Showing posts with label Pat Martin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pat Martin. Show all posts

Friday, November 18, 2011

More Conservative Double Standard


Yesterday, when the Conservatives limited debate on the budget, NDP Pat Martin tweeted his frustration with a colorful expletive. He remains unapologetic, as he should.

Why the media is giving this so much attention is beyond me, but the Harperites have certainly managed to take the focus off their budget and onto something that few care about.

The photo above is Conservative MP Daniel Petit, giving the finger in the House of Commons. Pierre Poilievre was also caught making a rude gesture while Peter Milliken was speaking, and launched his own F-Bomb during a Parliamentary Committee meeting.



Evan Solomon had Tom Lukiwski on his program, with Lukiwski suggesting that Martin's language crossed a line. Ah yes, that beacon of propriety:



The full tape is filled with so many F-Bombs I'm surprised that it didn't blow itself up.

Andrew Scheer is looking into a formal punishment, that's how far they are willing to take this.

This government has often turned the House of Commons into an Animal House frat party. From Elizabeth May's book, Losing Confidence:
In one memorable Question Period, the question was about the safety of pet food in response to the tragic incident of poisoned pet food from China. The Conservative backbenchers started barking, "Woof, woof. Bow-wow" ... Heckling has also taken a crueler tone. Sexist taunts are more common. Government MPs have even taken to loud booing of certain Liberal MPs they most dislike, even before a question can be asked. This is particularly the case for women MPs. For a while, whenever Judy Sgro rose to speak, the Conservatives would chant "pizza" in reference to the allegations from a campaign worker that she had violated elections laws by accepting free pizza for her volunteers. Although she was cleared by Elections Canada, chanting "pizza" seems to entertain the Conservatives.
A lot of things entertain the Conservatives.

But they're not necessarily as stupid as their actions often imply.

Where is the media critique of the budget? Most headlines relate to a 140 character tweet.  It makes me so f#$%**% mad!

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

Fresh Merger Talks Raise the Question: Is it Time?

Thomas Walkom had a column in the Star this weekend, raising the possibility of Bob Rae as the next federal NDP leader.

A rather silly attempt at reminding Canadians that he once led the NDP in Ontario, even acting as premier. While in office, Walkom wrote a scathing book: Rae Days: The Rise and Follies of the NDP.

It's a one-sided rant, that fails to mention that before the balloons starting losing air on election night, the right-wing noise machine sprung into action. Another reaction to an NDP victory.

Gerald Caplan wrote an excellent piece for the Globe in October of 2010, in which he says:
Mr. Rae's government faced an unrelenting, brutal four-year onslaught that was unprecedented in Canadian history. The attacks came from all sides. It is no exaggeration to say hysterical fear-mongering and sabotage was the order of the day. Launched within the very first year of the new government, the attackers included every manner of business big and small, both Canadian and American-owned, almost all private media, the police (especially in Toronto), landlords and lobbying/government relations firms. Their goal was clear, and they had the money and power to achieve it.

They were determined to undermine the government every step of the way, to frustrate the implementation of its plans and to assure its ultimate defeat. In all three goals they were successful. The considerable achievements of the government – often forgotten or dismissed –were wrought in the face of a deep recession and ferocious obstruction.
The National Citizens Coalition created the Ontarians for Responsible Government, running radio ads and placing billboards in prominent places.

And of course, Walkom wrote a book.

Yet nowhere in that book does he mention Ontarians for Responsible Government, or Conrad Black who vowed never to invest a penny in the province under the NDP.

And even the rank and file abandoned him because he wasn't implementing the changes they wanted, failing to understand why it was almost impossible. Said Caplan:
... corporate interests threatened a virtual strike of capital unless the government relented on its intentions to introduce higher business taxes and to strengthen union rights, environmental regulations and equity programs.

Mr. Rae and treasurer Floyd Laughren made themselves easily accessible to business representatives, many of whom ran Canadian branch plants of huge American multinationals, only to be threatened with capital blackmail. The premier was warned that their U.S. head offices weren't about to invest further in Ontario unless the government abandoned most of the programs it had run on.

Bond traders declared that slashing government programs to reduce the deficit was a prerequisite to Ontario borrowing at competitive rates, even though Ontario’s deficit was equivalent to that of Conservative-run Alberta. Suddenly the entire media was fixated on the government’s threatened credit ratings, never mind that Ontario had the only Standard & Poor’s AAA rating in the country. The Social Credit government in British Columbia, the Conservatives in Alberta and Robert Bourassa’s Liberals in Quebec all had lower credit ratings. Yet only in Ontario was the government threatened.
What happened in Ontario then was an almost carbon copy of what President Obama is facing in the United States because he dared to suggest that big business should pay more, and wanted a universal healthcare plan, right down to the "debt crisis".  So I wouldn't put too much stock into anything that Walkom says about the NDP. He was part of the problem.

