Gary Bauer's Focus is the Harper Government's Vision

I Burned my Bra For This? REAL Women of Canada and the Men Behind Them

Another soldier in the war against American women, who helped to the launch a similar war against Canadian women, is Gary Bauer.

Bauer was with the Moral Majority/Religious Right political movement, that helped to run Ronald Reagan's campaign for President. As reward, he was appointed to the Education Department, as the "family policy" czar, and his first order of business was to "usurp the feminists" (1).

With that accomplished, the Department of Education, then directed the effort to crown the fathers. As Susan Faludi said, "If the "pro-family" movement was "pro" anything, it was paternal power". The same has been said of REAL Women of Canada. (2)

To many, the creation of a "family policy" office would suggest an office committed to helping families with things like financial aid, and medical or legal assistance, but that was not the case. Instead they churned out lectures on how the American family should "behave".

And in a further attack against the Civil Rights movement, Bauer told civil-rights leaders: "The values taught on the `Cosby' show would do more to help low-income and minority children than a bevy of new federal programs. . . . a lot of research indicates that values are much more important, say, than the level of welfare payments."

Not everyone could accomplish what the Huxtables accomplished, with a doctor father and lawyer mother, and that includes most white families. However, the Religious Right's attitude on racial issues has not changed since Reagan's time, as witnessed by their latest offspring, the FAMILY LEADER, and their suggestion that slavery was good for the black family.

However, women and blacks were not the only targets of Bauer's office"

[In 1986] President Reagan asked the surgeon general [C. Everett Koop] to prepare a report on AIDS as the United States confirmed its ten-thousandth case. Leaders of the evangelical movement did not want Koop to write the report, nor did senior White House staffers ..... Dr. Koop related to me, "Gary Bauer was my nemesis in Washington because he kept me from the president. He kept me from the cabinet and he set up a wall of enmity between me and most of the people that surrounded Reagan because he believed that anybody who had AIDS ought to die with it. That was God's punishment for them. (3)

Gary and Carol Bauer: Your Typical American Family

Bauer's office promoted the nuclear family, as laid out in a fifty-two-page diatribe, that senator Daniel P. Moynihan, referred to as "less a policy statement than a tantrum."

"The Family: Preserving America's Future" opens with a quote from Teddy Roosevelt: "If the mother does not do her duty, there will either be no next generation, or a next generation that is worse than none at all." The pages were filled with attacks on "women who work, women who use day care, women who divorce", and "women who have babies out of wedlock".

His "recommendations" to save the family included a list of punishments for girls and mothers: "bar young single mothers from public housing; revive old divorce laws to make it harder for women to break the wedding bonds; deny contraceptives to young women". Mothers who stay home, he suggested, should get tax breaks; "the more babies, the more credits".

With such strong opinions you would think that Bauer and his wife Carole, were living this desired family life. But they weren't.

It comes then as a bit of a surprise to learn that Bauer has subjected his own children to this leftist institution—for nine years. (Bauer called daycares "Marxist")

He can explain it, he says. His use of day care was "different" and "better" because he placed his children in "home-based" day care—that is, an unlicensed center run out of a woman's living room. (It's unclear how this is better: a national review of child abuse statistics at day care centers finds that the most incidents of abuse have occurred at such unlicensed sites.) At any rate, Bauer says, a bit defensively, it's not like his kids went directly from the maternity ward to the day care nursery. His wife, Carol, waited "at least three, four months" before she returned to work. (1)

However, wife Carol remembers it differently:

"Actually, I went back to work six weeks after Elyse was born," says his wife ... At the time of her daughter Elyse's birth in 1977, Carol Bauer explains, she was a top assistant to Congresswoman Margaret Heckler; she couldn't just quit.

A lack of federal assistance programs for mothers also played a role in her decision: "There's no set leave policy on the Hill," she points out. Financial considerations entered into it, too: "We had bought a house and we had a mortgage." And then there was that other impulse that she just couldn't seem to squelch: "It wasn't just economics. I enjoyed the intellectual stimulation of the work. I loved work." She laughs. "I mean, when I had Elyse, I literally took my work with me. After I got out of the hospital, I was working the next day at home."

For years, at eight o'clock every morning, the Bauers dropped off Elyse, and eventually their second daughter, Sarah, at day care, put in a full day of work, and then picked up the girls on the way home, usually after six o'clock. The children spent so much time at day care, in fact, Carol Bauer says, that when it came time for Elyse to enter kindergarten, they enrolled her in the school in the center's neighborhood rather than their own. How did the girls feel about day care? "Oh, fine," Carol Bauer says. "They were very happy there. For them it was normal."(1)

Like Beverly Lehaye, one of the founders of REAL Women's inspiration: 'Concerned Women for America', Carol Bauer only felt fulfilled when she was working outside the home. When she finally did drop out of the workforce, Bauer found "nesting" difficult, and was only happy when she spent most waking hours doing volunteer work.

Oh, and that "family values" man, Gary Bauer.

He was alleged to have had an affair with a 26-year-old staffer (deputy campaign manager Melissa McClard), prompting nine members of his staff to quit. He denied that it was an affair, but Charles Jarvis, Bauer's campaign manager, warned Bauer several times "in the clearest possible terms" that he was creating "the appearance of impropriety" by spending "hours and hours and hours behind closed doors with a young single woman."

Canada's "family values" man, Vic Toews, lost his deniability rights, when it was revealed that he had fathered a child with a young conservative staffer, breaking up his 30 years plus marriage.

From Women's Affairs to Foreign Affairs

For Harper, the courtship of the Christian right is unlikely to prove an electoral one-night stand. Three years ago, in a speech to the annual Conservative think-fest, Civitas, he outlined plans for a broad new party coalition that would ensure a lasting hold on power. "The only route", he argued, "was to focus not on the tired wish list of economic conservatives or “neo-cons,” as they’d become known, but on what he called “theo-cons”—those social conservatives who care passionately about hot-button issues that turn on family, crime, and defence.

"Even foreign policy had become a theo-con issue", he pointed out, driven by moral and religious convictions. “The truth of the matter is that the real agenda and the defining issues have shifted from economic issues to social values,” he said, “so conservatives must do the same".

Arguing that the party "had to come up with tough, principled stands on everything from parents’ right to spank their children to putting “hard power” behind the country’s foreign-policy commitments ... " (4)

Gary Bauer continues to work the circuit of anti-feminist, anti-gay conferences, where REAL Women of Canada make regular appearances.

REAL also promotes Bauer's new group: American Values, in his attack on "leftie" judges.

Bauer is associated with Focus on the Family, a group that conservative MPs, Rob Anders and Maurice Vellacott belong to, and who helped Stephen Harper get elected in 2006, on his "anti-same-sex marriage" platform.

But the most alarming activities for Bauer, and indeed most of the Religious Right, is their dramatic shift to foreign policy.

Bauer is a member of the Project for the New American Century, that included neoconservatives like Steve Forbes, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and William Kristol. This group helped to draft the Bush Doctrine.

They have been critical of Obama's decision not to send ground troops to Libya, instead following the UN Resolution, which does not support a "regime change".

The Harper Doctrine has no such limitations, and in fact is very specific that only a regime change will do.

However, even more alarming is Bauer's new pet project: Emergency Committee for Israel's Leadership, an aggressive extension of Christians United for Israel, who support extended military engagement in the Middle East.

Jim Flaherty's pal, Charles McVety, heads up the Canadian chapter.

This group, like most in the movement, are Apocalyptic.

So what does it mean when they not only provide foot soldiers for Harper's war on women, but dictate his foreign policy? Or what Harper himself calls 'putting “hard power” behind the country’s foreign-policy commitments'.

Yet another reason why the media has to start paying attention.

Drop the 'Tory' nonsense, and report from the Neoconservative/Religious Right/Tea Party reality.

