Has Stephen Harper Been Looting the Canadian Treasury?

Nobel Prize winning economist, George Akerlof, once accused George W. Bush of "looting", finding no other term for what amounted to the worst fiscal policy in 200 years.

Bush had raided Social Security, launched expensive wars that he had to borrow money to finance, and jeopardized the future of programs like Medicare.

A perverse logic that if he went on a massive spending spree, while reducing revenue by granting unheard of tax cuts for the wealthy, he would drain the treasury, meaning that Congress would not be able to pass any additional spending bills.

Unless they were for war, of course.

Like Stephen Harper, Bush had been left with an enormous surplus, but blew the bank long before the economic downturn. In Bush's case he actually helped to expediate the crisis.

It's hard not to see a pattern here. While Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty are promising more "bad news" and an "austerity budget" in the not too distant future, it's time to look at this government's spending habits.

- 130 million dollars on television ads

- 45 million dollars on signs

- millions to private religious schools, which included hundreds of thousands on an indoor soccer field, that is closed to the public.

- 100,000 to make a spending announcement in Cambridge Ontario because MP Gary Goodyear was in trouble over an alleged adoption scheme.

- 15 billion dollars to build more prisons while Canada's crime rate is the lowest in history.

- 100 million spent on opinion polls, while completely ignoring the "opinions" or wishes of Canadians.

- Billions in tax "incentives" to the tar sands.

- 50 billion in corporate tax cuts.

- 1 billion for the G-20 that resulted in the worst human rights abuses in this country. The bill included almost 100,000 dollars spent at mini-bars.

- 30 million dollars to change our census, despite the fact that no one wanted it changed.

- 50 million poured into Tony Clement's riding to help his re-election bid.

- Hundreds of thousands on first class travel, because heaven forbid they should be forced to fly economy.

- 19 billion for fighter jets that Americans are concerned may have safety issues. And though promising Canadians service contracts, we learn that Canadian firms can bid on them with no guarantees.

- 650 million dollars in loans to an American firm, Pratt Whitney. The latest 300 million granted in a single day, even though no payments had been made on the 350 million "loaned" four years ago. Pratt Whitney had a profit last year of more than four billion dollars.

- The most expensive photo-ops known to man.

- Two million dollars so that Harper can tape his own film to give to the media.

- Millions to bribe provinces to accept the HST (Harper Sales Tax)

- 50 million dollars to Afghan President, Hamid Karzai's brother.

- Unprecedented use of military jets, while instructing the crew to not release the names of people travelling with Harper. As of November 2009, there were 1,900 such flights.

- 130 million to settle a frivolous lawsuit without any attempt to fight it.

- Suing the Canadian people, by suing the Canadian Wheat Board and Elections Canada, on behalf of the Conservative Party.

- Almost one million dollars in tax credits claimed by Conservative candidates, in the "in and out" election financing scheme.

- 300 million for an election in 2008, breaking his own election laws.

- Hundreds of millions of dollars wasted when Harper prorogued Parliament.

The list goes on.

These are enormous sums of money, taken from us with little in exchange. What value did Canadian tax payers get for this transfer of funds?

Are we better off, knowing that Harper's caucus can travel in style? Are we better off realizing that Harper can fly his friends around in our military jets, that may help with party fundraising, but does little for out of work Canadians.

Are we happier with his HST? Are we smiling, living vicariously through the orgy at the mini-bars? Can we ignore expensive medial bills if it means we have fighter jets to keep us safe from the Russians and prisons to keep us safe from who knows what? Did I mention that our crime rate is the lowest in our history?

This is looting on a massive scale. Absolutely massive.

And yet the Harper government is blaming us for expecting too much.

How selfish are we that we want perks like healthcare and education? That we want to live in a just society? That we want clean air and clean water and a climate bill that actually fights global warming? That we want our veterans and seniors rewarded for their service to our country? That we want to end poverty and homelessness?

It's time to pull the plug on this government. We can no longer afford them.

