Don't Blame Stephen Harper, Blame Edmund Burke

"If a sociology professor applies a day before a medical doctor, the professor's application gets processed first ... I mean, we don't really need a sociology professor. ".  Jason Kenney

Stephen Harper's recent refusal to call a public inquiry into missing and exploited Aboriginal women, should not come as a surprise to Canadians, given his background and the ideology of the Conservative Movement.

Modern Conservatives do not believe in sociological phenomenons, viewing them as too grey an area, in a world that is black and white, right and wrong, left and right.  Everything in between is simply minutiae, and therefore, not worthy of attention.

Jakeet Singh,  an assistant professor in the Department of Politics & Government at Illinois State University; addressed this issue in an excellent op-ed piece, published in the Toronto Star:  The ideological roots of Stephen Harper’s vendetta against sociology

Singh suggests that the roots of this belief system can be traced to Margaret Thatcher, and quotes her now infamous line "there is no such thing as society".

However, we have to go back a little further than that.

Conservative author and journalist, Yuval Levin, outlines the origins of this thought in his new book:  The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left

The inspiration for many modern political struggles, can be traced to the philosophies of Burke (1729-1797) and Paine (1737- 1809) and their views on revolutions.

The American Revolution may not have taken place, had it not been for Thomas Paine.  Initially, most colonists  viewed the anger over taxation without representation, as an issue for the wealthy elites, who simply didn't want to pay their share.

However, Paine's pamphlet Common Sense, stirred up a passion for liberty.

The pamphlet begins by establishing some principles for distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate rule: that government exists to secure the freedom and security of its equal citizens and that any government that fails to do so is not worthy of the name, regardless of its pedigree. (Levin p. 35)

It's rather ironic that the GOP and the new U.S. Tea Party, see themselves as a direct lineage of the founding fathers, when in fact, America was built on liberalism, in direct opposition to conservatism.

Edmund Burke did support the American Revolution, however,  but only because he was constantly seeking a balance, to avoid tyranny.  He saw the King's refusal to address the legitimate concerns of the colonists, as tyrannical, and suggested that if he continued in his stance, than they certainly had the right to self governance.

He did not, however, see this as a basic "human right", as Paine did, but simply as a solution to a problem.  Burke never dealt with metaphysical distinctions and had no time for anyone who did.

Because of that, he opposed the French Revolution and its philosophical Rights of Man.  An elitist, he believed that the masses were ill equipped to decide who should govern them, but that that task should be left to a chosen few.  Otherwise, decisions would be based on what citizens wanted or thought they wanted, and not on what they needed.

" What is the use of discussing a man's abstract right to food or to medicine? The question is upon the method of procuring and administering them. In that deliberation I shall always advise to call in the aid of the farmer and the physician, rather than the professor of metaphysics." — Edlund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790

In other words, "...  we don't really need a sociology professor. ".

I watched a documentary on Ronald Reagan, and his son told the interviewer that his dad could never really grasp the idea of abstract notions , like "the poor".  Harper is no different.

"These proposals included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of “child poverty” and for more business subsidies in the name of “cultural identity. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects.”  Stephen Harper,  The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997

There is no such thing as "child poverty", but if you see a child who looks hungry, simply feed it. There is no epidemic of murdered and missing aboriginal women, but if you know of someone who murdered them, call the cops. Again, simple solutions to complex problems.

The Starting Point- 1789

In a radio broadcast on April 1, 1933, Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, proclaimed it clearly : with the Nazi revolution "the year 1789 has been expunged from the records of history."  It was obvious to all why Goebbels compared 1933 to 1789.  Any contemporary, whether schooled in history or not, instinctively knew that the French Revolution was the measure of things in the modern world. "We want to eradicate the ideology of liberalism and replace it with a new sense of community"  (Foundational Pasts: The Holocaust as Historical Understanding, By Alon Confino, Cambridge University Press, 2011, ISBN 978-0-52173-632-9, p. 6)

The National Socialist Party of Germany, in 1933, saw a classic struggle between right and left.  They had a visceral hatred of communism and the liberalism that allowed communism to flourish.

And in the Edmund Burke tradition,  believed that only they knew what was good for the German people, and so dealt with those who tried to convince them otherwise.  This meant the expulsion of not only Jews (who they suggested were part of a communist plot to take over the world), but everyone with liberal ideas and "mystical" views of human rights.