Sources:

1. Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, By Susan Faludi, Crown publishing, 1991, ISBN: 0-385-42507-4, Pg. 263-267

2. "R.E.A.L. Women, Anti-feminism and the Welfare State, By Lorna Erwin, Resources for Feminist Research, 1988

3. Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite, By D. Michael Lindsay, Oxford University Press, 2007, ISBN: 978-0-19-532666-6

4. Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons: The rising clout of Canada's religious right, By Marci McDonald, The Walrus, October 2006

To the Calgary Herald: Are You New Here?

The Calgary Herald has a piece on Jack Layton's new MPs, The Little Dippers: 'Junior Jacks' raise questions of NDP credibility

They go after the competence of the "newly elected baby-faced NDP", especially those like Ruth Ellen Brosseau who did little to win their seats.

"It would be almost comical, if it weren't for the fact MPs are paid $157,000 a year to serve ridings of 100,000 people and deal with issues like helping constituents to find employment or bring family members into Canada, or decide whether Canada should send soldiers to Afghanistan,"

I guess the Herald forgets 1993, when a new crop of Reform MPs hit the Hill.

People like Darrel Stinson who challenged political opponents to fistfights, called the women of the NDP fem-Nazis and wanted us to tap into NAFTA, and send all our prisoners to Mexico.

And what does Brad Trost or Maurice Vellacott do to earn their pay? Jason Kenney, the worst immigration minister in history. Does he earn more than $200,000 a year?

Or Cheryl Gallant who reads passport applications and Diane Finley who loses them?

Maybe it's not right that these people are moving into high paying jobs when they didn't properly interview, but this is a democracy, so when people like Stinson and Brosseau get elected, their constituents believe they are worth it.

So let's give them a chance.

If the Agenda is Hidden in Plain Sight Why Can it Not be Seen?

There is one item in the Conservative platform that has gone largely unnoticed during this campaign, but may be one of the most important.

It is the establishment of an office of religious freedom in the Department of Foreign Affairs. What does this mean?

In an oft quoted speech to the right-wing Civitas Society, in 2003:

... he [Stephen Harper] outlined plans for a broad new party coalition that would ensure a lasting hold on power. The only route, he argued, was to focus not on the tired wish list of economic conservatives or “neo-cons,” as they’d become known, but on what he called “theo-cons”—those social conservatives who care passionately about hot-button issues that turn on family, crime, and defence ...Arguing that the party had to come up with tough, principled stands on everything from parents’ right to spank their children to putting “hard power” behind the country’s foreign-policy commitments ..." (1)

Many believe, and I have no doubt that they are right, that if given a majority, Harper will criminalize abortion and end gay marriage. But putting “hard power” behind the country’s foreign-policy commitments, for holy purposes, is far more alarming.

And adding this to the Conservative platform, is clearly a call out to what he referred to as 'Theocons', to get him his majority, where their wish will be his command. Many have been disillusioned with his failure to legislate their agenda. This may be their last best chance.

Yesterday Jonathon Malloy had an op-ed piece in the Globe and Mail: Hidden in plain sight: The Tory evangelical factor

There are many statements made by Mr. Malloy that need to be addressed, beginning with this one: "A prominent Ottawa journalist I consulted said it’s “just a sop to ethnic communities.” But the proposal’s greater impact is among millions of suburban white evangelical Christians, many of whom consider religious freedom a bigger issue than same-sex marriage or abortion."

So this was written for "suburban white evangelical Christians"? It's not about "religious freedoms" at all.

Malloy referred also to the "Coptic Christians in a key Mississauga swing riding", something the media believes that this is all about. I'm familiar with that story, and unfortunately, as is often the case, we only heard one side.

First off, I want to say that what happened to the Coptics was horrible. Six Coptic Christians were murdered in the Egyptian village of Nag Hamadi, sparking riots, and the violence continues today.

However, in situations like this a proper investigation must take place, and before we go in with guns blazing, all diplomatic avenues must first be exhausted.

According to professor of political sociology at the American University of Cairo, Said Sadek, the incident is part of a broader tribal culture, where sex is used as a weapon. And the murder of the Coptic Christians was retaliation for the abduction and rape of a 12-year-old Muslim girl.

In fact a local bishop confirmed that some of his parishioners had received phone calls and threats alleging that Muslims "will avenge the rape of the girl during the Christmas celebrations."

When a rally was held in Toronto to raise awareness to the plight of the Coptics in Egypt, one attended by the Conservative MP Bob Dechert in the "swing riding" of Mississauga, the rhetoric revealed something else.

A Syrian Christian woman told me, "I'm sorry, but white people have to wake up." ... with so many Muslims in Toronto, she has to deal with them as part of her job. When her ignorant Canadian boss told her she had to be nice to them, she said she would be polite but he couldn't make her like them. She said Muslims will be pleasant and get along when they are a minority but, when there are enough of them in the country, they will become forceful and insist on Sharia law.

Yet many who come to Canada, do so to escape that kind of oppression.

It is very dangerous to establish foreign policy that could incite hatred at home. We must demand an explanation from Mr. Harper. What is the intent of this new office established to appease "suburban white Evangelical Christians"?

Malloy also says: "Canadian evangelicals pray regularly for “house churches” in China and other secretive Christian gatherings. One best-selling evangelical book, God’s Smuggler, is about a Dutchman who transported Bibles across the Iron Curtain in his car during the Cold War."

So this is about proselytizing, not rescuing. Something the Geneva Convention forbids. Yet guns have been found, many used by our soldiers, that have scripture engraved into the gun barrels. And Christian groups are pushing for more Bibles in Afghanistan.

We need to pay attention to this people. This is not what one journalist called “just a sop to ethnic communities".

And While We're at it, Let's Cut the Stockwell Day Nonsense

Malloy attacks the Liberals for abandoning Evangelicals, once again bringing up the Stockwell Day incident, when he stated that man roamed with dinosaurs.

Many of the attacks against Day came from within his own party, and they were far worse than humming the Flintstones theme and presenting him with a stuffed Barney doll.

During the 2000 Alliance leadership race when Day was running against Preston Manning, the race became a small holy war. Both men were Evangelical, but Day had created a small army of Crusaders:

Within the religious community, Families for Day was no doubt his strongest supporter. Created by Ron Beyer (head of the Calgary-based Canadian Family Action Coalition) and Garry Rohr .. Families for Day organized an E-mail campaign to sign up new members. Beyer claimed the organization signed up at least 6,000 new party members who voted for Day on the first ballot—approximately the margin of Day's lead over Manning ... (2)

This prompted Manning's team to accuse Day of creating a cult and saying that there was a "Jim Jones Kool-Aid" thing going on. (3) One of Day's people, John Carpay fired back: "I'm upset at the negative campaigning, but I hold Preston Manning responsible. He wears a fake halo and pretends to be innocent. It's rather sickening." (4)

So let's see. A Barney doll or being compared to a cult leader. I can't decide which is more offensive.

Then during the Alliance leadership race in 2002, between Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper, another holy war took place.

One thing is for certain. This is going to be a dirty campaign--perhaps even nastier than in 2000, when the Tom Long campaign was accused of being a homosexual coven and Mr. Day was compared to mass murderer Jim Jones. And despite Mr. Harper's promise to avoid personal attacks--a promise made also by Mr. Day--it was his campaign that drew first blood. (5)

And after holding a "secret" rally at Briercrest Christian college, Harper accused Day of exploiting religion.

Stockwell Day yesterday continued to seek support from evangelical Christians with a barely publicized campaign stop at Canada's largest Bible college, even as one of his opponents warned the Canadian Alliance leadership race risks being "perverted" by a single-interest group. Mr. Day held a campaign rally at Briercrest Bible College in Caronport, Sask., an event that attracted hundreds and was not included in the public itinerary posted on the candidate's Web site. He campaigned earlier in the day at the evangelical Victory Church in Moose Jaw, Sask.