C'Mon My Army of Pinkos. Young and Old Must Unite!

This country is in trouble and the Harper government is trying to pit the young against the old, blaming seniors for the debt that will be passed on to future generations.

Nonsense.

Our problems are not due to the Baby Boomers, now reaching retirement, but the rich. The rich, the richer, and the filthy rich. Those folks that Harper is determined to make even richer at the expense of everyone else.

Duncan Cameron says the young and old must unite if we have any chance of saving healthcare, education and pensions.

On the eve of the second decade of the new century, a renewed alliance between young and old would help Canadians trying to make a better life for more citizens. Much of current public policy debate turns around attempts to foster irrational fears about what the future holds. A prime example is attempts to manipulate public opinion by evoking threats an aging population pose for our public healthcare system. The next generation will stagger around covering the debts incurred to look after the health (and income) needs of retirees; we are told this so often people start to believe it.

There is no truth to the idea that young Canadians will need to go without to protect seniors' pensions and healthcare. The issues facing Canadians, whether they be young, old, or in between, have very little to do with the commonly heard assertions about how the aging population threatens the future of healthcare; or, how the young will need to subsidize older Canadians in retirement. The real division in Canada today is the same one noted by Aristotle in the 5th-century B.C.: the struggle between the rich and the poor.

So my Army of Pinkos, while Don Cherry speaks only for millionaires, we are the ones speaking for the little guy. The average Canadians of all ages. The poor, the working poor, seniors, veterans .... everyone that the Harper government ignores.

And to all you young folks out there, write a little pledge and put it in the Christmas card to your grandparents, or elderly neighbours. Promise them that you will not blame them for the loss of any of the things their generation was able to take for granted. Because the fact is, we do not need to lose them. We just need a fairer tax system, so that those who get the most from this country's resources, pay their share.

Forget Don Cherry. Forget Stephen Harper. Forget Jim Flaherty.

There's lots of money out there, but it's being hoarded by the greedy. Time to spread it around a bit. Put an end to corporate welfare and demand that this government changes it's focus.

That money is our money, not theirs. Enough is enough.

The Power of Audacity and Canada's First Five Years of George Bush

It was always there. We saw it. A strong connection with George Bush that was often dismissed as hyperbole when mentioned, and playing the Bush card became akin to playing the Hitler card.

And yet as we scrambled to figure out who Stephen Harper was, and what he wanted with us; what we may not have realized was that south of the border, others experienced the same confusion when G.W. first hit the scene.

I picked up The Book on Bush, by Eric Alterman and Mark Green, at a library sale and started reading it last night, and I had such a lightbulb moment, it almost blinded me.

It was written during Bush's first term, as both an exposé and a warning. But had I read it then, I wouldn't have appreciated the relevance to Canada.

I certainly do now.

Alterman and Green start out by saying that during the 2000 campaign, most Americans, including many Democrats, saw Bush as non-threatening, and while they preferred Gore, would not have been too upset if Bush beat him.

When George W. Bush ran for president in 2000 he was presented to the nation by his campaign handlers and a sympathetic media as a nice-enough fellow who didn't take himself or much of anything else—save perhaps his family and religion—too seriously. Though polls consistently showed that a majority of voters held views closer to those of Democratic candidate Al Gore—and, indeed, a 52 percent majority did end up voting for Al Gore or Ralph Nader—even most of Bush's opponents did not see his presidency as much of a threat to their beliefs. (1)

With Stephen Harper it was a little different. During the 2004 election campaign, Canadians were a little frightened of him. He looked mad all the time and had emerged from those Reform Party nuts. So Harper's challenge was to re-invent himself into something less intimidating. And he did. And Canadians fell for it, hook, line and sinker. Polls even showed that he was the most trusted of the political leaders. Quite an accomplishment for a man that few really knew anything about.

The authors of the Book on Bush stated that after elected, G.W. pulled the old bait and switch. With Harper is wasn't quite as obvious, because he wasn't guaranteed four years. With only a minority, he wasn't even guaranteed four months.

