in this country's history.

I asked Martha Hall Finlay, when I saw her wearing an 'I Am Not a Left-Wing Fringe Group' button on Tom Clarke's show, where I could get one, so she mailed me two. One in English and one in French. There is also a Facebook group that is growing in numbers, 'Proud to be a Member of the Left-Wing Fringe Group Woman'. When I was invited to join, they had 129 members. Now there are almost 3000. They have printed T-Shirts that I believe are available for sale.

I thought it might be a good time to list a few of my former blog postings on this government's stance on women. Yes, I know they are now trying to put more female faces up front where we can see them, but none of them get to speak without a script, so they are little more than cheerleaders.

Conservatives Rewrite Foreign Policy to Exclude Gender Equality

Roots of Reform: Stephen Harper and the Stepford Wives

Roots of Reform and the Battlefields of Feminism

Harper's Northern Foundation and Anti-Feminism

Conservative Helena Guergis Blames Women for Violence Against Them

Josee Verner is Coached and Programmed on Censorship Law

Josee Verner Demoted to Cheerleading Position

I Burned my Bra For This?

I think the Conservatives might be worried about this movement, because they've called on their back-up guy whenever they're in trouble, Gerry Nicholls to dismiss it.

Nicholls was Harper's VP when he was running the National Citizens Coalition, and recently wrote a column in the Kingston Whig Standard, putting down Michael Ignatieff. Our riding is one being targeted by the Conservatives so our local candidate Brian Abrams has been introducing us to some of the worst dregs the party has to offer (mostly from the old Reformer days. Sir John A. must be spinning in his grave)

On Nicholl's blog he has a self-promotion page where he lists all the wonderful things that people have said about him. Not partisan at all. I did learn from it though that he created those horrible ads that Harper posted against female Liberal candidates.

From Nicholl's blog:

"I just want to let you know how grateful I am for your help with the Harper campaign’s direct mail. Your mastery of the genre is giving us a huge advantage. If we win …you will have had a lot to do with it" – Tom Flanagan, former campaign manager for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

"Gerry Nicholls used to be the brains behind the National Citizens Coalition." --- Mike Duffy, host of Mike Duffy Live

More Postings on Harper's Attack on Women's Rights:

1. Conservatives Secretly Rewrite Foreign Policy to Exclude Humanity and Gender Equality

2. Roots of Reform, Stephen Harper and the Stepford Wives

3. Roots of Reform and the Battlefields of Feminism

4. Roots of Reform: The Northern Foundation and Anti-Feminism

Harper Lay Off the Sleeping Pills. There's a Climate Wake-Up Call!

Knowing that Canada is now dead last on climate change initiatives is dreadful, but knowing that our own government doesn't believe in the science of global warming is catastrophic. We have got to get rid of these bums immediately. Mr. I'd rather eat donuts has got to go.

Global ice melt worsening
September 23, 2009
SETH BORENSTEIN
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON – New satellite information shows that ice sheets in Greenland and western Antarctica continue to shrink faster than scientists thought and in some places are already in runaway melt mode.

British scientists for the first time calculated changes in the height of the vulnerable but massive ice sheets and found them especially worse at their edges. That's where warmer water eats away from below. In some parts of Antarctica, ice sheets have been losing 30 feet a year in thickness since 2003, according to a paper published online Thursday in the journal Nature.

Some of those areas are about a mile thick, so they've still got plenty of ice to burn through. But the drop in thickness is speeding up. In parts of Antarctica, the yearly rate of thinning from 2003 to 2007 is 50 per cent higher than it was from 1995 to 2003.

These new measurements, based on 50 million laser readings from a NASA satellite, confirm what some of the more pessimistic scientists thought: The melting along the crucial edges of the two major ice sheets is accelerating and is in a self-feeding loop. The more the ice melts, the more water surrounds and eats away at the remaining ice.

"To some extent it's a runaway effect. The question is how far will it run?" said the study's lead author, Hamish Pritchard of the British Antarctic Survey. "It's more widespread than we previously thought."