They would create a new kind of socialism, in direct contrast to the Marxist or Paine idea of socialism; for the people, but not by the people, and certainly not for all the people.

The French Revolution has been seen as a defining moment in democracy, despite the fact that it failed, only giving power to the Bourgeoisie, and the eventual dictatorship of Napoleon; but it has inspired many revolutionary changes around the world.

The late 18th century public debates between two great thinkers, Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine, live on in the conflicting ideologies of today's conservatives and liberals.

The question is, what side of this new revolution do we want to be on?

The one where basic human rights are simply philosophical or one where those rights are achievable and necessary?

One where "poverty" is merely an "idea" or one where the visual, and yes sociological studies, are proof that "the poor" do exist, and society has an obligation to help them?

One where government should only address the needs of the top 1%, or one that addresses the needs of all citizens?

Edmund Burke or Thomas Paine?

Stephen Harper or anyone with a heart and soul?

Conservatives like to quote Edmund Burke:  "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” .  The only problem is that Burke never said that.  If you pick through things he actually said, you could perhaps create the sentiment, but not find the direct quote.

The closest researchers have come to citing the remark, might be to John Stuart Mills, who in an 1867 inaugural address at the University of St. Andrews, said:

"Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."

Mills was a liberal.

However, you can quote me on this ""The only thing necessary for Stephen Harper to continue his ruthless revolution, is for good Canadians to do nothing.”

As good Canadians we can all do something.  Vote him out.

Dog Whistle Politics and the Return of Old Dance Partners

 "Borrowed in part from the legacy of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, Canadian neo-conservatism owes much of it's character to the right-wing populist tradition of the West. "Indeed, Canadians became exporters of neo-con innovation in the 1990s. 'I would say Margaret Thatcher and Mr. [Preston] Manning are the two non-Americans we learned most from'', said U.S. Republican House Speaker, Newt Gingrich in 1995.

I know him [Preston Manning] because I watched all of his commercials. We developed our platform from watching his campaign.' Like cowboy culture, Canadian neo-conservatism is a growth industry, spawning a whole generation of Will James outlaws in hot pursuit of political power." (Slumming it at the Rodeo: The Cultural Roots of Canada's Right-Wing Revolution, Gordon Laird, 1998, Douglas & McIntyre, ISBN: 1-55054 627-9, Pref. xiv-xv)

The political cartoon above, first appeared in the Alberta Report Magazine on March 27, 1995, under the caption 'Preston Manning and Newt Gingrich dancing in newt suits'. The two men formed a lasting friendship as they worked out ways to promote combative style politics.

Republican pollster Frank Luntz, was then working with Canada's Reform Party, but took his leave to help Newt draft his Contract With America. Ralph Reed of the U.S. Christian Coalition wrote a corresponding document Contract With the American Family, to bring in the Religious Right.

Jason Kenney and company travelled to Washington in 1995 to attend a Christian Coalition conference, and soon after:

... Even more ominous for democratic rights in [British Columbia] is the recent hatching of the B.C. clone of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition. With 1.7 million active members and a $25 million (US) annual budget, the U.S. organization has become a formidable lobbying force in American politics, installing its anti-choice, anti-gay agenda and candidates at all levels of government, from school boards to Congress .... the Christian Coalition of Canada materialized after dozens of conservative Christians in this country thronged to Washington, DC, last fall [1995] to attend a major convention of the U.S. organization.

"Advisors" to the new CCC reportedly include Ted and Link Byfield (owners of the ultra-conservative B.C. Report and Alberta Report magazines), Jason Kenny (head of the Canadian Taxpayers Association), and Alex Parachin (head of the Christian Broadcasting Associates in Toronto, the Canadian branch plant of Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network).

The B.C. chapter is sure to be a factor in the upcoming election, giving a boost to Reform Party candidates and any others who will go on record opposing abortion ... While Don Spratt may be telling readers "Nobody has anything to fear from the Christian Coalition," progressive activists and journalists will have to make sure the electorate knows better." (The Christian Coalition Comes to Canada, by Kim Goldberg, The Albion Monitor, May 5, 1996)

"Journalists will have to make sure the electorate knows better"? Yeah. Good luck with that. A decade and a half later and they still don't get it.