But the similarities are still striking.

A "belief that America's forty-third president would govern from the happy middle of the partisan divide." "Bush is an incrementalist." And yet he "proceeded to embark on the most radical presidency in modern times."

All of this has a familiar ring. But hold on to your hat. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

How George Bush Governs Canada

In Allan Gregg's review of Lawrence Martin's book Harperland, he says:

Even though it has become a cliché to refer to Stephen Harper as a control freak, the power of Martin’s argument hits you like a jackhammer. Those of us who follow these things quite closely remember a number of occasions when the Conservatives have found themselves in hot water because of allegations of abuse of power, but we tend to forget just how frequently this has occurred and the myriad forms this malfeasance has taken over the last four and a half years.

Similarly, we remember the early Bush-Harper connections, but "tend to forget" the frequency, or perhaps more importantly, fail to understand, just how fundamental the similarities actually are. Alterman and Green write of Bush:

... his hard-right agenda strikes out in so many directions simultaneously that it's nearly impossible for the average citizen to keep up. In his first term as president, Bush has sought to explode precedents in almost every area of governance, whether the policy in question be foreign or domestic, popular or unpopular, old or new, effective or not. He has done so in contempt of the opinions of not only his opponents but also many of the corps of professional experts who are charged with nonpartisan evaluation of government programs purely from a standpoint of efficacy. (1)

A paragraph like that is one written often now, when referring to the Harper government. They act contra to the wishes of Canadians or the advice of experts. "Conclusions produce "facts" rather that "facts' helping to draw conclusions" (1)

And while their "hard-right agenda strikes out in so many directions simultaneously", that is not an accident. I see it as order hidden behind a cloak of disorder. It appears scattered but is not.

Neoconservatism is a political theology. Nothing is random. Nothing organic.

A Few Compelling Revelations from the Book on Bush

All of these are only from the introduction, which I read over a few times, I found them so shocking. These are my top ten:

1. Bush reduced press conferences by 75% and only answered questions presented in advance. "By the fall of his third year, the father Bush had held sixty-one press conferences; his son by the same time, nine."

2. Bushed ignored the polls and editorials that expressed the wishes of Americans, and instead began "...any policy consideration with three fundamental questions: What does the religious right want? What does big business want? What do the neocons want?"

3. "Karl Rove [suggested] that the way to a second term is to "activate the base"... to satisfy his core conservative constituencies. And if facts clash with the established orthodoxy, he'll stick with his base, not the facts."

4. "... it's traditional for presidents to be observant, to regularly invoke God and attend church. Difficulties can arise, however, if either a public official appears indebted to religious zealots or bases policy significantly on his particular religious beliefs ... Karl Rove would likely rather risk an international holy war than a drop in Bush's support among Christian conservatives."

5. "... the marriage of big business and politics isn't just the world that Bush grew up in; from oil to the Texas Rangers to fund-raising, it's all he's ever known. Ralph Nader teased in 2000 that "George Bush is a corporation running for president disguised as a person" ... "Mr. Bush is a business school graduate who has stuffed his administration with multimillionaire chief executives. There can be no doubt where his sympathies lie." "

6. "By the time the two authors of this work set down to examine Bush policies in major areas of domestic and foreign policy, it was everywhere evident that they were not simply ad hoc reactions to problems as they arose. Rather, they were conscious attempts to reorder the priorities of the U.S. government both at home and abroad and permanently alter Americans' relationship with their government, with one another, and with the rest of the world ... Others have noted that his foreign policies have caused the United States to be reviled across the world as never before, without in any way appreciably increasing our security."

7. "Still others focus on Bush's favoring of the wealthy over the poor, and the contempt, rhetoric notwithstanding, with which his administration treats average Americans."

8. "Sometimes the president seems to think that vagueness, non sequiturs, and tautology are enough to explain away his political problems ... Another frequent maneuver is to talk left/govern right to the point that Bush seems to think he can get away with anything if he declares its opposite.