The study doesn't answer the crucial question of how much this worsening melt will add to projections of sea level rise from man-made global warming. Some scientists have previously estimated that steady melting of the two ice sheets will add about 3 feet, maybe more, to sea levels by the end of the century. But the ice sheets are so big it would probably take hundreds of years for them to completely disappear.

As scientists watch ice shelves retreat or just plain collapse, some thought the problem could slow or be temporary. The latest measurements eliminate "the most optimistic view," said Penn State University professor Richard Alley, who wasn't part of the study.

The research found that 81 of the 111 Greenland glaciers surveyed are thinning at an accelerating, self-feeding pace.

The key problem is not heat in the air, but the water near the ice sheets, Pritchard said. The water is not just warmer but its circulation is also adding to the melt.

"It is alarming," said Jason Box of Ohio State University, who also wasn't part of the study.

Worsening data, including this report, keep proving "that we're underestimating" how sensitive the ice sheets are to changes, he said.

Conservatives Secretly Rewrite Foreign Policy to Exclude Humanity and Gender Equality

Not that I should be surprised by anything this government does, but discovering that they have re-written our foreign policy to remove humanitarian and gender equality, is low even for them.

Murray Dobbin is Right. Stephen Harper is not fit to govern. I want my country back!!

"Gender Equality", "Child Soldiers" and "Humanitarian Law" are Axed from Foreign Policy Language
Embassy Magazine
By Michelle Collins
July 29, 2009

With subtle strokes of the pen, it appears the Conservative government has been systematically changing the language employed by the foreign service and, as a result, bringing subtle but sweeping changes to traditional Canadian foreign policy.

In an email communication obtained by Embassy, staff at the Department of Foreign Affairs express concern about frequent changes being made to commonly used terms, particularly where such changes are not consistent with accepted Canadian policy, and which may be carried out to minimize international obligations on issues as complex as the Omar Khadr case.

Among the changes identified are the excising of the word "humanitarian" from each reference to "international humanitarian law," replacing the term "gender equality" with "equality of men and women", switching focus from justice for victims of sexual violence to prevention of sexual violence, and replacing the phrase "child soldiers" with "children in armed conflict."

For many observers of Canada's foreign policy, these are distressing language changes that water down many of the very international human rights obligations Canada once fought to have adopted in conventions at the United Nations. As one source said, in the international world of diplomacy—where officials often focus detailed discussions on the language included in documents and policies—wording makes a big difference.

Indeed, the email states "It is often not entirely clear to us why [office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs] advisers are making such changes, and whether they have a full grasp of the potential impact on [Canadian] policy in asking for changes to phrases and concepts that have been accepted internationally and used for some time."

Sources have told Embassy that tweaks to Canada's foreign policy language that are fraught with policy implications have been underway since the Tories took power in early 2006. And while not unusual for any new government, the extent to which some language changes de-rail long-standing policies is worrisome for many who are actively involved in international human rights.

Backing Away

Sources say that removing the word "humanitarian" from every reference to "international humanitarian law," by order of the minister's office, represents a significant shift. Where international law refers to the body of laws which govern relations between states, international humanitarian law, often linked to the Geneva Conventions, is that which hinges on the distinction between combatants, civilians, or protected persons.

Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada, said that removing the word 'humanitarian' dilutes the international human rights obligations involved, and this is very worrying.

"International humanitarian law is referred to...because the legal obligations that are at stake are from that particular area of law, which is an incredibly important area of law, it's essentially the law that governs in the midst of war," Mr. Neve said.

"What just flabbergasts me is taking out the reference of international humanitarian law to international law because that's what the ICC's about," said Errol Mendes, a professor of international law at the University of Ottawa. "International law goes from being extremely fluffy to basically inter-state law. Whereas international humanitarian law, interchangeable with international criminal law, becomes very specific and focuses on individuals and on potential prosecutions of individuals. It's extremely important."