Even Kelly Block's recent attack on our aboriginal communities, stems from American neoconservatism. She's working on behalf of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, described as a pyramid scheme. And CTF is a spin-off of Grover Norquist's Americans For Tax Reform.

Both traverse the country with their debt clocks and force conservative politicians to sign pledges not to increase government revenue. Jason Kenney had Mike Harris sign it in 1995. Enough said.

I now watch American political commentary programs, because it's the only way I know what Harper's next move will be. And it is also the only way to understand the politics of the Conservative Party of Canada. They are part of the Conservative movement that began in the U.S. in the 1940s, imported by Ernest Manning, and they have been in lock step ever since.

We just didn't notice until they came to power in 2006. It has been said that the Harperites introduced Western style politics, but in fact, it was American style Conservatism.

Listening to someone like Evan Solomon, is like having a hockey commentator call the plays at a baseball game. He's not even in the ballpark.

Dog Whistles and Playing to the Base

A letter in Time magazine this week, discusses why many Republicans don't trust Mitt Romney. "They are distrustful of his recent public conversions on abortion, gun control and gay rights, or turned off by his Massachusetts health care law." (November 18, p. 20)

Those conversions of course, refer to the fact that he used to respect gay rights and women's reproductive rights, feared guns, and was committed to improving the health of his constituents, or at least assuring that all had access to good health care. All of these things are now kacky poo poo to the Republican base.

How did they let it get this far?

It's because they only played to that base with dog whistle politics. Saying the right thing to stir up the ignorant and now they are forced to draft policy to appease the ignorant, or risk being unelectable.

On Chris Matthew's Hardball this week, they discussed the rise of Newt Gingrich, who now has the perfect blend of ignorance and moderation, to make everyone happy. At least for now. Newt used to be deemed too right wing. His politics haven't changed, only the expectations of the conservative base.

One panelist on the program, Chicago Tribune columnist, Clarence Page, said that segregation is making a comeback. Instead of signs reading "Blacks to the back of the bus" or "Whites only", Anglo Republican politicians are simply ignoring the concerns of black communities, and turning others against them by suggesting that they are demanding too much.

Be more like the Huxtables and not depend so much on us white folks. You had it better under slavery, so go with that.

Michelle Obama was booed recently by NASCAR fans, prompting Rush Limbaugh to praise them for going after the "uppity" first lady. It was blown out of his dog whistle as "uppity n.....", and the base sang Hallelujah.

Our own Fox News North painted First Nation struggles as being against "white people and Indians" with another banner "we're on your side". The "Indians indulged" makes it pretty clear whose side they're on.

Harper government policies are also a promotion of the new form of segregation. He doesn't attack women, but instead removes the word "equality" from the Status for Women mandate, puts an end to affirmative action and pay equity initiatives, closes 12 of the 16 Status for Women offices and eliminates their research funding.

His government doesn't overtly attack minorities, but closes down Human Rights Commission offices, so that those suffering from discrimination have no place to address their concerns.

Gawd, I wish our media would catch up. Maybe we should send them all dog whistles for Christmas, because they sure as hell are not trying to communicate to us.

When it was discovered that neo-Nazis had infiltrated the Reform Party, Preston Manning fell back on his father's tired line, when the media exposed his extremist elements.

"A bright light attracts bugs."

But as my own father might say: "So does shite."

Kelly Block to Finally Reveal What Was Really Going on in Her Office

If only that were true.

In December of 2010, a staffer in Kelly Block's office, leaked details of a confidential pre-budget House Finance Committee report, to several key lobbyists.  When caught, the Conservatives claimed that he was a "rogue" staffer and would be dealt with.

Their modus operandi when caught red handed.  Blame it on the help.

Block's aide, Russell Ullyatt, was not new to controversy.  He was named in the case of Conservative MP Rob Clarke, a former RCMP officer, who during his 2008 campaign, was allowing uniformed officers to deliver his lawn signs.  The image was both unprofessional and frightening, though not the first time that the RCMP interfered in elections on behalf of the Harperites.

In fact, they are still doing it.

The government was able to cleverly control the message of Ullyatt's motor mouth, by suggesting that they were looking at ways to make sure that it wouldn't happen again, and of course Block gave him the sack.

However, what they refused to address was something far more serious.  Apparently Ullyat was running a very lucrative business from  INSIDE Block's office, using taxpayer money to print and distribute, according to his own website, more than 5 million direct mail fundraising letters on behalf of Conservative clients.

Throughout both House Affairs Committee meetings last week, opposition MPs honed in on Mr. Ullyatt's credibility and especially his ownership of a political mailing company BestMail.ca. Mr. Mulcair, who also has an office on the sixth floor of the Confederation Building near Ms. Block's office, said he had seen "skids with boxes piled high and a very elaborate printing machine" in the hallway outside Ms. Block's office.

If you look at the bestmail.ca website, it's pretty chintzy, with a Conservative blue banner and little else. Apparently he has no staff, according to the company profile, but then why would he need his own staff, when he could simply use Kelly's, which is paid for by us.

The other strange thing about his website is that under contact info it simply leads you back to bestmail.ca  Obviously his clients knew where he could be reached.

As usual, the Harperites circled the wagons, protecting Block, and Block herself, refused to be accountable, feigning ignorance, which in a Member of Parliament may be worse than deceit.  How can we trust her to make decisions when she can't, or won't, explain over 5,000,000 mail outs, allegedly produced and distributed by her own staff?  Surely she doesn't believe that she has 5,000,000 constituents?

Liberal MP Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Ont.) asked in Question Period on Dec. 16 whether the government would call in the RCMP to investigate what she called "a serious allegation of potential fraud being conducted out of [Ms. Block's] office." Government House Leader John Baird (Ottawa West-Nepean, Ont.), who had accompanied Ms. Block to her witness chair before the House Affairs Committee earlier that day, responded that the government would always be prepared to look at that.

They never did.

The opposition also revealed that her office had exorbitantly high printing expenses, which she signed off on.  They scripted her responses to committee and limited her time for questioning.
 
I bring this up now, because hypocritically, Block has now been charged with presenting a private member's bill to hold First Nation communities to account, by revealing the salaries of their leaders.  The implication of course is that they are perhaps corrupt, and even if this proves not to be so, the damage will be done.
 
The Reformers claim that Band members deserve "the same provisions as other Canadians in terms of transparency and accountability."
 
"Other Canadians" meaning anyone other than a member of their own government.  I don't know how Block will be able to discuss any of this with a straight face.  I mean, seriously.  She's being called a "rising star", but only because she clearly knows how the game is played.

You do as you're told and you'll be just fine.

This is clearly a witch hunt, but maybe the First Nation communities should announce that they are in the process of investigating Kelly Block and her connections to  Russell Ullyatt and bestmail.ca

Somebody's got to do it.

Conservative MP Running Side Business Under Baird's Protection

After learning that an employee of Conservative MP Kelly Block leaked information to investors, our elected Opposition wanted answers.

However, we have since learned that that employee may have been running a side business from Block's office.

And she knew nothing about it? Did she sign off on "copy" expenses?

Typically the Cons refuse to be accountable, shutting down the investigation and forming a human shield around the woman.

The Conservatives forcefully objected when opposition MPs tried to steer questions to Mr. Ullyatt’s private printing company, which has boasted of sending more than five million pieces of mail in the past two years as “Canada’s only completely political mail provider.”

New Democrat Thomas Mulcair, who says he’s seen a “very elaborate printing machine” and pallets of boxes outside Ms. Block’s office, tried to ask why the Saskatchewan MP would need these materials. But he was shut down by Joe Preston, the Conservative chairman of the committee, who said the questions were irrelevant to the leak of the budget report.

Remember folks, that's our money. More than five million pieces of mail!

Who says crime doesn't pay?

The Leaks They are a Leakin'

Kady O'Malley, one of Canada's only real political journalists, has announced that Conservative MP Kelly Block has revealed a leak, assuring the House that she had fired the leaker.

It wasn't just any leak, but a serious breech.

As it turns out, it wasn't just any report that Block's now former staffer had leaked, but the still confidential draft report on the Finance committee's pre-budget consultations.