9. "... of Bush's program of tax cuts for the wealthiest few. Almost no one with even a college degree in economics really expects them to offer a cure for the myriad problems that ail the economy, and in many respects they are the problem itself. But all of this is hard to prove in the face of Bush's repeated assertions about his "jobs and growth" package. Bush, meanwhile, speaks as if the future will fall into line with his beliefs once it recognizes his personal resolve."

10. "President Bush is actively seeking "to roll back the twentieth century." The draining of the public treasury to benefit the very rich is just the start of an effort designed to reduce government to a size where, as close Bush ally and conservative political organizer Grover Norquist has so memorably said, you can finally "drown it in the bathtub." "

The way in which Eric Alterman and Mark Green, sum up George W. Bush, they could have easily been writing about Stephen Harper.

We aim to demonstrate, based on the evidence presented by expert analyses, the likely consequences of an environmental policy run for the benefit of the energy industry; an economic policy that beggars the poor, comforts the rich, and destroys the basis of fiscal solvency for the nation; an education policy that "leaves behind" those most in need; a science policy that flatters the prejudices of theological fundamentalists; and a foreign policy that creates hatred and terror where none existed before, undermining our alliances and threatening our security.
In each of these cases, the Bush modus operandi has been to say one thing and do another, whether promising tax saving for everyone but giving the lion's share to the wealthy few or vowing to protect America from threats while inflating nonexistent ones and ignoring those against which we can be defended.

How does he do it? There are a variety of methods that add up to what playwright Arthur Miller terms Bush's "power of audacity." (1)

The "power of audacity". How succinct.

Continuation:

George Bush and Stephen Harper Share Rhetoric on Environment

Sources:

1. The Book on Bush: How George W. (mis) Leads America, By Eric Alterman and Mark Green, Penguin Books, 2004, ISBN: 0-670-03273-5, Pg. 1-11

Free Markets and Partisanship are Destroying Economic Recovery

A letter in the Los Angeles Times weighs in on the recent extension of tax cuts for the wealthy:

Republicans demand tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires — at a time of great need for tax revenue — when the rich are doing just fine and don't even need a tax cut.

Thus, Republicans laid bare what nearly everyone knew already: They are the party of the rich, never the party of lower-income people, whose ranks are growing.

Joseph Stiglitz , a Professor at Columbia University and a Nobel laureate in economics, discusses how the free-market philosophy is failing the Global economy, and says that "in the U.S., the Republican party would rather see President Barack Obama fail than the economy succeed."

The same kind of partisanship that has poisoned our political climate, as engineered by our own Republican/Neoconservative prime minister.

Stiglitz speaks of reducing tax income, at a time when income is required to stimulate the economy.

This is not the only, or even the most important, downside risk facing the global economy. The gravest threat comes from the wave of austerity sweeping the world, as governments, particularly in Europe, confront the large deficits brought on by the Great Recession, and as anxieties about some countries’ ability to meet their debt payments contributes to financial-market instability.

The outcome of premature fiscal consolidation is all but foretold: growth will slow, tax revenues will diminish, and the reduction in deficits will be disappointing. And, in our globally integrated world, the slowdown in Europe will exacerbate the slowdown in the United States, and vice versa.

And with our economy so closely tied with that of the United States, we could be in for a tough year. But what has our government done? Wasted millions and millions of dollars on self promotion, while wasting billions on prisons, unnecessary and excessive crime measures and military hardware.

And to top it off, they plan to go ahead with further tax cuts for the wealthy in January.

Time to pull the plug. We can no longer afford to feed the free-market/neoconservative beast.

The Vancouver Observer is Right. Stephen Harper is Too Expensive

Dan Veniez has a great column in the Vancouver Observer: Why Canada can't afford Stephen Harper

We need to spend $15 billion on jails because unreported crimes are rising? Don't believe them. We need to stop the long-form census, because the census-takers are going to send you to jail? Don't believe them. We need to kill the long-gun registry, because the police are leading a cult conspiracy to take away everybody's guns? Don't believe them. We awarding a $19 billion untendered contract for new jets because the Russians are coming? Don't believe them. This is a government that is counting on fear, driven by lies, to earn the votes it needs to win again. Is it true that only a Harper Conservative government can bring sound management to the economy? Don't be fooled. Look at the record.