Mr. Mendes, just returned from a three-month stint working at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, said that such changes to the language, depending on the context, could be an attempt to downplay the International Criminal Court.

Particularly telling, he said, is the example cited in the email of changes that had been made to "a standard docket response" of Canada's position with regards to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In the new docket, the minister's office has removed the words "impunity" and "justice" when calling for an end to sexual violence in the DRC, and is instead calling only for efforts to "prevent" sexual violence.

"The word justice, whenever it's linked into the word impunity, is code-word for the ICC, especially when it's referring to the DRC because of the handful of cases that the court has right now, most of them are from the DRC and most of them, interestingly enough, deal with sexual violence, child soldiers, and impunity," Mr. Mendes said. "While prevention is part of the mandate of ICC, it's central focus is justice. It basically means to say that Canada is not interested in more prosecutions in the DRC from the decades civil war which has cost more lives than any conflict since the Second World War. Close to 4.5 million people have died there, many of them, perhaps most of them, civilians."

Mr. Neve said that while both prevention and impunity are very important justice goals for Canada to be actively promoting, he said removing 'impunity' and replacing it with 'prevent' becomes very worrying.

"It does suggest less of a commitment to the importance of the role ICC and other kinds of justice mechanisms in dealing with horrific human rights violations like the mass rape that women have experienced in Congo."

In fact, a source close to Foreign Affairs told Embassy that the Prime Minister's Office had once tried to change Canada's official position on the ICC to essentially state that Canada does not support the ICC, it tolerates it.

"The language 'end of impunity' is very clear; that's International Criminal Court language and the whole initiative around the ICC," said the source, who wanted to remain anonymous. "The government here has had a difficult time getting their heads around that one, I think."

More Than Just Words

Particularly making waves is the expunging of the word gender. "References to gender-based violence are removed," the email states, without providing context, before going onto state that the minister's office has also just clarified that the term "gender equality" is replaced by "equality of men and women."

Gender is a term that entered the common language in the mid-1990s and was entrenched internationally when included in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998. It was not a decision that was made lightly as, in international documents such as the Rome Statute, wording carries heavy meaning. Delegates debated between using the word "sex" or "gender." Proponents of including the word "gender" and criminalizing gender violence insisted it more consistent with international law because it reflects sociological aspects.

Removing references to "gender equality" and "gender-based violence" from Canadian foreign policy are particularly sensitive because it is Canada who, in the past couple of decades, has led the fight to bring these terms into the international development and human rights agenda.

"Canada worked hard and long to include gender-based violence in international documents, in the world of children and armed conflict where Canada is a leader, we've worked very hard to include gender-based violence as a serious violation. So removing that is a serious step backward and I would argue that the Canadian public would not agree with that," said Kathy Vandergrift, chair of the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children.

Mr. Neve said it is fundamentally important that "gender-based violence" be recognized as a particular form of human rights abuse at the United Nations and elsewhere because it reflects the fact that it is women, particularly in the midst of conflict, who disproportionately experience very serious and distinct forms of gender-based violence.

"To learn that Canada is determinedly taking that language out when what we should be seeing from Canada is championing efforts to further strengthen that language and be a real defender of how important it is in international documents, is very upsetting," he said.

Exactly why such a change could be underway is not entirely clear, though many point to the agendas of some conservative women's groups as influencing factors. This is particularly obvious in the change from "gender equality" to "equality between men and women," they say.

"The term 'gender' has a specific meaning, it refers to a series of socially constructed roles," said Maxwell Cameron, a professor of political science at the University of British Columbia. He said that removing the term 'gender' from Canada's foreign policy vocabulary would mean there are a host of issues that can no longer be talked about in a meaningful or clear way.

As the source close to Foreign Affairs explained, the social conservative base is looking for some wins of out of the Harper government.