... Mr. Harper went public with concerns that Mr. Day is appealing to a narrow base of religious groups -- including orthodox Jews, Pentecostals and anti-abortion Catholics -- in a bid to regain the leadership post he was forced to relinquish late last year. (6)

And yet he is now doing the same thing, allowing a "narrow base" to dictate not only domestic, but foreign policy.

This is why you can't mix religion and politics. And this is why you must separate Church and State. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects all religions. But then Stephen Harper never liked our Charter.

Everyone needs to be protected from violence, based on not only their religious beliefs, but their gender, colour and race. Singling out protection only for Christians who are trying to 'convert' the world, is not something we should be involved in.

But how do we get the media to start paying attention and stop cheering for a Harper majority? It's a puzzle. For Stephen Harper it's all about power and he'll do whatever it takes to hold onto it, including the exploitation of religion and culture.

So again, on May 2, vote and vote wisely. It may be our only hope.

Sources:

1. Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons: The rising clout of Canada’s religious right, By Marci McDonald, Walrus Magazine, October 2006

2. Requiem for a Lightweight: Stockwell Day and Image Politics, By Trevor Harrison, Black Rose Books, 2002, ISBN: 1-55164-206-9, Pg. 52

3. Harrison, 2002, Pg. 63

4. Manning Backer Drops Bid to Woo Social Conservatives, National Post, July 5, 2000

5. Strange Alliances, By Kevin Michael Grace, Report Newsmagazine, February 04, 2002

6. Day slips into Bible college for Rally, By S. Alberts, National Post, February 13, 2002

Implosions Help Jason Kenney's Christian Coalition to Explode

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

By 1996, Preston Manning was in trouble. The tight control he attempted to keep over his caucus was crumbling and the party was rife with dissent. Early party members who feared that extremism would prevail, were being proven to be correct, and yet absolutely nothing was being done to curtail it.

Manning's anti-government rhetoric that inspired Newt Gingrich, may have helped in his political success, but at some point you've got to prove that you can actually govern if given the opportunity. But instead the Reformers were only proving that the opposite was true.

Upon his retirement, Don Newman, former Senior Parliamentary Editor for CBC, was asked about the toxicity of politics today, and when it changed. Calling it the "politics of suspicion", he stated:

Of course, Parliament worked because elections in those periods also produced majority governments and sooner or later majority governments get their way. But it also worked because MPs made it function. They seemed to understand that they were there to get things done. That is not the case today ... The fraying was not — it might surprise some I'm sure — the fault of the Bloc Québécois who, while preaching their own view of both history and the future, always treated Parliament with respect. Rather it came from the Reform Party led by Preston Manning. (1)

His comments wouldn't come as much of a surprise to anyone following politics then, including many of the early Reform Party members. They saw what was supposed to be a populist party turning into a totalitarian regime:

"Dissidents in the party ... openly claimed that the party was being run by a 'Calgary clique' "A lot of people are frustrated - we're seeing the inevitable erosion of grassroots politics into a smaller more domineering group at the top...' " One of the key members was thirty-two-year-old Stephen Harper, a founding member of the party, it's Chief Policy Officer, and the man who became known as Manning's chief political lieutenant. (2)

In fact he was challenged for the leadership in the beginning, because many feared that something like that would happen.

Manning left nothing to chance. He was determined to defeat his only opponent, Stan Roberts, who was not only more charismatic and eloquent but better known and better equipped financially. Reluctant to enter the race, Roberts was finally convinced by [Francis] Winspear that a leader-ship contest was necessary to ensure the legitimacy of the outcome. Roberts also was becoming increasingly concerned about the direction the fledgling party's supporters appeared to be taking, fearing it was becoming too extreme on both economic and social policies. He also was greatly concerned that the anti-French sentiment of some of the delegates in Vancouver was being given free rein. (3)

But a dirty trick would secure his leadership bid.

The hall was filled with his people when, nearly a day ahead of schedule, Manning urged the organizers — including the chair, staunch Manning supporter Diane Ablonczy — to cut off registration of delegates. When Francis Winspear took the floor to protest this action, moving a motion to reopen registration and noting many of Roberts's delegates had not yet arrived, he was soundly, defeated by the Manning forces. Astonished and shaken, Winspear left along with a furious Roberts, who later withdrew his name.

In an angry press conference the next day, Roberts not only accused the organizers, and implicitly Manning, of "compromising" the new party's commitment to "honesty and integrity," but also alluded to a significant sum of missing funds and accused Manning's supporters — almost all of whom were from Alberta — of being "a bunch of right-wing Christian fanatics." (3)

They were being referred to as "a bunch of right-wing Christian fanatics" even before the real fanatics joined them. A great deal is made over how the opposition is "anti-Christian", but accusations of religious fanaticism were more common within the party itself.

Enough was Enough

Preston Manning was having major troubles with his caucus ... The carefully orchestrated and near-absolute control of the party he had exercised for nearly ten years began to dissolve ... but his unsuccessful attempts to rein in his caucus were already widely known and ridiculed long before then. .. The conflicts with Stephen Harper were not the only problems Manning encountered with the leading lights of his caucus. For many of his critics, these conflicts were further proof of Manning's inability to tolerate dissent and his need to be the only one in charge. (4)

Harper would leave Reform before the next election to join the National Citizens Coalition. There has been a lot of speculation as to why. Did he feel he could do more to help the movement on the outside? The NCC spent a great deal of money advancing Reform during the 1997 election.

Or was it because of a battle for control with Preston Manning? I suppose it could be either. However, the final showdown came about when he went public with accusations that Preston Manning was abusing his expense account and the party sent him a four page letter (4) criticizing his actions. I suspect that was the trigger, because Stephen Harper never could stand criticism.

However, he wasn't the only one to exit stage left (or right?)

The cases of Jan Brown and Jim Silye were typical. Among the most progressive and cosmopolitan of the Reform MPs, they also became known for their ability to shine in Question Period. Both were urban moderates and excellent communicators who developed positive relationships with the media and, in the case of Brown, a degree of national name recognition. Both were often unhappy with the "racist redneck" element in their caucus, and endured much criticism from other caucus members for their continuing attempts to broaden the base of Reform policies.

By early 1996, Brown, Silye and Stephen Harper were all reportedly reconsidering their future with the party. When Art Hanger announced he was going on a "fact-finding mission" to Singapore to explore the use of caning and other forms of corporal punishment in the penal system, most Canadians were astonished and amused. Brown and Silye were humiliated, and said so publicly. "I don't want to be campaigning for caning and whipping," said Silye, a millionaire Calgary businessman and former Stampeders star. Brown, another Calgary MP and a corporate consultant with two degrees, agreed with Silye and suggested Reform would lose mainstream voters if it did not shake its extremist image. For their comments the two were raked over the coals at a lengthy caucus meeting in which one MP after another took the floor to lambaste the two, accusing them of betrayal ...

Brown left the three-hour meeting "ashen-faced," escorted by Rick Anderson past the waiting media and saying nothing at the time. Silye stayed to speak with reporters but broke down midway through his mea culpa, in which he apologized to his colleagues for hurting their feelings. Later, however, Brown indicated she did not plan to apologize and refused to be a scapegoat for the party's evident difficulties ... In the end this only delayed the inevitable. The split between the moderates and the rednecks was serious and apparently irreparable. (4)

Brown left the party, citing the rampant racism of the "God Squad" and stating that there was no room for women in this party. Eight others followed suit, all moderates, paving the way for new, even more radical members to take their place.

Jason Kenney and More So-Cons on Steroids

Barely two months later, during debate on the government's proposed amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act protecting homosexuals from discrimination*, the Reform caucus erupted again. When B.C. MP Bob Ringma** told reporters he would move gay or visible-minority employees to the back of the shop if they were costing him business, colleagues such as Dave Chatters, Leon Benoit and Myron Thompson agreed. In fact, Thompson went further, saying "If they were costing me business, I would remove them." Asked for her comments, Jan Brown replied, "I'm so saddened by this," while another moderate, Ian McClelland, suggested Ringma should apologize and promise not to say such things in the future.