Pat Martin, one of my favourite MPs on the Hill, is again calling for a merger. A realist, he appreciates the challenges the NDP face from corporate interests. Unfortunately he was booed off the stage for suggesting they drop "socialism" from their mandate.

Martin is a smart man, and while there was much rejoicing over their latest victories, let's be real. Most of the gains were in Quebec and a surge of popularity for Jack Layton.

It resulted in the loss of many progressives from both the Bloc and Liberals. Hard working MPs replaced with paper candidates, and vote splitting that gave the neocons Ontario.

But how well will those paper candidates do next election, when they have to actually raise funds and campaign? Many never even had campaign offices. Their constituents didn't vote for them, only their leader.

I'm afraid that if the Liberals and NDP don't work together, whether in a formal merger or spirit of co-operation, we are going to end up with a neoconservative dynasty.

One thing that Walkom did get right, was his observation that Jack Layton was trying to move the party to the right, in an attempt to garner support from the mainstream.  However, Canada is not a right-wing country, and Stephen Harper's success is in large part due to the fact that he pretends to be governing from the centre, while moving the centre with his usual "stealth".

So if there is a new party created, they have to offer a real alternative for Canadians, not just give it lip service.

Personally, I would prefer that the Liberals rebuild, drawing in support from the old PCers, or "red Tories".  Canada had a unique political culture, in that for decades, we were led by centrist governments, who drew from the right and left.

The only drawback to that was that while the right wing Reform/Alliance earned concessions, and the left-wing NDP earned concessions, any fallout was placed on the party in power, and ironically, later used by those same people seeking concessions.

I don't want to lose the NDP because they gave us so much, including universal healthcare and prison reform.  But I don't want to lose our centre either, and that's where the only alternative to Harper should be.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

I agree with Pat Martin. No Taxpayer-funded Proselytization

“The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.” John C. Danforth, U.N. Ambassador

As our neoconservative government is ramping up their social conservative agenda, Canadians have got to start speaking out.

They are setting an extremely dangerous precedent by funding Christian fundamentalist organizations, especially ones seeking to indoctrinate children. That has always been a recipe for disaster.

This year, our science minister, who doesn't believe in science; was tangled up in an adoption mess, involving several over zealous fundamentalists. Though Goodyear's interest in the project was monetary, I read some of the accounts of workers talking about teaching African children Bible stories, which on the surface might sound OK, but were the children's families aware of this? Were they even aware they were there?

According to one report; 'Nine adoptions from Ghana were suspended after officials there found some children at an orphanage run by an Ontario charity had been taken from their parents.'

There's a very fine line here.

So when we learn this week that the federal government is funding a Youth for Christ centre in Winnipeg, the red flags go up. Our federal government, or any government, should not be funding private religious schools or centres, and yet they are.

Canada is not a theocracy, and in fact this country embraces a lot of different faiths. It would appear that this groups 'mission', pardon the pun; may be about more than just providing a centre for youth.

Social conservative Vic Toews and NDP MP Pat Martin, got into a bit of a battle of words over this and I agree with Mr. Martin, when he called the proposal "taxpayer-funded proselytization."

"I have no objection to faith-based organizations providing services. Sally Ann (the Salvation Army) and others have been doing a great job for years.

But these people are evangelical fundamentalists," Martin said of Youth For Christ. "Offering much-needed sports opportunities is just their way of luring in young prospects." He went on to quip: "Would the federal government be so willing to give them $3 million if they were called Youth for Allah?"

Gordon Sinclair Jr. also discusses this situation in the Winnipeg Free Press; More ominous issue underlies Youth for Christ flap

Youth for Christ, an evangelical organization with a missionary-centred mission statement, was proposing to create a $12-million youth-centred recreation project [primarily aboriginal kids] ...

A Youth for Christ news release summarized it this way: "A Centre For Youth Excellence envisions services that promote sport and recreation, character development, community health services for all youth (especially for low-income
and high-risk youth) and spiritual formation opportunities from a Christian
world view."

It's that carefully cloaked phrase "spiritual formation opportunities" that suggests Youth for Christ's underlying raison d'ĂȘtre. They are out to convert aboriginal youth to Christianity.

And as Sinclair reminds us:

Systematic conversion -- and resulting subjugation of First Nations culture and religion -- by Ottawa-backed Christian organizations has a painful history in this country.

One of the neoconservative principles is that the government should not be involved in social programs at all, but that should be left to the churches to administer. This is wrong, on so many levels. If the churches hold the purse strings, what will be expected of people who need help?

Will they have to sell their souls for their daily bread?