"And one of the ones they're getting is these kinds of languages," the source said. "It's a substantial change in philosophy and for anybody outside who's followed Canadian foreign policy, if you were to talk to the Nordics or the Brits or the Dutch, they would be shaking their heads. They wouldn't understand what was going on, and would ask 'why are you contesting language which everyone's accepted and which you helped pioneer?'"
Striking Out 'Child Soldiers'

While it might appear to be one of the least controversial language changes cited in the email—changing "child soldiers" to "children in armed conflict"—sources told Embassy this may be related to the case of Omar Khadr.

Mr. Khadr is the Canadian who was captured by U.S. soldiers following a fire-fight in Afghanistan in 2002. He was only 15 years old at the time, and has been detained at the prison in Guantanamo Bay ever since. Despite pressure from opposition parties and human rights groups, the government has consistently refused to bring Mr. Khadr to Canada—the only Western government to not repatriate its citizen from Guantanamo.

"One example where I would see it as very negative is that we...the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children...have advocated that Omar Khadr be considered a child solider," Ms. Vandergrift said. "At senior levels, we don't think we have a problem, we think the department understands, but at the political level there is a sense that children involved with terrorists groups are not child soldiers, and that's simply not the case under international law."

Indeed, sources told Embassy there is an effort—led by the Prime Minister's Office—to minimize or downplay Canadian obligations with regard to Mr. Khadr because there remains a legal question as to whether Canada acted in compliance with international law. Canada championed the Convention on the Rights of the Child and was the first nation to sign the Optional Protocol on children in armed conflict.

"At the very least...we should have at least evaluated what our international obligations were, under those treaties, leaving him at Guantanamo, and there's no evidence anyone ever did that analysis," a source said.

Mr. Neve, too, raised concerns about possible ramifications for the issues around Mr. Khadr. He said there is a very particular, legal reason to recognize him as a child soldier and to weaken that language could suggest an intention to avoid the legal obligations that come with it.

"There is nothing wrong with talking about children in armed conflicts, but there are very particular contexts in which it would be important to refer to child soldiers," Mr. Neve said. "There are specific legal obligations and international conventions that Canada has ratified."
Battle of Words

Pushback from the bureaucracy at the Department of Foreign Affairs is said to be a constant effort, and discussions around the effects have been ongoing since the Conservatives took power.

And while the changes are made through the minister's office, it is well-known that many of the tweaks to language and policy direction are being driven by the Prime Minister's Office. Among the ranks, it is believed that Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon, like former foreign minister Peter MacKay, represents more of a "Red Tory" and progressive conservative approach. Appealing to Mr. MacKay and Mr. Cannon on the merits of the policy, therefore, is said to be somewhat more welcomed than under the likes of former foreign minister Maxime Bernier.

"What we have then is under a minority government, a substantial shift in policy," a source said. "And because you don't need to go to Parliament for the vast majority of things that happen in foreign policy, that shift has taken place largely through directives from government to the bureaucracy; so essentially from the PMO and to some degree the [Privy Council Office].

"So many of the changes in language are a reflection of the bureaucracy doing what the bureaucracy does, and a pushback from the political level."

One woman in Kamloops was very upset about this, as we all should be.

Letters
Tory foreign policy thumbs nose at rights of child
Kamloops Daily News
September 8, 2009

Kamloops – It was with feelings of revulsion that I listened to a recent report outlining how the Harper Conservatives’ Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon has excised certain phrases such as ‘child soldier’ and ‘international humanitarian law’ from use in the ministry.

I wonder how many of the people who voted for the Conservative Party in the last election realized that they were in effect voting for changes by stealth to our foreign policy.

Under International Humanitarian Law we have the ability to prosecute war criminals with reference to justice for impunity in matters of genocide, crimes against humanity and crimes of sexual violence.

Under the changed appellation of International Law no such ability exists as it is merely intra-governmental law. Is this what we voted for? In Cannon’s new lexicon Child Soldier is lost in favour of either Children in Armed Conflict or merely Combatant. Distinctions are erased between children as victims of armed conflict, children as civilian victims and children as offenders.