In recent months, we’ve been treated to more stellar economic and fiscal management, such as a double-digit increase in spending for Harper’s own office, shutting down downtown Toronto for 72 hours for a cost of well over $1 billion, not to mention the ignored Charter rights of Canadians, and triggering an unprovoked conflict with the United Arab Emirates that will cost us at least $300 million.

And the list goes on. Give it a read. You'll never call Harper a fiscal conservative again. (I never did, though I have called him many things)

Peter Kent, WikiLeaks and Why we Should be Concerned

During the 2008 election campaign, popular CBC radio personality Leslie Hughes, was running for the Liberal Party in the Winnipeg riding riding of Kildonan—St. Paul, against Conservative incumbent Joy Smith. A close friend of Stockwell Day, Smith had managed his successful Alliance Party leadership contest in 2000, for her area.

The day after the deadline for presenting candidates, the B'Nai Brith launched a formal complaint against Ms Hughes, claiming that in an old blog posting she had suggested that 9/11 was the result of a Jewish conspiracy. And they were supported in their claim by Conservative Peter Kent.

It was all nonsense. I have read the blog posting in question, and there is absolutely nothing in it that could be deemed anti-Semitic. See for yourself. She was only reacting to the "friendly fire" death of 4 Canadian soldiers.

But the media had a field day with it and Stephen Dion had little choice but to ask her to step down. She is now suing both Peter Kent and B'Nai Brith and I hope she nails them to the wall. This was a character assassination that not only cost her the election but her career, as few in the media want to hire her now that she is deemed to be anti-Semitic.

Omar Alghabra

Omar Alghabra was a former Liberal MP for the riding of Mississauga-Erindale, and is a wonderful man. I've had the opportunity to speak with him on-line and he is intelligent, funny and a champion of human rights.

But in 2005, immediately after winning his party's nomination, he was the victim of a smear campaign, in which several people claimed that in his victory speech he commented: "This is a victory for Islam! Islam won! Islam Won!" It wasn't true, and those involved were forced to publicly apologize. But that didn't stop neocon insider Tim Powers from trashing him publicly and calling him anti-Semitic.

Omar lost his seat in 2008 to Alliance party faithful Bob Dechert, but will be running again. I am so pleased. Dechert is a disaster.

Canadian Coalition for Democracies

The Canadian Coalition for Democracies was a group founded to incite hatred against Islamic Canadians, in a large part, by erroneously labelling public figures, anti-Semitic. They also lent support to Ezra Levant in his battle over publishing the horrendous Danish Cartoons.

Peter Kent was a founding member and Tony Clement was head of their Advisory Board. They were extremely pro-Israel:

The CCD generally supported the policies of the Conservative Party government of Stephen Harper, and the organization's leadership has urged its members to view support for the Conservative Party of Canada as equivalent to support for Israel. (Wikipedia)

The group also supported the controversial Falun Gong and a continued Canadian involvement in Afghanistan.

Other members of the group included:

Michael Mostyn: the Director of Government Relations for B'nai Brith Canada. When Ralph Reed, founder of the Christian Coalition, spoke in Canada to drum up support for Stephen Harper, Mostyn was in attendance and he ran unsuccessfully for the party himself.

Rochelle Wilner: past president of B'nai Brith Canada and the Conservative Party's federal candidate for York Centre.

Naresh Raghubeer: founder and former executive director of the of the CDD. In November 2004, the CCD, along with Stockwell Day, held a press conference calling the International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy (IRFAN) of having links to the terrorist organization Hamas and of providing financial support to them. Subsequently, IRFAN-Canada filed a defamation claim against CCD officials Alastair Gordon and Naresh Raghubeer, as well as against Stockwell Day. IRFAN-Canada firmly held that the accusations were "false and malicious" and, to paraphrase their lawyer, wanted to clear their name from the allegations.

Raminder Singh Gill: Former member of Mike Harris's government, he has ran unsuccessfully for a spot in the Harper caucus. He has however, been given a patronage position under Jason Kenney, where he acts as a citizenship judge. The same citizenship department that says "no Muslims".

David Harris: is a Canadian lawyer and former senior fellow with the CCD. He was chief of strategic planning for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and has suggested that Canada's immigration policy encourages the use of Canada as a base for terrorists, and has consistently advocated for harsher Canadian laws to combat terrorism. He is an outspoken defender of the Canadian government's use of security certificates to detain terrorism suspects without trial.

Salim Mansur: is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario and a contributor to the conservative blog Proud To Be Canadian, the same blog where American Anne Coulter has found a home. He is also featured on the documentary Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West produced by the David Horowitz Freedom Center and ran unsuccessfully for the Canadian Alliance party in 2000.

Peter Kent and Canwest Global

The late media mogul, Izzy Asper, hated the CBC. And he especially hated Neil Macdonald, the CBC's Middle East correspondent from 1998 to 2003, who contradicted his notion of Israel as a victim.

Macdonald was based in Jerusalem for five years, and was not shy about injecting his opinions on the Arab-Israeli conflict into his reports. His bosses back in Toronto were supportive. "To suggest that most of the world's media are involved in a conspiracy against Israel, it's just a totally extreme conception on Asper's part," declared Tony Burman, then head of CBC News. "There is something profoundly ironic about being told off about media bias by someone like Izzy Asper." This was a thinly veiled reference to the Aspers' practice of urging their papers to publish company-written editorials that expressed their owner's views ... (1)

And MacDonald was appalled that Asper's employees allowed their boss to engage in the suppression of journalism, which only escalated Asper's attacks against him, though he was not surprised.

"I expect more bullying, more bombast, more ideological, anti-journalistic nonsense. I used to work for the newspapers they now own. Several of my ex-colleagues, still there, tell me they find the Aspers' approach to journalism an embarrassment. But they cannot speak publicly. Thank heavens I can." (1)

And the bias in Asper's papers and television reporting didn't go unnoticed by others.

Asper's diatribe garnered him respect among Canada's Jewish community but condemnation elsewhere. British journalist Robert, Fisk, who writes for the Independent and had been a long-time critic of Israeli policies, labelled Asper's speeches "gutless and repulsive. "These vile slanders," he said, "are familiar to any reporter trying to do his work on the ground in the Middle East. They are made ever more revolting by inaccuracies." Fisk specifically took issue with Asper's interpretation of British-Palestinian history—pointing out that, for example, the expression used in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was "a national home for the Jewish people," rather than a "Jewish State," as Asper had suggested.

More to the point, Asper didn't give a damn. He practised what he preached. Canwest Global was "unabashedly pro-Israel," declared Murdoch Davis, who spent several years as Canwest's Winnipeg-based editor-in-chief. He wasn't kidding. (1)

Eventually after fighting for freedom of the press, many of Izzy's journalists just refused to write anything at all about Israel. Peter C. Newman in his book Izzy, says "At the same time, there was no question that the worst form of censorship in this kind of editorial climate was the self-censorship writers and editors applied to their assignments and their copy, usually by avoiding the subject entirely."

But one Canwest Global media personality and executive, had no problem sticking with Izzy's guidelines. His name: Peter Kent. The same Peter Kent who is now the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of the Americas, in Stephen Harper's cabinet. The same Stephen Harper who allowed Izzy Asper to help write the foreign policy of his Reform Party, in exchange for his financial and communications support. "Izzy pulled out all the stops on that one. He was prepared to invest his personal time and capital for the cause." (2)

Peter Kent and WikiLeaks

Yesterday, one of the WikiLeak documents revealed that the U.S. was angered at Canada's approach to Cuba. Peter Kent was personally named and his office responded by saying that their party's official policy is to not respond to any of the WikiLeak announcements.