Sensing the whole affair was getting completely out of control, Preston Manning decided to come down hard on the miscreants. His decision proved to be the final straw. Not only did he suspend Ringma and Chatters from the caucus for six weeks for their alleged deviation from party policy, but he dealt the same penalty to Brown for publicly criticizing her colleagues. Thompson and Benoit, meanwhile, were unaffected, as was MP Grant Hill, a doctor who said the bill "will produce and allow the promotion of an unhealthy lifestyle," a comment which drew immediate and public disapproval from another Reform MP and the only other doctor in the caucus, Keith Martin.*** (4)

It was this amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act protecting homosexuals from discrimination, that encouraged the formation of the Canada Family Action Coalition by Roy Beyer and Brian Rushfeldt, and the Canadian Christian Coalition, which included Jason Kenney. Both groups were inspired by a Washington Conference of their American counterpart, where the speaker was Ralph Reed.

And with so many new openings in the Reform Party, these motivated fundamentalists saw an opportunity to take control and join the other "extremists" from the "God Squad".

Jason Kenny himself took Jan Brown's seat. Rob Anders, whose nomination was brought forward by Hermina Dykxhoorn (5), president of the Alberta Federation of Women United for Families, an anti-women's rights group and affiliate of REAL Women of Canada, claimed Stephen Harper's.

Other hand selected social conservatives included Maurice Vellacott, Gerry Ritz and Jim Pankiw, who would later get into trouble after writing a letter to the president of the University of Saskatchewan condemning their affirmative action policies and comparing them to the KKK.

Following the Dec. 20, 1999 signing of an agreement between the U of S and the provincial government forming a partnership to work to increase the number of aboriginal people in the University’s workforce, Saskatoon-Humboldt Reform MP Jim Pankiw wrote a letter to U of S Pres. Peter MacKinnon and Saskatchewan Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Jack Hillson condemning the move. Pankiw said it smacked of racism and bigotry, and resembled the former segregationist policies of the southern United States. He said proponents of the agreement could be seen as "modern-day Klansmen". (6)

But besides the influx of fundamentalists, this was also a period that saw an enormous number of non-profit groups emerge, that would back up the agenda, including the Civitas Society. This group was founded by William Gairdner, early Reform Party member, and the hierarchy includes many other far-right Harper supporters: David Frum, former speechwriter of George W. Bush, Link Byfield, Ezra Levant and of course, Jason Kenney.

There was an attempt by some in the party to combat this infiltration of religious extremists, including Nancy Branscombe.

Nancy Branscombe was not successful as the Reform candidate for Peterborough during the 1997 federal election. In response to the CLC election questionnaire,he indicated that she considered herself to be pro-choice, did not oppose the sale and listing of the abortion drug RU-486 and supported legalized doctor-assisted suicide. During that election she was also the Reform party's organizer for 23 Ontario ridings and became known by the pro-life community for her intense social liberal views. Branscombe was one of the party chiefs who forced the removal of a reform candidate's campaign manager simply because the manager was pro-life. (7)

And when she attempted again in 2000, the so-con infrastructure was in place and they took immediate action:

An anonymously published pamphlet titled "Who is Nancy Branscombe?" was mailed to some Alliance members and handed out at the nomination meeting. Among other things the pamphlet claimed:

- "Nancy states she stands for strengthening the traditional family, yet she refers to herself as a feminist and openly supports the killing of unborn children".

- "Many members report that she has demoralized the riding association, manipulating the membership lists to ensure her control."

- "She has repeatedly dishonoured herself, the people she represents and her party with crude, off-colour comments".

In the end Branscombe lost the October 21 nomination by a wide margin of 970 to 555. (7)

These people are now in control and the late Stan Robert's predictions of "a bunch of right-wing Christian fanatics" taking over, have materialized.

Footnotes:

*Stephen Harper voted against the motion and would later say that Bill C-38 to redefine marriage would prevent religious schools from firing gays and lesbians if it was discovered that they were in a same-sex marriage. (7)

**Ringma repeated his remarks at the next caucus meeting and received a standing ovation.

***Keith Martin is now a Liberal MP

Sources:

1. Stephen Harper and the politics of suspicion, By Don Newman, CBC News, November 19, 2009

2. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, by Murray Dobbin, Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 121-122

3. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 295-296

4. Jeffrey, 1999, Pg. 318-319

5. Hold your fire, National Post Thursday, July 03, 2003

6. In response to Pankiw’s attack letter, Pres. says no Aboriginal hiring quotas". On Campus News. University of Saskatchewan. January 21, 2000.

7. CA Parachute Candidate Nancy Branscombe Severely Criticized, LifeSite News, November 9, 2000

8. Harper’s speech makes case for firing gay people … where does Conservative leader stand? Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, February 17, 2005

My Apologies to Timothy Bloedow, But I do not Hate Christians

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

I posted an item yesterday about the Evangelical Fellowship, and received an email from Timothy Bloedow, legislative assistant to Reform-Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott, correcting an error I had made regarding affiliation. I have temporarily taken the posting down, but will repost once I have corrected the error, because I still believe that the message is an important one.

However, Mr. Bloedow accused me of hating Christians, and nothing could be further from the truth. What I pointed out to him is that since the Religious Right movement has decided to enter the "public square", as they like to describe their political activism, they can no longer declare religious immunity.

They are helping to determine how our tax dollars are being spent, so we have a right to question their motives. And we also have a right to expose groups that claim to be non-profit, enjoying all of the tax breaks that go along with that, when they are clearly simply another voice for the Harper government.

Stephen Harper himself once complained about Stockwell Day exploiting religious groups for political gain, when it was discovered during their leadership race in 2002, that The Campaign Life Coalition, an anti-abortion lobby group backing Day, had sent out 130,000 letters asking its supporters to donate money so the organization could buy memberships in bulk to help their chosen candidate. (1)

I visited Bloedow's website ChritianGovernment.ca, and he has an item where he is attacking Marci McDonald's book, The Armageddon Factor. Or actually he is attacking Prof. John Stackhouse's critique of the book, when he concurs with her that "there are Christians about whom even other Christians should be wary, especially those who talk about things like theocracy and Christian government (Reconstructionism). For some reason, almost everyone who thinks Christian theocracy also thinks stoning of homosexuals as though the two are synonymous." (2)

Bloedow suggests, and rightfully so, that murder is a criminal offense, so the actual physical act of stoning someone to death would be against the law. Fair enough.

However, there is more than one way to 'stone a homosexual'. Or a woman. Or Muslims. Or any other identifiable group being marginalized in the name of Christianity. You do it by cutting their funding. By erasing them from a guide on Canadian identity and by viscerally attacking them on what are supposed to be "faith based" websites.

In his defense, Bloedow's site is mild compared with many others I've visited, but in at least one headline he refers to 'Equal' or 'Same-Sex' marriage as "Homo-sexual marriage", as if a person's identity is based solely on their sexuality.

We don't call it "hetero-sexual marriage" or "people who like threesomes marriage". It is simply "marriage". It is two people committing to one another, who want to share that commitment with family and friends, and who want to be recognized as equal citizens.

So when I posted the following 1987 quote from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, it was with the utmost respect:

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada affirms the rights of all Canadians, including homosexuals, to share in the privi­leges of a free and democratic society. We uphold the view that the Scriptures teach that homosexual practice is unac­ceptable. At the same time, we call on all Christians to affirm justice and equality to all people. (3)

On Bloedow's suggestion, I am going to write to them to apologize for aligning them with the new branch of political evangelism that does not seek "to affirm justice and equality to all people."

And as I told him, Marci McDonald has opened a debate that was long overdue, and may have actually done them a favour. She has brought what they call 'Christian Conservatives' into the "public square." We just want to know who they are and what they want from us. And if they are indeed being partially funded by their American counterparts, that speaks to our sovereignty, since it means that a foreign country is meddling in Canadian democracy.