According to a report tabled in the House earlier today, on November 18, 2010, her then-parliamentary assistant Russell Ullyatt "transmitted" the report to to three lobbyists: Clarke Cross, now a senior consultant at Tactix, who worked for then-Reform MPs Leon Benoit and James Lunney in the early 2000s; Tim Egan, President and Chief Executive Officer at the Canadian Gas Association; and Lynne Hamilton, Vice President for Public Affairs at GCI Group, whose experience, according to her corporate bio, includes "working with Conservative governments federally, provincially and municipally." including several Mike Harris-era ministers and the former premier himself.

Stay tuned as the leak could be a deluge. Bring an umbrella.

Kelly Block Must be Replaced as Member of Parliament for Saskatoon Rosetown Biggar

Kelly Block is the Reform-Conservative Member of Parliament for Saskatoon Rosetown Biggar, who won her seat by only 253 votes, over NDP candidate Nettie Wiebe.

Right off the bat, she went wild with the ten per centers, filling up recycle boxes across the riding; the worst of which was to promote spanking as a normal discipline for children.

This is a woman who speaks at pro-life rallies, but when children are born, refuses to protect them from abuse, feeling more empathy with the 'poor' parents who've lost control of their tempers.

Just another theo-con, and the government has too many of them already.

During the last campaign she refused to debate the other candidates, so we can only gather she was out of her league.

This is one of the ridings that Catch 22 will be adopting. UPDATE: Nettie Wiebe will be running again. Yeah! Since strategically she will be the best option to take out Block, I'm throwing my efforts into promoting her. Her website is here.

Her Facebook page is here.

If you live in this riding, here's what you can do:

1. Join the NDP. It's only about $10.00 and is a great way to show your support. They will keep you up to date with what's happening in the community and on the federal scene.

2. If you are able to find a bit of time, volunteer; perhaps with canvassing or some other promotions.

3. If you can afford it at all, donate a bit now and then. I'm set up to contribute a regular monthly donation, but it's whatever you feel comfortable with. Remember that the Conservatives have a lot of wealthy backers and it takes money to launch a campaign.

4. Join Catch 22 Harper Conservatives to learn more tips, and encourage others to join.

5. Join Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament. There are more than 20,000 links to stories with reasons to vote the Reform-Conservatives out. The better informed you are the more motivated you will be.

I'll keep this page updated as often as possible and will continue to provide more reasons why Kelly Block and these destructive Reformers have got to go.

And I will also provide plenty of information, as to why Nettie Wiebe will be the best for this riding, if in fact she is runing again.

************

Other Postings on Kelly Block

Kelly Block: Darrel Reid Disciple or the Mother From Hell?

Kelly Block, Stephen Woodworth, Dean Del Mastro, et al - Are NOT Pro-Life!

Kelly Block, Stephen Woodworth, Dean Del Mastro, et al - Are NOT Pro-Life!

I was on LifeSite News website today, where they claimed that 12,000 people attended their March for Life on Parliament Hill last spring.

I know that abortion is a tough subject to debate sometimes, crossing different political stripes, faiths and genders. My own personal opinion is her body, her choice, but I respect the passion and commitment of the marchers. They firmly believe what they believe, just as I do.

What I have a problem with though, are members of the Harper government taking part in these rallies, promising to work to change the laws; when they have an opportunity to exact real change.

Instead people like Kelly Block, Stephen Woodworth and Dean Del Mastro, speak at these rallies, scoring political points, trying to claim what they feel is the high road; while they clearly have no interest in the children once they're born.

In 2007, the last time the figures were provided, 637,000 children were living in poverty in this country. This accounted for 15% of Canadian children. Aboriginal communities fared worse, where 1 in 4 children live below the poverty line.

And remember these are 2007 figures, when our economy was strong, and before this most recent recession. The Kelowna Accord that Harper scrapped when assuming office, would have helped the First Nations, but that would go against the Reform Party belief.

Recent statistics have also shown that:

Inuit infants die at well over three times the rate of other Canadian babies, according to a massive new study published Monday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. And as if to underscore the tough situation facing aboriginal children in Canada's North, a second study in the same journal found that 70 per cent of Inuit preschoolers live in homes where there isn't always enough food .... (Bob Weber, Canadian Press, January 26, 2010)

As the young man in the video reminds us, this is not a society that values children; or at least not all children.

So people like Block, Woodworth and Del Mastro, who claim to be concerned about unborn babies, need to start looking at what happens to some of these babies. Otherwise, pro-life simply means anti-abortion.

If they were really pro-life they would vote down Jim Flaherty's budget, that is calling for HUGE cuts in corporate taxes, with more to come.

And if they were really pro-life they would demand that Jim Flaherty's budget includes initiatives to end child poverty, and focus on the health of all Canadians.

But then Stephen Harper once boasted that he was often sought out to speak against government money going out in the name of child poverty, so I'm not expecting him to have a change of heart.

However, by putting the needs of the wealthiest Canadians above the needs of the most impoverished, many women are left with few choices.

These sanctimonious and self righteous MPs might want to think about that.

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA?

Spanking and Dominionism, From Kelly Block to James Dobson

In October of 2009, Reform-Conservative Member of Parliament, Kelly Block, sent out a tax-payer funded flyer to her constituents that asked the question, "Are Parents Criminals?” The intent of this was to drum up support for her opposition to a senate bill that would see parents charged for inflicting corporal punishment on their children.

According to the Star Pheonix:

“The Liberal dominated Senate already voted to approve this terrible idea last year,” the mailout says. “(The bill) is designed to make moms and dads into criminals for using the traditional punishment of spanking to teach their kids right from wrong.”

Block did not return multiple interview requests seeking comment.

What Block was referring to was Liberal senator Céline Hervieux-Payette's, Bill S-209. Believing as many do that spanking or any form of corporal punishment can encourage violent behaviour, the senator felt a need to introduce consequences.

She includes the following video on her site:

While section 43 of the criminal code, prohibited spanking, it did not allow for criminal charges to be laid against the person inflicting the harm.

Kelly Block was not the only member of the Religious Right to be upset.

Charles' McVety's Family Action Coalition, suggested that "... section 43 of the criminal code [is] to be rescinded. That section allows parents to use "reasonable force" to correct behaviors of their (not the state's) children. If that allowance for spanking was rescinded then any parent who reasonably spanks a child could face criminal charges of assault."

REAL Women of Canada had already presented their views on their website:

The arrogant political left, which looks contemptuously down on those who disagree with its supposedly enlightened views, is attempting to revive the spanking issue. Apparently the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on the subject, handed down a year ago, was only a stopgap in the onward journey to ban the spanking of children in Canada. (2)

I'm not sure what 'arrogance' has to do with wanting to protect children, but spanking has come to mean something more to the Christian nationalist movement.

James Dobson, Dominionism or Destruction

James Dobson is the Founder of Focus on the Family and a leading member of the American Religious Right movement. He provided 1.6 million dollars to help set up the Canadian Focus on the Family group, founded by Stephen Harper's deputy chief of staff, Darrel Reid.

He has written extensively on the issue of spanking, and though he is a child psychologist, it's never from a scientific argument, only Biblical.

In his book, The Strong Willed Child he makes an extraordinary case to justify harsh discipline. In it he speaks of his small dog Siggie, who he claims to love very much, but when he was away for awhile, the dog had picked up some bad habits. And when he disobeyed him, Dobson retaliated. He describes the scene:

“At eleven o’clock that night, I told Siggie to go get into his bed, which is a permanent enclosure in the family room. For six years I had given him that order at the end of each day, and for six years Siggie had obeyed.

“On this occasion, however, he refused to budge. ...“I had seen this defiant mood before, and knew there was only one way to deal with it. The ONLY way to make Siggie obey is to threaten him with destruction. Nothing else works. I turned and went to my closet and got a small belt to help me ‘reason’ with Mr. Freud.”

“What developed next is impossible to describe. That tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast. I fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt. I am embarrassed by the memory of the entire scene. Inch by inch I moved him toward the family room and his bed. As a final desperate maneuver, Siggie backed into the corner for one last snarling stand. I eventually got him to bed, only because I outweighed him 200 to 12!” (3)

What the good Mr. Dobson describes is animal cruelty and the fact the he outweighed him 200 to 12, makes the whole scene even more horrific. That man clearly should not own a pet.

He goes on from "destruction" being the only thing the dog understood, to the need to discipline children, and even uses capital letters:

"JUST AS SURELY AS A DOG WILL OCCASIONALLY CHALLENGE THE AUTHORITY OF HIS LEADERS, SO WILL A LITTLE CHILD — ONLY MORE SO.” (3)

And he doesn't just say a child but "a little child ", like the little 12 pound dog. And after describing ways that children will challenge their parent's authority, he states:

“Perhaps this tendency toward self-will is the essence of ‘original sin’ which has infiltrated the human family. It certainly explains why I place such stress on the proper response to willful defiance during childhood, for that rebellion can plant the seeds of personal disaster.” (3)

Nothing clinical befitting his profession, but children and "original sin".

You do get some insight into the reasons for his disturbing behaviour from this bio:

Dobson's own family was a bit out of the ordinary. His father was a preacher who often told the story that he had tried to pray before he could even talk. His mother routinely beat their son with her shoes, her belt, and once, a 16-pound girdle. His parents somehow instilled so much guilt in young Dobson that he answered his father's fervent altar-call, weeping at the front of a crowded church service and crying out for God's forgiveness for all his sins, when he was three years old. "It makes no sense, but I know it happened," Dobson still says of being born again as a toddler.

This would certainly prove senator Céline Hervieux-Payette's belief that children learn what they see. However, the spanking issue may be more complex.

For those who have studied the Christian nationalist movement, which is also referred to as 'Dominionism', submissiveness is required to make it work.

In a politico-religious context, dominionism (also called subjectionism) is the tendency among some conservative politically-active Christians, especially in the United States, to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action. The goal is either a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law. (4)

Movement conservatives see the end result as a nation whose laws are based on the Old Testament. There can be no exception. And they are very clear in their understanding that fundamentalist Christians must assume control of all levels of government, beginning with school and municipal boards. It stems from Genesis, where God commissions man to exercise "dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

George Grant, one of their founders (and I will be writing a lot more on this) states:

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ." (5)

It's up to us to decide what kind of Canada we want for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren. This is not a movement with any flexibility and it does not represent Canadian values. When Stephen Harper decided to exploit the religious right for political gain, I'm not sure if he understood just what that meant. He is a "born-again" Christian, but I believe he worships on the altar of capitalism. This is now out of his control, I'm afraid.

Sources:

1. MP favours spanking, Star Phoenix, October 5, 2009

2. ATTEMPT TO REVIVE SPANKING ISSUE, REAL Women of Canada, Jan/Feb 2005

3. The Strong Willed Child, By James Dobson, Living Books, 1992, ISBN-10: 0842359249

4. Exiles: Living Missionally in a Post-Christian Culture, By Michael Frost, Hendrickson Publishers, ISBN 1565636708, Pg. 235

5. The Changing of the Guard, By George Grant, 1987, as quoted in "American Theocracy: Who is Trying to Turn America into a Theocracy?

How Focus on the Family is Destroying Children

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

James Dobson is the founder of Focus on the The Family, and one of the leading members of the Religious Right. He not only spent thousands of dollars campaigning for Stephen Harper's fight against equal marriage, but he provided four and a half million dollars to start a Focus on the Family in Canada.

Harper's assistant chief of staff, Darrel Reid founded the group, and several of Harper's MPs, including Maurice Vellacott, Rob Anders and Brad Trost, belong to it.

It is one of the oldest of these so-called "values", "families" groups, and is certainly one of the most profitable. Unfortunately, it is also one of the most damaging.

Brian Elroy McKinley, a former Christian, has launched a website, that not only exposes FOTF, but also acts as a support group for others who have been damaged because of Dobson. He doesn't feel that Focus are alone but speaks of how "... the illness of judgementalism, and prejudgementalism has infected the ranks of the faithful." (1) This should help to serve as their wake up call.

From one testimonial:

For fourteen years I attended church three times a week with my parents. this particular church seemed to have a very intimate relationship with Focus on the Family. I was taught women didn't deserve the same respect as men because they were not equal to them. This and other "values" were ingrained into my young, absorbent mind from the nursery to youth group. As a female, this contributed to my low self-esteem. My self esteem, in turn, led to my silence after my rape (my youth pastor convinced me it was my fault and that I was "ruined") and a relationship with an abusive boyfriend. My experiences drove me to reject Christianity as a whole. I would like to give my life back to Christ, but I can't let go of my haunting memories. I also can't separate Christianity'steachings from those of Dr. Dobson. (2)

And Another:

I was raised as a child by the Dobson's methods. I went to a Christian School whose idea of sexual education was to put on a Dobson tape and tell us to take notes. I was given "tough love" because my parents were confused with certain aspects of my personality that Dobson claimed was "passive rebellion". Ergo, I was given "spankings" (the details of which I will spare you, but I understand that not even Prisoners of War, according to the Geneva Convention, should be treated in such ways). It was all done by the book (Dobson's books) and his radio shows were always on the radio.

Three nervous breakdowns, years of therapy and support groups, and a lost childhood later, I am just starting to learn what Mr. Dobson's theories have done to me. Despite this, millions continue to listen and adhere to his destructive approach to parenting. For years, I thought I was alone in this opinion. My parents and I have made our peace over the past. But, it churns my stomach to know he carries on. (2)

And still another:

I am a gay man. Many years ago, I listened to Focus on the Family. They had a news show called 'Family News in Focus.' It was the only thing that I found that addressed homosexuality..albeit in a negative light. Their radio program really worked on me. I nearly killed myself before finally accepting myself as I am. A friend of mine was less fortunate and became obsessed with Bob Larson's 'Talk Back' program and later committed suicide.

After this happened, I started researching the Religious Right and found them out to be a very scary bunch. Bob Larson has a fan club these days. But, as you are seeing, it's hard to criticize them, because then you're the 'enemy' who is 'attacking' Christianity. It's a catch-22, and I know that it's not Christianity that you wish to attack! I have come across some 'Christian' sites and have sent letters to their editors when they come across so extreme, trying to get them to consider what they are saying. But I only get a bible verse back, and a polite letter that doesn't address what I said to them at all.

"Love the sinner but not the sin" is what I'm told. I asked one of them why don't they think that it's a sin using homosexuals in fundraising letters in order to stir up anger toward us (to get 'love gifts' from their followers)?

I'm hoping that one day being a Conservative Christian means things other than attacking homosexuals, focusing on abortion and prayer in schools. (2)

Groups like Focus marginalize anyone who doesn't fit into their narrow little definition of what a person or a family should be. And they have an almost cult like following.

Susan Greene, a columnist for the Denver Post discovered just how much of a cult following Dobson had, when she wrote criticizing his endorsement of spanking children.

Having been called all sorts of names as a columnist, I've got to hand it to some members of the religious right for their spirited invective. A column I wrote over the weekend criticizing James Dobson for his advocacy of corporal punishment prompted one reader to call me a "Jezebel," another a "dyke." Five men and two women have lobbed the c-word my way. And I have been called a "retard" three times and a "moron" twice since Sunday.

All purportedly in defense of Dr. Dobson and the moral righteousness of his teachings. Several readers took umbrage with my use of the verb "hit" as a synonym for "spank" — as if spanking were more virtuous, see, because it is focused on the family.

...Reader Charlie Haynes called to tout how effective he found it to have bitten his troubled young daughter and hit her head on the ground. Scott from Castle Rock phoned to threaten me with a spanking (with me wearing bobby socks, as he bothered to imagine it). No joke. Walter Smetana decried my criticism of Dobson as illustrative of a "mindless, bestial, even Satanic banality of evil."

...And Walt Morrison sent his warmest and fuzziest anti-Semitic regards, using the debate about discipline to launch into a hateful rant about the need to exterminate Jews. Way to spread the love, Mr. M!

What touches me, I mean really touches me, are all the good folks who have called to say they're praying for me and my hatefulness. That's code for insinuating that I'm headed for damnation because I don't spank my kids and am dubious when readers claim their own grown children have thanked them for whacking them.

"My daddy belted me. I belted my son. And God willing, my son will discipline his own boy," Paul White, a reader and self-described amateur pastor, phoned to tell me Monday morning. "It's called backbone. It's called firmness," he continued. Maybe, Mr. White. But it's also called abuse and repetition compulsion and being a big old bullying blow-hard, plain and simple. Now put your belt back on. (3)

Yes, it also churns my stomach to know that there are people out there like this.

Sources:

1. A More Honest Form of Faith, A Former Christian's Perspective, By Brian McKinley

2. People directly damaged by Focus and the people who follow them, Letters of Support

3. James Dobson evokes storm of responses, By Susan Greene, The Denver Post, March 2, 2010