Fine.

But when I hear Peter Kent's name, the only Canadian who is possibly more pro-Israel than Stephen Harper, I pay attention.

And bypassing the mainstream Canadian media, who wouldn't be allowed to pursue the story even if they wanted to, I instead went right to the source for any information regarding Canada and this foreign country. And the Israel Resource Review didn't disappoint.

Peter Kent's Canadian tax payer financed job, has been to protect Israel's interests in Latin America.

Kent noted that “ Canada ... has also represented Israel’s interests in Cuba through its embassy in Havana. There is a 1,500-member Jewish community in Cuba and as Kent said “It’s now possible for Cuban Jews to make aliyah.” ... Canada and Israel are also working together to pressure the government of Argentina to make reparations for the botched investigation of the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires. Kent said Canadian and Israel also have (sic?) are concerned about involvement of ‘Latin American states with Iran.”

And remember, Kent recently suggested that it was not a matter of if there would be a preemptive strike agaisnt Iran, but when. (3)

Canadians are not anti-Israel, but we are rightfully concerned when our Canadian government consistently puts Israel's interests above those of ours. That is not what we pay them for.

We expect a balanced approach to foreign policy, not a one-sided approach that allows another country to get away with horrendous crimes against humanity.

We have got to start paying attention.

But how sad is it that the only one providing us with information to pay attention to, is an Australian activist?

Sources:

1. Izzy: The Passionate Life and Turbulent Times of Izzy Asper, Canada's Media Mogul, By Peter C. Newman, Harper-Collins, 2008, ISBN: 978-1-55468-089-4, Pg. 254-256

2. Newman, 2008, Pg. 83

3. Canada’s international do-gooder image shattered: Ottawa Loses Bid for UN Security Council, by Eric Walberg, Global Research, October 23, 2010

Dear Nancy Ruth. War Will Not Liberate Women so 'Shut the f--- up'

Nancy Ruth is another Conservative senator appointed by Liberal prime minister Paul Martin, who was trying to break the tradition of patronage. She is best known for telling aid groups who were opposed to our new anti-abortion stand in foreign policy, to “shut the f--- up”

A lovely woman.

Ruth is now chairing a special senate committee on the advancement of human rights in Afghanistan, and wants a special emphasis on promoting and "preserving" women's rights in the region.

That includes training Afghan police and soldiers in gender sensitivity, providing health and education for females and ensuring that any political resolution with the Taliban to end the 10-year conflict does not erode the gains that have been made by women.

I don't even know where to start.

"Gender sensitivity"? Is she nuts? A few facts:

- Every 30 minutes, an Afghan woman dies during childbirth
- 1 in every 3 Afghan women experience physical, psychological or sexual violence
- 44 years is the average life expectancy rate for women in Afghanistan
- 70 to 80 percent of women face forced marriages in Afghanistan

And this is under Hamid Karzai. And Ruth is worried about gender sensitivity. It's like going to the hospital with third degree burns on every part of your body and the doctor saying: "You really have to do something about your hair. It's a mess".

If this so-called "human rights" senate committee really want to help women in Afghanistan, they need to get our soldiers out of there. Because that's what they really want.

In the video below you will hear one woman near the end say that she does not expect, nor does she want, some foreign power to come and liberate her. If she can't do that herself than it can't be done.

Besides it was all this "liberating" that took away women's rights in Afghanistan in the first place.

The Radical Fundamentalists Were the Product of the Good Old U.S. of A.

Journalist Stephen Gowan wrote a piece in August on the plight of women in a country with too much western interference. Women’s Rights in Afghanistan. What's left.

While worries are expressed about “women’s precarious rights in Afghanistan … seeping away” there was a time when the rights of Afghan women were much stronger, and stronger still among the people who shared a common culture with Afghans but lived in Soviet Central Asia. While US journalists draw attention to worry that a US troop withdrawal, and the possible return of the Taliban to government, will imperil the few rights women have gained, US establishment journalism expressed few concerns about the loss of women’s rights when Washington backed the misogynist Mujahedeen in its fight against a progressive government in Kabul that sought to free Afghan women from the grip of traditional Islamic practices.

The United States not only trained and paid both Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but they deliberately recruited the most extreme elements, to fight against the Soviets. And now many of those extremists have found a home in the current Afghan government.

And before they interfered, women in the country were enjoying enormous freedom.

Further evidence of Washington’s supreme indifference to the rights of women abroad is evidenced by the role it played in undermining a progressive government in Afghanistan that sought to release women from the grip of traditional Islamic anti-women practices. In the 1980s, Kabul was “a cosmopolitan city. Artists and hippies flocked to the capital. Women studied agriculture, engineering and business at the city’s university. Afghan women held government jobs.” There were female members of parliament, and women drove cars, and travelled and went on dates, without needing to ask a male guardian for permission. That this is no longer true is largely due to a secret decision made in the summer of 1979 by then US president Jimmy Carter and his national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski to draw “the Russians into the Afghan trap” and give “to the USSR its Vietnam War” by bankrolling and organizing Islamic terrorists to fight a new government in Kabul led by the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan.

And Canada Has Given Them Little reason to Trust Us

In March of 2009, we learned of a new law being passed in Afghanistan that, among other things, would make it illegal for women 'to refuse their husbands sex, leave the house without their permission or have custody of children.'

Canadians were outraged.

So Lawrence Cannon mounted his white steed and went off to the rescue.

The Canadian government reacted with outrage following reports that the administration of President Hamid Karzai has approved a wide-ranging family law for the country's Shia minority ... Canadian officials contacted the Karzai's office, and Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon spoke to two Afghan cabinet ministers Tuesday seeking clarification.

Seeking clarification, huh?

Poor Larry got caught with his pants down, during their hostile takeover of the Rights and Democracy agency, that is supposed to be arms length of government.

In April 2009, Parliament Hill was abuzz with news that Afghanistan passed a law that deprived women of their children in cases of separation, banned them from appearing in public without the permission of their husbands, and made it illegal to refuse to have sex with them. Lawrence Cannon swore he knew nothing about the law and that it came as a complete surprise to him… he was contradicted by two employees - the president, Rémy Beauregard, and Razmik Panossian, its policy director, who told Embassy Magazine that Canada had known it was coming for months…

Canada knew it was coming for months. Do they really believe that the women in Afghanistan can trust us? We stood by and did nothing to prevent this. Karzai's justice minister said that there are only two rights that women should have. The right to obey their husbands and the right to pray. And the Harper government did nothing! Nothing except try to cover their tracks and pretend to care!

Travis Lupick with Straight.com, believes that Stephen Harper’s religious beliefs may be hampering humanitarian efforts. And while it appears that this "born again" Christian was really just a "born again" opportunist, those propping him up do hold strong religious views. And Lupick is right in saying that those views will hurt any initiative.

Today, another Canadian mother mourns the loss of a son. And everyday in Afghanistan, mothers mourn, not only their children killed by "liberating" soldiers, but their sons who join the rebels.

And they fear the long term impact of the increased militarization of their society.

Time Magazine ran a story in July asking, What Happens If We Leave Afghanistan? In it they attempt to convince their readers that a return of the Taliban will reverse gains made by their occupation, forgetting that the women in that country are nowhere near where they were before the Americans got involved in the first place.

And as Jason Linkins in the Huffington Post says: "We invaded Afghanistan to fight the Taliban in 2001. This young woman's nose and ears were cut off by the Taliban in 2009." That woman was the image on the cover of that Time magazine. Some progress.

What the women in Afghanistan really want is to not have to raise their children in a war zone. 90% of the casualties in that conflict are civilian. Not soldiers. Not the "enemy". Not the "scumbag murderers". Civilians, including women and children.

So Nancy Ruth. Unless your committee considers the possibility of getting out of there now, you should just 'shut the f--- up'!