And we also want to know why all the secrets. Secrets only lead to speculation, so if your intentions are not as being warned, you tell us what they really are.

I quoted from the Evangelical Fellowship because I've always been drawn to religious organizations with messages of tolerance. That's what I grew up believing Christianity to be.

And maybe that's why so many of us are speaking out against this movement, because it is not about instilling "Christian values", but destroying them.

Sources:

1. Day slips into Bible college for Rally, By S. Alberts, National Post, February 13, 2002

2. What does theocracy REALLY mean? By Tim Bloedow, Christian Government, May 23, 2010

3. Fragmented Gods: The Poverty and Potential of Religion in Canada, By Reginald W. Bibby, Stoddard Publishing Company, 1987, Pg. 160

Desert Stream and Living Waters Ministries are Both Contaminated

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

"God caused Hurricane Katrina to wipe out New Orleans because it had a gay pride parade the week before and was filled with sexual sin ... All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that." Pastor John Hagee

Reading a statement like that made by Charles McVety's business partner, John Hagee, would certainly not adhere you to his God. If he is that vengeful, maybe we don't need to eradicate homosexuals, as the Religious Rights suggests, but simply get rid of their God. He sounds down right nasty.

Fortunately, most Christians follow a loving God who would never destroy an entire city, killing more than 1800 people, and uprooting thousands more, just to exact revenge for a gay pride parade. They believe that God made gays too.

However, this isn't really about the Christian Extremists, and their twisted version of the faith. Others have been warning about the dangers associated with this growing group of radical fundamentalists, many of whom have close ties to many members of our current government, but I decided to also expose the rampant hypocrisy that is also often associated with the Religious Right.

An excellent example of this are two 'ministries', actually linked financially, Desert Stream, part of the Exodus group, in the United States, and Living Waters ministry under the umbrella of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

Both of these groups claim to be able to "cure" homosexuality, but the two videos (the one above and below) show how they really operate.

Desert Stream

This organization was established by an ex-gay (?) minister, Adam Comisky, who offered "healing" to those who were "sexually broken".

On March 8, Comiskey wrote a blog post entitled “Falling Mercies” where he says DSM had been, “cast out of our home church”, Vineyard Anaheim, as a result of “a darker strain of sin in our own ranks.” He goes onto reveal that this sin was, “a longstanding staff person from Desert Stream had sexually abused at least one teenager who had sought help from us.”

Comiskey alleges that he was a victim of seven-figure blackmail from the relative of one of the abused boys. This led to, “a scourging of our entire ministry through police interrogations, the naked bulb of insurance agents and their lawyers, and Vineyard elders who for good reason wanted to know what was really going on in Desert Stream Ministries.”

As a result of the investigation, Comiskey says DSM was “torn in two” and that “we the righteous became the scum of the earth–not only the defender of victims, but the predators.” (1)

This was not the first time this group was charged with sexual misconduct, and many people refer to them as a cult. In 1998, The Los Angeles Times reported that one family had sued Desert Stream, alleging that a minister had sexually abused a teenager while the youth was undergoing 'therapy' to turn him heterosexual.

It would appear that this ex-gay minister is using his hideaway as a dating service and yet Exodus is still standing behind him. The cult has not closed up shop but just moved to another state.

Now lets go to Canada.

Living Waters Ministry

According the the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, who have quite an array of groups all promising to "fix broken sexuality"

Living Waters is Canada’s most widely used Christian program for those who battle with sexual and relational problems. The intensive 30-week course originated in California in 1980, when Andy and Annette Comiskey started a Bible-based support group for people struggling with same-sex attractions ..

Canadian national directors Toni and Mardi Dolfo-Smith have overseen Living Waters programs from their headquarters in Vancouver for the past six years. The program is currently used in 22 cities across Canada and 20 countries around the globe. “We’ve seen Christians from all walks of life benefit from this interdenominational program,” says Toni.

“Jesus is committed to healing people so that individuals are free to love again. When we’re confused or broken in our sexual and relational identities, it limits our capacity to love others according to the will of Christ,” adds Mardi.

“People who join our program are willing to face their present state while delving into a painful past,” states Toni. “In an age when pornography is okay, same-sex relationships are accepted and abuse is rampant, it is God’s grace that heals and restores our sexuality. Living Waters aims to minister that healing.”

But while Jesus may be committed to healing people, Living Waters has a different goal. MONEY!

Ottawa, Ontario, June 8, 2009... The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has revoked the charitable registration of Living Waters Ministry Trust, a London-area charity. This revocation was effective June 6, 2009.

On April 24, 2009, the CRA issued a notice of intention to revoke the charitable registration of Living Waters Ministry Trust, in accordance with subsection 168(1) of the Income Tax Act. The letter stated, in part, that:

Our audit has concluded that from August 11, 2004 to December 31, 2006, Living Waters Ministry Trust issued in excess of $41.6 million in receipts for cash received through a tax shelter arrangement. The Charity, in turn, directed $40.7 million of the cash to another registered charity also participating in this arrangement. Our audit revealed that the vast majority of the cash sent to the other participating charity was subsequently paid to the promoters of the tax shelter arrangement. Of the remainder, the Charity itself paid $443,000 in fundraising fees to the tax shelter promoters and retained $416,000 for use in their own activities.

It is our position that the Charity has operated for the non-charitable purpose of promoting a tax shelter arrangement and for the private benefit of the tax shelter promoters

So Living Waters Ministry is simply a tax shelter that has taken in million of tax free dollars. And their parent company, Desert Stream, has preyed on and exploited minors for their own sexual gratification.

And yet both of these groups appear to still be operating. In Canada they are part of what is now called 'Jason Ministries', billed as 'International Christian ex-gay ministries' and their contacts in Canada are none other than Toni & Mardi Dolfo-Smith.

And they are part of an international group that all claim to be friends of Desert Stream. Other friends of this organization that has been referred to as a cult and charged with sexual misconduct, include Focus on the Family.

The Canadian founder of Focus on Family, who received seed money from their American counterpart, is Darrel Reid, who is now Stephen Harper's deputy chief of staff, and many members of Harper's caucus, including Rob Anders, Maurice Vellacott and Brad Trost, also belong.

Reid once compared those who support gay rights to Nazis, and Anders, Vellacott and Trost are vocal homophobics.

Sources:

1. Desert Scream: Exodus Leader’s Shocking Admissions of Ministry’s Sexual Abuse, By Wayne Besen, TWO, March 13, 2010

2. Healing For Sexual Brokenness, By Simon Presland, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, May/June issue 2001

3. The Canada Revenue Agency revokes the charitable status of Living Waters Ministry Trust, Government of Canada

Pro-Sex Feminists and a Feminized Curriculum are to Blame for Everything

We learned this week that Canada has slipped to 25th place in terms of gender equality,
most of that decline during the four years that the Harper government has been in power.

Much of that can be blamed on the anti-women movement REAL Women of Canada, and other faith based organizations, now driving the Conservative machine.

David Sweet, Reform-Conservative MP for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale, is the founder of the Canadian branch of Promise Keepers, an organization that promotes male dominated households.

The National Organization for Women, an American feminist group has suggested that the Promise Keepers are a threat to women's rights:

The group encourages inequality within marriages and teaches a doctrine of male superiority. According to Amy Schindler, "the discourse of masculinity found within conservative religious movements, such as the Promise Keepers and the Victorian era movement 'muscular Christianity,' is inherently political. Any masculinity project aimed at restoring or reclaiming a 'traditional' male role for privileged white, heterosexual males has a political impact within the tapestry of class, race, and gender power."