Thus, the government can thumb its nose at the UN International Convention on the Rights of the Child and ignore the plight of Omar Khadr, the only western inmate of Guantanamo Bay who has not been repatriated by his government and continues to rot in that hell-hole. Is this what we voted for?

This government is backing away from supporting the International Criminal Court, an organization of which Canada has been a member since its creation in 2002. Brian Mulroney, in fact championed the Convention on the Rights of the Child which brought in the protection of child soldiers, an achievement of which all Canadians were justly proud.

I don’t believe any of us voted to have these basic human rights removed.

ANITA STRONG
Monte Lake

Stephen Harper is Unfit to Govern, Says a Man Who Would Know

In several postings I have referenced a book entitled Preston Manning and the Reform Party by Murray Dobbin, written in 1992 at the beginning of this new extreme right-wing movement.

Mr. Dobbin is a journalist and has recently written a piece about Stephen Harper, and why he should not be running our country.

Stephen Harper, Unfit to Govern
Few are thrilled to have another election, but we must put it to good use.
By Murray Dobbin,
September 10, 2009,
TheTyee.ca

Anticipating another federal election feels like being in the movie Groundhog Day with the same players (save one) going through the same routines, everyone stuck in the same place, doing the same thing. The two major parties are tied (according to the most reliable polls) at levels that are a long way off from majority territory. The NDP has learned nothing from the last two elections and the Greens are stuck at levels that mean they cannot possibly elect even one MP. Quebec will show its contempt for the whole mess by electing more Bloc members.

Despite all that, we need to take the opportunity to get rid of the most destructive and mean-spirited prime minister the country has ever had.

There is no good reason to wait as next spring or fall will simply see a longer list of victims of Stephen Harper's disdain for Canada and the whole notion of democratic government.

Malignant narcissist?

Quite simply, Stephen Harper is unfit to govern. Surely the only prime minister in Canadian history who has actually expressed contempt for his own country, Harper has demonstrated a disregard for the rule of law that should, in a rational world, disqualify him from leading any government.

In Western democracies people agree to be governed by a small number of elected representatives on the basis of respect for the rule of law: that is, we agree to assign our power to a government of laws, not of men -- a principle first enshrined in the Massachusetts constitution by John Adams in 1780. In other words, we expect governments and prime ministers to respect the law and not run roughshod over it on the basis of personal preferences.

It seems irrefutable to me after 20 years of analyzing the career of Stephen Harper that he is incapable of providing democratic governance. Harper arguably shows some traits of what psychologists refer to as malignant narcissism, a dangerously heightened sense of self importance. Otto Kernberg, a leader in the study of personality disorders, describes malignant narcissism as "extreme self-absorption and insensitivity that often result in a trail of victims -- emotional wreckage left in the narcissist's wake."

The victims Kernberg refers to are, of course, individuals, but in our case the principal victim is the Canadian nation -- its humanist accomplishments, its art and culture, the foundation of its science, its international standing and its democratic governance.

But there are, of course, individual victims, those individuals targeted for special contempt such as the numerous Muslim Canadians trapped overseas for various reasons and willfully abandoned by this government. Perhaps the most egregious and disturbing case is that of Omar Kadr, the child soldier who has languished for over six years in an illegal prison, without ever being convicted, in violation of international law, and despite two court decisions demanding that Ottawa repatriate him.

Changing words that matter

But Mr. Harper simply cannot bear to recognize the legitimacy of the courts as a crucial branch of government unless he absolutely has to. So perverse is Mr. Harper's attitude towards democratic governance, that he secretly had the language that the foreign affairs department can now use, changed -- replacing the term "child soldiers" with "children in armed conflict." A major shift in government policy was thus made by stealth, not only without any involvement of Parliament, but without any notice whatsoever.

But it didn't stop there. Embassy Magazine, which uncovered the secret documents involved, reported on other language changes, including "excising of the word 'humanitarian' from each reference to 'international humanitarian law,' replacing the term 'gender equality' with 'equality of men and women', switching focus from justice for victims of sexual violence to 'prevention of sexual violence.'" Observers of Canadian foreign policy say the changes water down "the very international human rights obligations Canada once fought to have adopted in conventions at the United Nations."