This organization was founded by former football coach Bill McCartney, and according to the Canadian Encyclopedia:

A coalition of liberal clergy called Equal Partners in Faith condemns it as "divisive and potentially dangerous." And a New York City-based group called the Center for Democracy Studies warns that Promise Keepers is nothing less than the "third wave" of the religious right - after Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority and Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition. Alfred Ross, the centre’s executive director, points to close ties between Promise Keepers and such luminaries of the American religious right as Robertson and James Dobson of Focus on the Family as proof that McCartney’s movement is no spontaneous eruption.

James Dobson is one of the founders of the Council for National Policy, where Stephen Harper delivered his 'I really Canadians' speech in 1997, and was integral in the election of Harper in 2006, by buying radio ads against same-sex marriage; one of the hot button issues of the campaign.

Reformers Rob Anders, Maurice Vellacott and David Sweet are also members of Focus on Family, along with a large number of their colleagues.

One of the things that PK preaches is purity in men, much like the group that Stephen Woodworth promotes; Parliamentary Friends of Falun Gong. Both Jason Kenney and Rob Anders claim to be virgins, though I'm not really sure that's by choice.

Any of us who have been following politics at all, since the Reform movement first began in Canada, are not really surprised by the results of the study. This party has always been very patriarchal, pro-Anglo and Christian fundamentalist.

One of their mentors and co-founder with Stephen Harper of a right-wing extremist group, the Northern Foundation, William Gairdner; always had some very disturbing views on women.

In fact, in 2007, Donna L. Lillian, Assistant Professor of Discourse and Linguistics in the Department of English at East Carolina University, wrote a paper entitled: A thorn by any other name: sexist discourse as hate speech, which centered around Gairdner: "...analyzing Canadian neoconservative discourse as racist, sexist, and homophobic." According to author and journalist Murray Dobbin, Mr. Gairdner's The Trouble with Canada functioned as ‘the de facto manifesto for Preston Manning’s Reform Party’ (Dobbin, 1992: 134).

Another co-founder of the Northern Foundation was Link Byfield, who has spoken at REAL Women conferences. In a 2002 lecture he stated: "Women, men and families must be defended against those forces that enslave us as we speak. That's why it is necessary for REAL Women to exist and to persist in its work on behalf of the Judeo-Christian understanding of marriage and family life."

At that same conference, Jeffrey Asher, former Professor at Dawson College in Montreal, opened by saying:

The so-called New Male is a creation of classroom radical feminism, media hype and politically correct governments. For more than thirty years, our culture has rigorously censored information which shows that males and females choose and need sex-specific roles in life. Every parent knows that girls and boys behave differently. Boys choose to play noisy, competitive games that test one against the other, while girls prefer co-operative fantasies that develop emotional skills.

Co-operative fantasies that develop emotional skills? Wow. But wait, he's just getting started:

Men and women respond very differently to stimuli. The male alarm system is more protected from fear and panic. The male brain needs more stimulation than those of females ... Girls show more success in artistic, emotional, verbal and communicative subjects ... Men have superior vision compared to women. Almost all mechanical, chemical, electronic and cybernetic inventions were made by men ... .However, the lives of women have been transformed by independent work and income and the pill, allowing them freedom to choose motherhood and financial independence from fathers or husbands ... [and] can also lead to an increase in divorce, an epidemic of single-mother families, and rising unemployment for men. (Men define their lives by their ability to earn money through work to support a family.)

And he taught this crap at Dawson College, while claiming that by 1980, the women's movement was increasingly co-opted by the lunatic fringe.

The President of REAL Women, Gwen Landolt, also spoke in 2002, where she:

"... highlighted the takeover, by feminist ideology, of the judicial system in Canada, as well as its takeover of the UN. During the 60s, 70s and 80s, the radical feminist ideology was gradually instilled into the cultures of education, work, government and societal life.

Gwen traced the growth of feminism in Canada back to the Royal Commission Report on the Status of Women, which was tabled in the House of Commons in February 1970. It called for both federal and provincial governments to establish and fund Status of Women Councils to work for the "equality of women." This recommendation led to millions of dollars of tax monies being used to establish networks of women's groups across the country. These groups became paid "agents of change" to promulgate feminist orthodoxy.

So do you see what we're up against?

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA?

New Concerns About Harper's Social Conservative Agenda

Now that Stephen Harper has a dictatorship, there is a lot of concern about him pushing through his neo-conservative agenda of dismantling Canada's social safety net.

This includes all of the things he campaigned against for decades; like public health care, Canada Pension and Old Age Security.

But there is something else that we should be concerned with. His social conservative agenda.

It had been put on the back burner when he was trying to fool Canadians into thinking he was moving to the centre, but it no longer matters now.

And if in fact, if he does plan on forcing an election in the spring, as many anticipate (before the Liberals thinker's conference, which would probably get a lot of media attention), will he still try to silence the extremists in his party, or allow them to focus on social conservative issues again?

When you look at his actions in the past few months, there is definitely something going on. He's brought on an awful lot of Christian fundamentalists, who are now writing his speeches and directing policy.

This will guarantee that the Religious Right will bleed money for him, but what will it mean for a once progressive country like Canada?

Jason Kenney's new citizenship booklet, pretty much erased women's roles in the country's development. In fact, if you didn't know better you'd think it was written in the 1950's. I'm sensing something here that I don't really like.

I thought I'd revisit a posting on Buckdog's blog, written soon after the homophobic Nigel Hannaford was hired to write Stephen Harper's speeches. He shared an article from The Sasquatch, Briarpatch.

Harper's New Speechwriter Is A Strong Social Conservative And Gay Rights Opponent
Jenn Ruddy

It probably won’t come as much of a shock that the Prime Minister’s Office has hired a gay rights opponent to write speeches for Stephen Harper.

Former Calgary Herald columnist Nigel Hannaford is the latest — but certainly not the first, and probably not the last — social conservative to join the upper echelons of Harper’s government.

Hannaford, who was a member of the Calgary Herald’s editorial board until recently, has argued against gay rights in his column Slings & Arrows and scoffed at the legitimacy of human rights commissions. He once referred to human rights tribunals as “communist show trials, not courts” and implied that human rights advocates are “whiners.”

If you think that’s bad, here’s what he had to say about gay rights: Referring to former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s 1969 decision to decriminalize homosexuality, Hannaford wrote in 2005, “Fine, said lots of people. Leave gays alone? Fair enough. But, let ’em be Boy Scout leaders? Have each other’s benefits? Adopt kids? Marry each other? Ridiculous.

Anybody seeking political office who suggested it would have been laughed off the hustings. Yet, the Liberals are ready to legalize gay marriage. How did we get to this point?”

Of the 1998 Delwin Vriend Supreme Court ruling, which required that Alberta add sexual orientation to its human rights legislation, Hannaford wrote in 2003, “So much for democracy.”

And when Elsie Wayne, former deputy leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, was excoriated for saying in 2003 that gays should “shut up” about marriage and that Canadians shouldn’t have to “tolerate” gay pride parades, Hannaford wrote in her defence: “Wayne gets my vote. ... Canadian society has been turned upside down in the past 35 years and things regarded as sin in 1965 have special status in 2003.”

As recently, as his May 8, 2009 column, Harper’s new speechwriter lamented that Section 3 of Alberta’s Human Rights Act makes it difficult to prevent Albertans from bringing the same kind of “creepy curriculum” to the province that B.C. has allowed, “in which gay advocates design class material promoting their persuasion right down to kindergarten.”

Hannaford’s appointment troubles longtime gay activist and former Edmonton city councillor Michael Phair.“

Much of what Mr. Hannaford writes and has indicated in his work as a journalist, I suspect, reflects Prime Minister Harper’s and his party’s position on what they would like for Canadian society to be, and I think it harks back to a 1950s approach,” says Phair.

He worries that the Harper government will continue to look for back-door ways to reduce equality for the queer and other marginalized communities, as well as women.

Hannaford’s hiring is the latest in a string of appointments that place social conservatives in high-ranking positions of the Harper government. In July 2008, one of Canada’s most prominent Christian conservatives, Darrel Reid, was appointed director of policy for the Prime Minister’s Office and later moved to one of the top political posts in the country when he was promoted to deputy chief of staff in February. Another Christian evangelical, Paul Wilson, replaced Reid as director of policy.

NDP critic for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transsexual and Transgender Issues Bill Siksay says he’s not surprised to learn of Hannaford’s appointment.“We know that there’s still — within the Conservative Party and within the Conservative caucus — lots of folks who don’t support the full human rights of gay and lesbian Canadians, who are not friends of the queer community, and so in a sense it’s not surprising,” says Siksay.Some of those folks Siksay refers to within the Conservative caucus can be found right here in Saskatchewan.

In July, Saskatoon-Humboldt Conservative MP Brad Trost was critical of his government’s decision to fund Toronto’s gay pride week and pandered to anti-gay sentiment. Speaking to the right-wing website LifeSiteNews.com, Trost reassured the pro-life community, “The tourism funding money that went to the gay pride parade in Toronto was not government policy, was not supported by — I think it’s safe to say by a large majority — of the MPs.”

Shortly thereafter, Saskatoon-Wanuskewin Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott wrote a letter to his constituents supporting Trost’s comments and reassured them that their tax dollars would be used for more “suitable purposes.”

In 2003, the then MP for Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre Larry Spencer was suspended from the Canadian Alliance caucus for saying that homosexuality is a conspiracy theory to seduce and recruit young boys. Spencer said he would support any initiative to criminalize homosexuality.

And who could forget the media scandal last year in which Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski was caught on videotape saying in 1991: “There’s A’s and there’s B’s. The A’s are guys like me, the B’s are homosexual faggots with dirt under their fingernails that transmit diseases.”

“There is a very one-sided message coming from the Conservative Party,” says Nathan Seckinger, executive director of the GBLUR Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity in Regina. “What we hear are a lot of anti-queer statements being made by individual politicians under a conservative banner. What we don’t hear are any pro-queer statements.”

Statistics Canada revealed in 2004 that gays and lesbians are nearly twice as likely to be the victim of a violent crime, including sexual assault, robbery and physical assault, and bisexuals are four-and-a-half times as likely, compared to heterosexuals.

In 2007, 10 per cent of police-reported hate crimes in Canada were motivated by sexual orientation.“What we’re really talking about is a sin of omission,” says Seckinger. “The concern for me isn’t so much the fact that Conservatives are shooting their mouths off about having anti-queer positions, because politicians say dumb things once in a while. My concern is more that they say them frequently and that they don’t have anybody saying anything else [about queer issues], and that’s what tells me that there’s a problem.”

When the Lukiwski scandal broke out last year, GBLUR, under the leadership of Seckinger, took the high road: it accepted Lukiwski’s apology and called for co-operation across political divides. GBLUR’s goal was to shift the debate toward the health and safety crisis facing queer people in Canada and away from the media’s sensationalized coverage of the scandal.

“The reality of it is that Mr. Lukiwski had been campaigning against same-sex marriage for years and nobody gave a damn,” says Seckinger. “The reason everybody got angry about that issue is because he used a dirty word. He got caught on tape using the word ‘faggot’ and it got put on TV and so, really, what people were upset about wasn’t the fact that the man is homophobic, because that should have been common knowledge already. What people were concerned about is the fact that he was being impolite about his homophobia.”

Seckinger says there’s no doubt that the Conservative Party panders to homophobic voting bases. But when the media lend coverage to, say, Harper’s new homophobic speechwriter or to the blatantly homophobic remarks of an individual politician, the pressing health and safety concerns of the queer community get ignored.

And the general homophobic discourse in government, which cuts across party lines, sneaks under the radar.“A question to ask yourself is, ‘how often do queer specific concerns get put forward in the form of bills?’” says Seckinger. “The mental health problems for the GLBT community are epidemic in Canada. Why is that not being dealt with?
---------------------------------------

And let's not forget Stockwell Day: Press reports revealed recently that Mr. Day, who is the Conservative Party’s foreign affairs critic, refused to send condolences to the Palestinian people on the death of President Yassir Arafat. Why? Because of Mr. Arafat’s support for armed struggle against Israel? No. Because he might have died of AIDS. In a November 16 email to his Conservative colleagues Mr. Day stated: "Some of you have asked why I have not released a statement of condolence or sympathy. As you know, there are two sides to the Arafat story. You pick...." He then included in the email an article by David Frum, former speech writer for George W. Bush, indulging in unfounded speculation about the cause of Arafat’s death. Frum suggested that Arafat’s symptoms “sounded AIDS-like.” (BTW: David Frum is a Harper insider and former speech writer of George W. Bush. He was the one who coined the term 'Axis of Evil')

Or Jason Kenney recently appointing an anti-gay activist to the Refugee Board, who will determine which of those claiming refugee status on the grounds of sexual orientation, will be given safe haven.

Or Pierre Poilievre and his shot about sex changes, declaring that the federal government should hold back any health fund transfers used for this purpose, ignoring health concerns.

And we know how many of them are anti-abortion. Will a woman's right to choose be abolished, as suggested by Dean Del Mastro?

Harper is certainly getting his ducks in a row.

A Compelling Argument Against Harper's "Secret" Plans to End Abortion

The young man in the video makes a very good argument against making abortion illegal in this country. If we were a Nation who cared about child poverty, and took better care of our young people, they MIGHT have an argument.

The poor are treated like criminals in this country, so men like Maurice Vellacott and Rod Bruinooge have no say in this matter.

The entire Reform Conservative caucus are hypocrites, because they want to dismantle the "welfare state", but still insist that women have no control over their reproductive rights.

Harper's anti-abortion propaganda team
By Antonia Zerbisias Living Columnist
December 2, 2009

Yeah, yeah.

Last year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he doesn't "intend to open the abortion issue."

But he has also promised a lot of other things. "Merit-based'' political appointments. No recession. More government accountability. No recession. Fixed election dates. No recession.

All those words about everything from the federal deficit to daycare spaces ... and nothing.

That's why I don't believe him when he talks about reopening the abortion debate. Not that it has ever really been closed.

His credibility isn't helped by Conservative caucus members who constantly harp on the subject by introducing private member's bills, making speeches, attending pro-life rallies and putting out news releases.

Which brings us to the member of Parliament for Saskatoon- Wanuskewin. Maurice Vellacott is past co-chair of the Pro-Life Caucus, an unabashed opponent of gay rights, and so vindictive in his attack on former Conservative-converted-to-Liberal MP Belinda Stronach that he used the "prostitute'' word.

Vellacott stepped in it once again last month when he put out a release commending local doctors for "reducing the availability of abortion in our city." It came in response to news that Saskatoon women had to leave town to terminate their pregnancies.

Now, as if this weren't unsympathetic enough to the plight of scared teenagers and desperate women, Vellacott added that "a growing body of research reveals significant health problems caused by abortion, including a greater risk of breast cancer, cervical lacerations and injury, uterine perforations, hemorrhage, and serious infection."

This is not only incorrect, it's pure propaganda espoused by those who would rather that pregnant women act as walking incubators for all those couples on adoption waiting lists.

Both the Canadian and American cancer societies dismiss the correlation between cancer and abortion. Furthermore, there is no "growing body of research" on the matter. And the Mayo Clinic debunks any connection between abortion and infertility.

It's not the first time Vellacott has made such claims: In 2006, he and Paul Steckle, the former Liberal MP for Huron-Bruce, promoted the idea that "the sexual revolution and the women's liberation movement are largely responsible for the rampant breast cancer we see today."
Whores and feminazis brought it on themselves.

Despite Harper's promise not to reignite the very hot abortion debate, last week there was no apology for Vellacott's claims by the Prime Minister or even Helen Guergis, Minister of State for the Status of Women.