The PM's mini-crusade

The combination of Harper's signs of personality disorder and his fundamentalist Christianity has provided us with the most stark demonstration of his contempt for due process in this mini-Crusade against Muslims. It has garnered the most attention because most Canadians can easily empathize with the victims, in stark contrast with Harper's obvious disdain. And let's be clear: the decisions to do everything in the government's power to deny these citizens their rights could only have come from the Prime Minister's office. When the chief law-maker of the country flouts the law, he becomes a tyrant.

Scorn for Parliament itself is high on the list of categories of contempt. Harper's government simply declared that it would ignore the previous government's signing of the Kyoto protocol. We withdrew from the U.N.'s Durban anti-racism conference, again with no reference to Parliament. Harper eliminated funding for English language classes given by an Arab organization because it also came out strongly in support of Palestinian rights. He casually announced that he was simply winding down the long-gun registry, passed by Parliament, with no intention of bringing it back to the House of Commons for reconsideration.

To try to destroy a key part of the parliamentary process, Harper produced a 200-plus-page "guide" showing Conservative MPs how to thwart and otherwise frustrate the proceedings of Parliamentary Committees. One of the developments which no doubt prompted this sinister attempt at manipulation was a Commons Committee rejection of Gwyn Morgan, Harper's choice for a new public appointments chief. Furious, he declared that he would simply end the reform process until he had a majority and could appoint whomever he wanted. While this could be dismissed as little more than immature petulance it is much, much more.

Ditto his well-known confrontation with the Parliamentary press gallery in 2006. Harper angrily cancelled a news conference when reporters refused to accept his edict that the PMO would choose which reporters would get to ask questions. The depth of Harper's self-absorption was revealed in his bizarre efforts to get out his "line" for the day: his officials asked lobbyists and consultants to contact journalists with the appropriate messaging. This would be funny, I suppose, were it not so twisted.

Governing as if a majority

The thick guide on thwarting the House of Commons was just one feature of Harper's sneering disregard for democracy. Completely ignoring the long history of working minority governments, Harper doesn't even try to hide his scorn for the opposition parties which garnered 62 per cent of the votes in the last election. No other minority government in Canadian history has been so condescending. Harper has to compete in elections to get power, but his belief that 38 per cent of the vote entitles him to implement his whole agenda demonstrates his absolute scorn for the democratic process and for Canadians.

Canadian voters, his message seems to be, are just a bunch of fools who have to be periodically suckered so Stephen Harper can dismantle their country. If there was any chance that he could achieve power in any other way, one gets the ominous feeling that Harper would do so.

Harper has actually initiated two law suits again the Canadian government itself -- the non-partisan agency Elections Canada. These moves are unprecedented in Canada and probably the Commonwealth. Harper even has contempt for his own laws, nonchalantly ignoring his fixed election date law by calling an election last year to suit himself, when Parliament was not even in session (a move that is now being challenged in court by Democracy Watch). And when his government was threatened by a coalition of opposition parties, he simply prorogued Parliament to avoid a vote of non-confidence, another dubious first for a prime minister.

When the future of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan looked iffy in the House of Commons in 2007, Harper angrily declared that he would unilaterally extend the military's mandate for a year. (He got the mandate anyway, with the help of some right-wing Liberals.) This was the classic narcissist in action: absolutely convinced of his own superiority, he easily slips into a state of rage when someone -- anyone -- has the temerity to disagree with him.

Don't stay home, vote

The Liberals have decided that, to save face, they have to force an election. Well, whatever opportunity presents itself to rid the country of this prime minister should be taken up with energy and determination. No other result could possibly be worse. We already know what damage he can do even with a minority government. He is a threat to who we are as a nation.

One thing could get him re-elected: millions of Canadians deciding not to vote. Don't even think of being one of them.