Coincidentally, or not, all this happened just as the Ottawa-based "educational" LifeCanada issued its survey on attitudes toward abortion. "For the ninth year in a row, a majority of Canadians have rejected the status quo on abortion in this country," its statement said. "Over half say there should be legal protection for human life before birth and over two-thirds say abortions should only be paid for by taxpayers in medical emergencies or in cases of rape or incest."

But a closer look at the numbers reveals that only 30 per cent of us feel there should be no abortion rights. The rest say that abortion should be available only up to various trimesters.

As for who pays, the number has been virtually flat since 2002. (And, let's not forget, removing health care-funded abortion would only punish the poor.) As Dr. Delores Doherty, LifeCanada's president, told me, "Even though year after year people are saying they want some controls on abortion, they want some protection for the unborn, it still doesn't translate into action from the government."

There by the grace of a few more seats in the House.

So, according to polls, just how far from a Harper majority are we?

Pro-Lifer Dean Del Maestro

We Need a Tax Revolt on These Ten Percenters. NO MORE!!!!!!!!!!!

Voices are getting louder in protest, and I swear if these damn ten per centers are not stopped immediately I am going to organize a march. We will gather up as many as we can and drop them on Harper's doorstep (or on his head).

The Reformers spent twice as much as all other parties together on this nonsense, and each one is more ridiculous than the last. Michael Ignatieff has called for reform; I call for a complete stop.

Ten million dollars can be put to much better use. Housing for the homeless, food for the hungry, job creation. One way tickets for the Harper government to Lower Soblovia.

Ten percenters: Ground free flyers

LIKE the rest of us, Canada’s MPs have a right to free speech. But they are abusing one free-speech perk other Canadians don’t have — free postage — though the scam of 10-percenters.

MPs’ free mailing privilege is just that — a privilege. Mail to and from them is carried without postal fees. Why? It’s not because Canadians are crying for more campaign propaganda in between campaigns. The purpose is to enable people to contact their representative and to encourage MPs to help and report to constituents. Essentially, it’s a subsidy to support representation and accountability.

But this privilege is being abused by the rising use of "10-percenter flyers" — campaign-style mass mailings written by party central offices, not local MPs, and sent to targeted ridings using the pooled distribution privileges of individual MPs ....

If Stephen Harper held press conferences, or spoke with the media now and then, we might be able to ask him if he thinks this is a good use of more than ten million dollars. But we'll never know what he thinks, because he doesn't talk to us.

IS THIS REALLY CONSERVATIVE? IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA?

Why Maurice Vellacott and his Reconstructionist Theories Will Fail

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

With the introduction of Marci McDonald's book; The Armageddon Factor (1), we are now being given an opportunity to debate the enormous influence of the Religious Right on Canadian politics.

And one area that needs a great deal of debate, is the issue of Reconstructionism, which is being organized in the breezeway between Reform-Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott's office and the American 'Conservative movement*'.



C.S. Lewis and the Chronicles of Stephen Harper


In Lloyd MacKey's book, The Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper, he claims that Harper did not come to his "born-again" status from the need to be reborn to escape a lost life, but rather from the results of a cerebral journey.

C.S. Lewis dealt in absolutes, so as one of the theologians introduced to him by Preston Manning, Lewis would be the easiest for an analytical mind to grasp. Stephen Harper is a smart man, but he is not a wise man, and Lewis expressed Christian faith in the simplest of terms.

In fact, it has been those 'simple' terms that have had his critics state that among other things, his theories were "textually careless and theologically unreliable." (2)

Lewis is what is known as an 'apologist', which is described** in part as:

... a field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections, and expose the perceived flaws of other world views ... Apologists have based their defense of Christianity on historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, rhetorical persuasion and other disciplines.

Rather than being mythological, they try to make Christianity scientific, historical and absolute. For Lewis, it was all-or-nothing and half-heartedness was not to be tolerated. There was no middle ground. In that way he gave permission for religious intolerance, and most definitely intolerance toward anyone not seeking religion at all. To him they were simply "mad men" or "lunatics".

C.S. Lewis has come to be revered by Reconstructionists who want to transform the earth into the "kingdom of God", a necessary action before the second coming of Christ.

In Reconstructionism, the main thrust shifts from the salvaging of lost souls in a doomed society to the reconstruction of a Christian world. The significance of the Reconstructionist movement is not its numbers, but the power of its ideas and their surprisingly rapid acceptance. Many on the Christian Right are unaware that they hold Reconstructionist ideas. Because as a theology it is controversial, even among evangelicals, many who are consciously influenced by it avoid the label. This furtiveness is not, however, as significant as the potency of the ideology itself. Generally, Reconstructionism seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of "Biblical Law."

Reconstructionism would eliminate not only democracy but many of its manifestations, such as labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools. Insufficiently Christian men would be denied citizenship, perhaps executed. So severe is this theocracy that it would extend capital punishment beyond such crimes as kidnapping, rape, and murder to include, among other things, blasphemy, heresy, adultery, and homosexuality. (3)

Wanting to replace democracy with a theocratic elite, sounds very Leo Strauss, though I suppose that's why neoconservativism and the Religious Right are such a great fit. When Stockwell Day was teaching at the Bentley Bible schools, in his social studies classes he warned students that democratic governments "represent the ultimate deification of man, which is the very essence of humanism and totally alien to God's word." (4)

Footnotes:

* "... your country [United States], and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world" Stephen Harper 1997 to the Council for National Policy, the vanguard for the American Religous Right (5)

** Wikipedia

Sources:

1. The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada, By: Marci McDonald, Random House Canada, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-307-35646-8 3

2. C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion, By john Beversluis, Prometheus Books, 1985, ISBN 1-59102-531-1

3."Christian Reconstructionism: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence: Part 1 -- Overview and Roots," by Frederick Clarkson, March 1994, The Public Eye

4. Bentley, Alberta: Hellfire, Neo-Nazis and Stockwell Day:A two-part look inside the little town that nurtured a would-be prime minister - and some of the most notorious hate-mongers in Canada, By Gordon Laird, NOW Magazine, 2000

5. Full text of Stephen Harper's 1997 speech, Canadian Press, December 14, 2005

Maurice Vellacott Admits That MPs Have Nothing to do With Ten Percenters

Maurice Vellacott was forced to apologize recently for a ten per center distributed on his behalf to the NDP riding of Peter Stoffer.

However, his explanation provides further argument that this kind of media is not about MPs keeping the public informed, but simply campaign literature sent out by party central.

When Joe Preston was forced to defend one of the horrendous anti-Semitic flyers, he couldn't, simply because he really had no idea where the statements attributed to Michael Ignatieff came from.

Most people know that these are distributed on the MPs behalf by the Conservative party of Canada, usually without their knowledge. I'm sure many of them are as surprised as we are where they end up, or what is in them.

Michael Ignatieff has proposed reforms to the practice, and I think it's a long time coming. They are obviously not used in the manner that they were intended to be used, and the Reformers spent more than 6 million dollars of our money, this year alone, on these useless ads.

Tory apologizes for erroneous flyers but no move to ban them

OTTAWA - A Conservative MP has apologized for misrepresenting an opponent in one of many controversial flyers his party has been mailing - at taxpayers' expense - across the country. The apology came Monday just as a secretive all-party committee was meeting to discuss what, if any, limits should be placed on so-called ten-per centers - one-page flyers that MPs are entitled to mail to households outside their own ridings.

Saskatoon MP Maurice Vellacott apologized "explicitly" and "without reservation" for the flyer sent to New Democrat MP Peter Stoffer's riding about the long gun registry. The flyer asserted that Stoffer had "worked to support the registry" when in fact he has opposed it since its inception 12 years ago .... Vellacott appeared to suggest that the flyer was produced by the Tory party and not by him or his staff, even though it went out under his name."I have received an undertaking from our Conservative resource group that in the future they will proofread more carefully and nuance more appropriately any ten per center mail pieces that are sent out under my name" ...

IS THIS REALLY CONSERVATIVE? IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA?