I'm so Damn Sick of Junk Politics and Hopefully Trudeau is Too

There is a good book by Benjamin DeMott Junk Politics: Trashing of the American Mind

DeMott laments the loss of intelligent debate in the political arena, being replaced, in part, with "touchy, feely personal testimonials" and "feel your pain" forced empathy.

In the current Ontario election campaign we've heard party leaders tell us that they worked their way through school, were a grandchild of immigrants and like to run.

Who cares? How is that relevant? Any identification we may have with them should end there. Our concern before we give them control of our money and in some respects, our lives; should not be about inconsequential shared life experiences; but the bigger picture of how they are going to create a better place for everyone.

During the 2008 federal leadership debate, when the topic was unemployment, Stephen Harper claimed that he understood the difficulties facing those out of work, having once been unemployed himself for eleven months.

However, when the media questioned him about it later, turns out that he wasn't really unemployed at all, but sat home for eleven months planning for an upcoming election, while his wife earned money printing material for his Reform Party. Hardly the same thing.

Later, when interviewed about the hardships facing Canadians as a result of the economic crisis, after suggesting that they could grab up bargains in the stock market, he said that his own mother was worried about her stock portfolio.

He was trying to suggest that he felt our pain, but couldn't pull it off. Not that it mattered. We shouldn't elect our representatives to feel our pain, but to alleviate it.

The growing reliance on soundbites and expectations of "just like us", are overshadowing the important issues, by "minimizing large complex problems" (DeMott), and redefining the traditional values of a just society.

Justin Trudeau and the Abortion Debate

I've been doing a lot of eye rolling over this media pet peeve of the week, but when someone I respect and admire weighs in, I pay attention.

Susan Delacourt entered the fray recently, and while I agree in part, I think she has missd the point.

Delacourt states that in 2005, when Stephen Harper was leader of the Opposition, he held a meeting with Hill journalists where he stated that his party

"... would not be having any policy at all on matters such as same-sex marriage and abortion. Members would be totally free to hold their views, but the Conservative party would have no stated position on these matters."

Delacourt was not surprised by this, believing that Harper was a Libertarian. Rather amusing given that he had campaigned against Same-sex marriage, and did not allow his MPs to hold an opinion contrary to any that he deemed the party should hold.

Take the case of former Harper MP Larry Spencer, who in 2003, made some pretty disparaging remarks about homosexuals.

According to Spencer, Harper called him into his office and ripped into him: "You knew we wanted to run on the preservation of the traditional definition of marriage in the next election. Now we can't do that." Spencer went on to say that 'Is it any wonder that the Alliance Party was often being charged with having a secret agenda? When the truth cannot be disseminated, even to caucus members, just what should one believe?'(1)

Spencer's was not an isolated incident, as Stephen Harper has taken complete control of his caucus. Not even his cabinet ministers are allowed to speak to the press until they get their talking points from the PMO.

Calling Stephen Harper a Libertarian is like calling calling George Bush a humanitarian.

Perhaps Trudeau could have rephrased his message, but when the issue is simply messaging, then the problem lies not with the politicians, but with us.

If We Hope to Stop the Rise of Neoconservatism We Need To Think Big

There is little argument that one of the biggest problems we are facing today is income inequality. The rich continue to get richer while the rest of us are expected to keep them in the lifestyle they've grown accustomed to.

Lowering corporate tax is a form of corporate welfare, that rewards the top for refusing to work for the money we give them. Any downturn, no matter how slight, and the workers are the first to go. Profit trumps all.

Richard Henry Tawney (1880-1962), economist and historian said: "A society which reverences the attainment of riches as the supreme felicity will naturally be disposed to regard the poor as damned in the next world, if only to justify itself for making their life a hell in this."

In their book Tax is Not a Four Letter Word, the Himelfarbs write: "American ambivalence turned to anger in the aftermath of the financial meltdown and the massive government bailouts."

And yet the Bush Tax Cuts were still implemented while government services were cut by a trillion dollars. And where were the cuts directed? At the poor, who were blamed for the economic situation, focusing attention away from the Wall Street gamblers and corporate freeloaders.

Tawney believed that the only way to implement real change, was not to focus on single inhumane acts, but the entire notion of social injustice. That's why the Civil Rights movement was so successful.

Justin Trudeau has to do the same. He wants to change the way that the Liberals do politics, focusing on Canadians and not the Party's woes.

The NDP are shifting to the right, to take up what they see as a vacant middle. Unfortunately, Canada's Conservatives have taken us so far to the right that the middle is now just to the left of Genghis Khan.

Progressives have lost their voice and the Liberals have an opportunity to be that voice. But no JUNK!

I want intelligent answers to addressing climate change, poverty, income inequality, racial discrimination and women's reproductive rights, to name a few.

So for the record Justin: your wife is lovely, your children are beautiful and you like to box. Good for you.

But what I want to know is how you're going to do things differently and steer Canada back to the way we were before the Neocon menace. And if that means laying down the law with your party, so be it.

Source:

1. SACRIFICED? TRUTH OR POLITICS, By Larry Spencer, Kayteebella Productions, 2004, ISBN 13-9780978057404

Rightwing Ideology: Life Begins at Conception But Ends at Birth

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

Gloria Steinem was on Bill Maher this week and they were discussing rightwing/Tea Party ideology.

Their latest protests centre on the abortion issue, and the recent drive to force those considering abortion to have a sonogram first. The idea of course is the belief that once a pregnant woman or girl hears her baby's heartbeat, she will change her mind.

The Tea Party/conservative movement is nothing if not a lesson in paradox, because while they demand that the government stays out of their lives, they are forcing government intervention on the lives of women.

They are even holding public rallies with a pregnant woman on stage hooked up to a sonogram, and a voice over of the baby talking to the crowd.

But Steinem made a very compelling statement, when it comes to the rightwing and the abortion issue. She said that for them "life begins at conception and ends at birth". That's it in a nutshell. Because the new 'right' philosophy is all about ending social programs. They don't care about poverty. In their judgement if you're poor it's because you're lazy.

They just want those babies born.

In 2006 Michael Ignatieff wrote a piece for MacLeans magazine in which he said, in part:

Canadians have created a distinctly progressive political culture in North America. We believe in universal rights of access to publicly funded health care; we believe in the protection of group rights to language; in group rights to self-determination for Aboriginal peoples; we believe in the equality rights of all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, including rights to marriage. Strong majorities of Canadians believe that while abortion should be rare, it should be a protected right for all women. (1)

Few challenged his statements because they were a fair representation of who we are as Canadians. And our views have not really changed, as a recent survey suggests. What has changed is a politicians ability to express those views.

When Ignatieff suggested that Canada's maternal health initiative should include safe abortions, he was accused of promoting eugenics, suggesting that he was trying to decrease the black African population, forgetting that unsafe abortions are doing just that. It has been established that 36,000 women die annually from unsafe abortions in Africa. Good child bearing women, something tea party logic should be fighting against happening.

Many of these women were raped, as that is increasingly becoming common as a weapon of war. Something our foreign service can no longer speak of due to the change in the language of our foreign policy. According to Adrian Bradbury with DFAT:

Make no mistake, these semantic changes represent fundamental shifts to Canadian foreign policy. Each of the banned or altered terms carry with it significant policy implications, most related to the international human rights agenda. For example, when speaking of the war in the DRC, where upwards of 3 million people have been killed, and rape is widely used as a tool of war, the terms "impunity" and "justice" can no longer be used when calling for an end to, and punishment for, sexual violence.

And the Harper government has also reduced foreign aid to Africa, so again, their interest in a woman's reproductive rights, end at birth.

The abortion issue discussed on Bill Maher, included the Tea Party/conservatives attack on Planned Parenthood. And while only 2% of PP's mandate includes abortion, it is estimated that if it is dismantled, abortions would actually increase by about 40,00 a year.

In Canada, Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day have already eliminated funding to this organization. In 2006, they received $1,285,674 in federal grants, while in 2009, only $9,381.

Furthermore, Conservative Brad Trost circulated a petition to go after the International Planned Parenthood Federation in November of 2009 and in 2010:

One of the world’s biggest health-care providers for vulnerable women appears to have fallen victim to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s zero tolerance policy on abortion. In London, International Planned Parenthood Federation is waiting for a call from Canada that will preserve life-saving programs that help 31 million women and children.

Again this is very short sighted, and yet another case where ideology trumps factual information.

Because of organizations like Planned Parenthood in Canada , between 1996 and 2006, the abortion rate in young women, saw a sharp decline. Canada’s teen birth and abortion rate drops by 36.9 per cent. Preaching abstinence doesn't work.

So if the Tea Party/conservative movement was serious about tackling the abortion issue, they would promote safe sex, the eradication of child poverty and income disparity.

And if you think that in 2006, Michael Ignatieff was only saying what he thought we wanted to hear to get elected, this is what he wrote of poverty in 2000, just three years after Stephen Harper boasted that he was a rare public figure who wasn't afraid to speak out against public money going to fight child poverty.

.... abundant societies that could actually solve the problem of poverty seem to care less about doing so than societies of scarcity that can't. This paradox may help to explain why the rights revolution of the past forty years has made inequalities of gender, race, and sexual orientation visible, while the older inequalities of class and income have dropped out of the registers of indignation. Abundance has awakened us to denials of self while blinding us to poverty. We idly suppose that the poor have disappeared. They haven't. They've merely become invisible. (2)

Another fundamental difference between Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff.

Sources:

1. Michael Ignatieff: what I would do if I were the Prime Minister: From Afghanistan to Quebec, education to the environment, Ignatieff lays out his bold, progressive vision for Canada. A Maclean's exclusive, September 01, 2006

2. The Rights Revolution: CBC Massey Lectures, By Michael Ignatieff, Anansi Books, 2000, ISBN: 978-0-88784-762-2, Pg. 92

Jason Kenney and the Christian Coalition

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

When Pat Robertson and other televangelists preached the gospel of Christian nationalism, God and flag firmly entwined, that audience cheered the idea of a government run by conservative Christians according to the time-tested verities of the Bible, even if they didn't fully grasp its theocratic implications.

When Robertson's campaign flamed out, political analysts served up a new round of obituaries for the religious right, but once again, the reports of its death proved premature. Even as Robertson nursed a wounded ego, he was hatching his organizational revenge, hiring a fresh-faced young doctoral student named Ralph Reed to build a grass-roots evangelical network, focusing first on the takeover of school boards and town councils before ultimately commandeering the machinery of the Republican National Committee itself. That institutional coup took place almost entirely beneath the media's radar, and by the time it finally caught their attention, Reed's Christian Coalition controlled both houses of Congress and would later play a major role in putting George W. Bush in the White House, not once but twice. (1)

First off I want to say how proud I am of being asked to write for both the Religious Right Alert and Canadians Rallying to Unseat Stephen Harper. These two groups are doing an amazing job of exposing the Harper government and the enormous influence of not only the American Religious Right, who are camped out on Parliament Hill, but also the corruption that is increasing behind the scenes, of a government that has been allowed to operate in almost total secrecy.

Random House has allowed the latter group to provide the first chapter of Marci McDonald's book The Armageddon Factor, which is proving to be only the tip of the iceberg. You can read it here.

What surprised me, and even more so now; is how Jason Kenney has been able to fly under the radar. McDonald mentions him in relation to cutting the funding to the faith-based social activist group KAIROS and the Cristian Zionists who are pushing for a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East. But what I've recently discovered is that Jason Kenney is much more involved than that.

I suppose given the fact that he headed up Stockwell Day's leadership campaign and hangs out with some of the most notorious American right-wingers like David Frum and Alykhan Velshi, both players in the Bush administration, should have given us a hint.

Trevor Harrison in his biography of Stockwell Day (2), mentions that Kenney came under the influence of the American Conservative movement while attending St. Ignatius in San Francisco, but I'm only now discovering what that means.

McDonald mentions how Roy Beyer, the man who set up the Families for Day website during his leadership bid in 2000, and Brian Rushfeldt, co-founder of Charles McVety's Canada Family Action Coalition, visited Ralph Reed the founder of the Christian Coalition in the United States, to learn how to create the same here. But what she appears not to have known was that Jason Kenney was also involved in that.

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

The B.C. chapter is headed up by Operation Rescue activist Don Spratt, and claims among its founding board members former B.C. Premier and ardent anti-choicer Bill Vander Zalm. In an opinion piece in the Vancouver Sun, Spratt insisted (somewhat oxymoronically) "We have no ties with our U.S. counterpart." However, according to news reports, the Christian Coalition of Canada materialized after dozens of conservative Christians in this country thronged to Washington, DC, last fall to attend a major convention of the U.S. organization.

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

B.C. is particularly fertile ground for conservative Christians, according to CCC activist and organizer Jim Garrow (who heads the Ontario-based National Parents Coalition), hence B.C.'s status as the first provincial wing of the CCC. Alberta and Ontario are predicted to be next in line.

The B.C. chapter is sure to be a factor in the upcoming election, giving a boost to Reform Party candidates and any others who will go on record opposing abortion. The effect will likely be greatest in Surrey and the rest of the bible belt east of Vancouver. (Surrey is home to the taxpayer- funded "Traditional School" which opened last year after much campaigning from Surrey school trustee and clinic blockader Robert Pickering. Pickering scored another victory for the Religious Right this February when his motion to ban Planned Parenthood from all sex education programs in the district passed.) While Don Spratt may be telling readers "Nobody has anything to fear from Christian Coalition," progressive activists and journalists will have to make sure the electorate knows better. (3)

That was written in 1996 and Jason Kenney became a Member of Parliament the following year, in the "Reform Party boost". How did the media miss this?

And in 2000, the Canada Family Action Coalition (McVety/Rushfeldt/Beyers), were scoring a victory on their website, with the successful bid for leadership by Stockwell Day.

Many Alliance insiders view Beyer's CFAC as the so-con group to watch -- or watch out for. Formed 3 1/2 years ago, it now claims to have close to 10,000 members. Some older groups that share the same ideological turf, such as Focus on the Family and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, are charities. To keep that status for tax purposes, they are restricted from direct political action. But CFAC is a nonprofit group, and operates freely in the political arena. Officially, it is non-partisan. But Beyer, a Pentecostal minister in Edmonton, took time off from CFAC to organize Families for Day, which threw substantial support behind the former Alberta treasurer in his winning leadership bid. Beyer estimates the organization signed up at least 6,500 new party members who voted for Day, about equal to his final margin of victory.

... Expect that election to feature so-cons out in force. Beyer says CFAC's model for political action is the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (Jason Kenney had been president of this group). The federation, founded in 1990, emerged as a tenacious voice in keeping lower-taxes, less-spending themes on federal and provincial election agendas. And between campaigns, its offices in the capitals of all four western provinces and Ottawa keep the pressure on. (4)

I often learn more about what the Canadian Religious Right are doing from visiting the websites of their American counterparts, and a recent piece celebrates an impending victory: The end of Canada's free health care.

While Democrats in Washington have been busy putting greater government controls on health care in America, (and putting taxpayers on the hook for more health care related expenses), our neighbors to the north are taking a hard look at the costs associated with their government funded system. Why? Because the population is aging, and reality is beginning to set in concerning the government's financial ability to keep delivering on the commitment of "free health care". (5)

The Religious Right are about more than just ending abortion and gay rights. It's a complete overhaul. We need to start paying attention, since clearly our media is not.

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, Pg. 5

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

3. The Christian Coalition Comes to Canada, by Kim Goldberg, The Albion Monitor, May 5, 1996

4. Emboldened by Stockwell Day, Social conservatives are on the march, By John Geddes and Rima Kar, September 11, 2000

5. Canada "re-evaluating" it's government run health care system, Christian Coalition, Capitol Notebook, June 1, 2010

Will the Religious Right Cause an Increase in Abortion?

A very interesting statistic has just been released, indicating that the rate of abortion and teen pregnancies is on the decline in Canada, but not since Stephen Harper planted the Religious Right on Parliament Hill.

The 36.9% decline was for the period between 1996 to 2006, and is being attributed to: "Better access to contraception, higher quality sex education and shifting social norms ... "

And yet those are all of the things that Harper's ungodly, not of this world, "God Squad" want to put an end to. They only see things in black and white (for some literally).

“It’s important to look at teen pregnancy rates because they’re a basic fundamental indicator of young women’s sexual and reproductive health. While not all teen pregnancies are a bad thing, when we see [rates] dropping, it’s a fairly clear indicator that young women are doing increasingly well in terms of controlling and protecting their reproductive health.”

“In comparison to the United States, we tend to have a more balanced, sensible approach to adolescent sexual health. Generally speaking what you find is that the more a society has an accepting attitude toward the reality of adolescent sexuality, the lower the teen pregnancy rate is. Canadians tend to have a more relaxed attitude towards adolescent sexuality than people in the United States.”

Mr. McKay said America’s emphasis on abstinence-only sex ed “tends to result in a higher percentage of teens becoming pregnant,” as does the country’s lack of universal health care. Poverty is another factor.

Hmmmm ... "emphasis on abstinence-only sex ed “tends to result in a higher percentage of teens becoming pregnant ..." And also no doubt a higher percentage of abortions.

Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion, and unless the Religious Right start pushing for MORE social programs instead of less, women and young girls will be given fewer choices. I saw a sign at one of the "pro-life" rallies that read "poverty is no justification for abortion". Maybe that marcher should have sat down, turned their sign around and read it. Duh!

Maybe those self-righteous, sanctimonious teabaggers who can actually read, should read this article, because what they believe they're marching against, might just result in an increase in what they're marching against, if they're successful.

And since we know that abstinance doesn't work with teenagers, they could just lose their own daughters to Dr. Coat Hanger. Then what will they march for?

The UK Guardian published an article Progressive Canada is slipping away.

[Harper] has given the suggestion of landing on the righteous side of a religiously charged debate, while keeping himself at arm's length. This way, Harper doesn't alienate himself from the average Canadian – particularly the centre-right voters. It is a repeated, adept, but not at all secretive, pattern of finding and exploiting those secular issues that strike at the heart of a silently religious nation.

It all means that the decision not to allow funding for safe abortions in developing nations most likely has very little to do with the security and health of the approximately 70,000 women who die annually during unsafe ones. Instead, it has everything to do with the Conservative party's own domestic political gains, and pandering to a lucrative – and growing – conservative base. It's decidedly cynical, but it seems to have worked. A recent poll found that, though 58% of Canadians said they were against the government's decision, it was those in favour of the move who held the biggest ever pro-life rally on Parliament Hill to celebrate it.

How can they call themselves "pro-life"?

Sorry Mr. Harper But Women Will NOT SHUT UP!

Poor Stevie is in trouble. His facade of a moderate leader is crumbling as he has had to take a stand on the abortion issue.

If he gives into the demands of Canadian women, he loses the support of the Religious Right, one of the only things keeping him in power.

Without them he is just another loud moth rabble rouser for the National Citizens Coalition, destined for obscurity. A byproduct of an experiment that failed.

What to do, what to do.

"Oh, I know", says Stevie. "I'll get one of my senators, who may be a woman, at least in terms of gender, to just swear at those broads standing at the gates. That'll work".

Well you know what, Stevie boy. It didn't. She can tell us to shut the F... up, but we've tried that.

When you cut funding for women's programs - we shut the F--- up!

When Helena Guergis blamed the hypersexuality of young girls for date rape - we shut the F--- up!

When you removed protection for women from our foreign policy - we shut the F--- up!

When you allowed the anti-women, REAL women of Canada to dictate what our rights would be - we shut the F--- up!

When you tried to scrap the gun registry - we shut the F--- up!

Well you know what? We are not going to shut the F--- up anymore.

I sure hope this wasn't a threat.

OTTAWA – Aid experts alarmed by Canada’s new anti-abortion stand in foreign policy have received some raw political advice from a Conservative senator: “shut the f--- up” or it could get worse.

“There’s a real chill in Ottawa on speaking out,” said Betty Plewes, a development consultant and chairperson of Monday’s meeting, organized around the question of “where is Canada’s leadership in the promotion of gender equality and women’s rights?”

One international aid advocate, Lydia Alpizar Duran, from the Association of Women’s Rights in Development, vowed that Canadian women would have help from other countries if they want to start making noise here. “I don’t remember any women’s rights ever gained by staying silent,” she said.

Touche!

What is Rod Bruinooge's Private Members Bill Really About?

I am now contributing the Religious Right Alert site. This was my first posting. Sites like this are very important to the future of our country. Not enough people are taking the threat of this radicalism seriously. They have an agenda, and not an agenda that most Canadians would support. Yet we allow them freedom to hate, simply because we don't want to be seen as attacking their religious beliefs. Despite the fact that they are attacking ours.

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

"Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants." Mother Teresa (1910-1997)

I find that quote used often on pro-life websites to equate abortion with violence. However, it doesn't ring true for most of these sites, that all too often support war and even the death penalty. Clear evidence of a nation using violence to get what it wants.

In fact, if I were to march in one of their "pro-life" demonstrations, carrying a sign with a picture of an Afghan child who was the victim of war, I would probably be called a "Taliban dupe". Or if my sign had the photo of a Palestinian child, who was an innocent victim of war, I would probably be accused of anti-Semitism and not loving Israel enough.

I might even be whacked with one of their signs suggesting that abortion is the "new Holocaust", complete with the most horrendous images.

Because there are several quotes also attributed to Mother Teresa, that I never see on a "pro-life" site, including this one:

"Please choose the way of peace. In the short term there may be winners and losers in this war that we all dread. But that never can, nor never will justify the suffering, pain and loss of life your weapons will cause."

For Mother Teresa, her anti-abortion beliefs were part of her overall message of love and peace, and while I would not find her arguments against abortion valid; I would respect her opinion.

However, this post is not about war, Mother Teresa, or even moral arguments. It's about Rod Bruinooge, the chair of the House pro-life caucus, and his new private members bill aimed at making it a crime to threaten or intimidate a woman into having an abortion.

He claims that his bill was inspired by the brutal murder of Roxanne Fernando, the Winnipeg woman whose life was taken because she refused to terminate her pregnancy.

However, at issue here is not that she refused to have an abortion, but the fact that she was brutally murdered. The motive is secondary. Had she been killed because she refused to give her boyfriend a loan, would we really need to draft a new law making it illegal to "coerce" or "intimidate" someone into giving you money?

We already have such a law. It's called extortion. And we already have laws making it illegal to coerce or intimate someone into doing anything. A threat of violence, is a threat of violence, regardless of what motivates it.

So what is this really about?

It's simple. It's about the need to equate abortion with violence. To plant that seed in our minds. 'Holocaust', 'murder', 'brutality' and even 'eugenics', all become part of their argument. And of course, it's made worse because the suggestion is that it's violence against children. Child victims of war are simply "collateral damage", but abortion is presented as a mother's war against her own child. This is why most pro-lifers will always go right to late term abortions, and never use the term 'fetus'.

I do question though, that if this is not about 'abortion' as Bruinooge suggests, but a woman's choice being taken away; then should it not also include intimidation to not terminate a pregnancy? What about the coercion of a parent who threatens to throw their daughter out if she has an abortion, using economic intimidation? Or a boyfriend or husband using emotional blackmail as intimidation, which is often not about the child at all, but control?

Has Rod Bruinooge or anyone else considered that?

I suppose it doesn't matter, because while the bill will probably be defeated, their cause has already scored a victory. Once again, they have brought "violence" into the abortion debate.

And of course, in the process Stephen Harper also scores a victory.

He took a lot of heat when Hilary Clinton was clear that any initiative to improve the maternal health of women in developing countries, must include access to safe abortion.

He can now posture that he disapproves of this bill, earning himself headlines like Harper won't support Tory MP's abortion bill, thereby appearing to agree with Clinton. And if this angers the fundamentalist groups, will he really lose their vote?

The fact that the Conservative Party is the only one willing to present bills of this nature at all, validates their loyalty, and provides meat for their fundraising letters.

If Stephen Harper really disapproved of his MP's motion, it would never have been presented at all. But he needs that bill to continue the facade of a moderate centrist, and the pro-life caucus needs that bill to plant the seed of violence to define abortion, and the Religious Right needs that bill to generate funds that fuel their "holy" mission.

Just another day in paradise.

Michael Ignatieff Dares Harper to Make Safe Abortion a Women's Health Issue

The rights revolution has become a sexual revolution, and in the process, it has transformed all our most important social relationships: between men and women, between parents and children, and between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

All liberal democracies have gone through the same social transformation. The only distinctive aspect of the Canadian pattern has been the speed with which courts and legislatures have responded to demands for children's rights, easier divorce, abortion rights, the equation of marriage and cohabitation, and the full entrenchment of rights to sexual difference. The fact that these rights were conceded speedily does not mean that they were conceded without a struggle. Nor does it mean that the struggle is over. Michael Ignatieff (1)

That was the Canada that I knew, with a full entrenchment of rights. And while we knew that the struggle wasn't over, we didn't realize that we would have to start to fight the same battles again. The battles we had already won.

When Stephen Harper announced with much fanfare that the theme for the international summit would be maternal health, Michael Ignatieff asked if that was going to include access to safe abortions and birth control, and what happened?

Michael Ignatieff was criticized for “politicizing” the government’s program by asking whether it would include funding for “reproductive health services,” but I applaud him for taking an unequivocal position here. It’s unusual these days to hear a politician take a stand on something other than hockey, our troops and the laughter of innocent children. (2)

He was accused of promoting eugenics and was even called racist. But the sad truth is that women often need access to contraceptives and safe abortion, if they have any real chance of survival. Bringing more children into their situation, only increases their impoverishment and limits their opportunities to better themselves. The World Health Organization estimates that 68,000 women die every year from botched abortions, often leaving their other children orphaned.

I know the abortion issue is a contentous one, but it is a women's health issue that cannot be ignored. From Antonia Zerbisias:

“We don’t want to have women dying because of botched procedures. We don’t want to have women dying in misery,” Ignatieff told reporters today after meetings on Parliament Hill on issues of international development. “We’ve had a pro-choice consensus in this area for a couple of generations and we want to hold it.”

Of course, if Harper gets his majority, it's game over for women's reproductive freedoms. The Prime Minister announced in the Star and at Davos, Switzerland, last week that the health of mothers and children would be the focus of Canada’s attention during this summer’s G-8 meetings in this country. Harper has not specifically said what this aid would include, but support for abortion would be a tough sell for him within his own Conservative caucus, where there are pockets of considerable sentiment against abortion. ''Pockets?''

The Harper government has entrenched themselves in the "pro-life" movement which is now the politically correct term for anti-abortion. But if this group was really pro-life they would be lobbying government to eradicate poverty and protect our public health care and education.

But none of that is taking place. Instead they are pushing for lower taxes, especially to corporations, in an attempt to starve the beast of government. Too much interference in their lives they claim, yet they are interfering in the most personal aspects of our lives. The right to choose when and if to procreate. It doesn't get more personal than that.

In 2006, Canada was tied for second place out of 17 developed nations, in terms of infant mortality rate. The United States was the highest. In 2008, the numbers of children who did not survive their first year rose by almost 10%.

From the Toronto Star

One in nine Canadian children, more than a million, live below the poverty line according to the 2008 Report Card on Child and Family Poverty in Canada ... “For many families, it’s very difficult to get out of poverty. There isn’t enough money to feed the children, clothe them properly, or even enough money to pay for the bus fare or to look for a job,” says Grant Wilson, President of Canadian Children’s Rights Council. It’s even harder for new Canadian children and aboriginal families as they are at a greater risk of living in poverty. (3)

So why isn't that on the pro-life agenda? It's one thing to want all pregnancies to go full term, but they offer no solution to families ill equipped to properly feed, clothe and shelter these offspring.

Here in Canada, in one of the richest countries of the world, the very poorest are getting poorer. This is not the result of some external or unforeseen crisis. It is happening in the midst of a long-running economic boom and reflects the deliberate decisions of elected governments presumably supported by the Canadian public at large to purge the roughly 1.7 million people consigned to welfare from our collective consciousness.

It is shameful. It is pretty much criminal. And, as the National Council on Welfare, an advisory body to the federal government, warned in a report released yesterday, it is remarkably short-sighted. In particular, it is short-sighted for those of us in the broader middle classes who assume wrongly that we could never end up on the dole. (4)

So maybe instead of marching with signs to simply end abortion, they should march against poverty and homelessness. I am pro-choice, but it might be nice if women were provided with more choices. However, that doesn't mean that access to birth control and safe abortions aren't among them.

Sources:

1. The Rights Revolution: CBC Massey lectures, By Michael Ignatieff, Anansi, 2000, ISBN: 978-088784-762-2, Pg. 87

2. Mr. Harper, ‘maternal health’ isn't very healthy without a choice: It isn’t possible to separate women’s health from issues of birth control and abortion. Our uteruses won’t allow it, By Tabatha Southey, Globe and Mail, March 4, 2010

3. Rich Nation, Poor Children, by Vipal Jain, The Toronto Star, November 20th, 2009

4. In rich Canada, welfare worsens: Recipients get less than 20 years ago, Public is turning a blind eye to issue, By Thomas Walkom, The Toronto Star, August 25, 2006

Google This Trolls of Dean Del Mastro

When I read recently that Reformer MP Dean Del Mastro's staff google his name every day, looking for new posts on 'their boss', I thought I'd have a little fun.

I might actually start typing 'Dean Del Mastro' on every page and link it to a big 'BOO!' sign. It'll freak them out.

Mind you now that Del Mastro's 'boss' has given him a two month vacation, I'm sure his staff will be laid off until he has to go back to work, right? Ha ha ha ha. Yeah, right.

I came across an article that made me think of Dino, about an attempt by a Texas Senator to help end abortion ... or slow it down ... I don't know ... the guy's nuts.

Senator Dan Patrick is the perfect little Promise Keeper though.

Rolling Stone journalist, Matt Taibbi went undercover at Pastor John Hagee's ministry and discussed this new phenomenon.

"The grown macho man unashamedly breaking into boyish tears in public is one of the weirder features of the post-Promise Keeper Christian generation, and [Philip] Fortenberry -- himself a Promise Keeper, incidentally -- had it down to a science ... there is something very odd about modern Christian men -- although fiercely pro-military in their politics and prehistorically macho in their attitudes toward women's roles, on the level of day-to-day behavior they seem constantly ready to break out weeping like menopausal housewives... "

And of course at the top of the agenda for their 'macho attitudes toward women's roles', is their desire to end a woman's right to choose. They call themselves pro-lifers, but their pro-military attitudes suggest otherwise. They are just anti-abortion.

I can envision Dino's eyes lighting up as we speak. And poor little Cheryl Gallant is trying to get Dan Patrick on the line, but can't find the number for 'Idiots are Us'.

Dan Patrick and the Abortion Issue:

Just as you hear Del Mastro above, vow to continue fighting, so too does Dan Patrick, a 'macho' sportscaster and Senator from Texas. But rather than just spouting rhetoric, this clever senator has a plan. He wants women to sell him their babies. OK, not him personally, but the state of Texas.

Apparently, he drafted a proposal suggesting that Texas buy the babies from women who would have otherwise chosen to abort; for $ 500.00 a pop. Just when you thought you'd heard it all from these Religious Right Kooks, they always manage to come up with something dumber.

Of course, now that Harper is the official dictator of Canada, he won't have to buy them. He'll just close up the abortion clinics, and shackle all pregnant women, until the big day; then send them back to the kitchen where they belong.

Chris Kelly, blogger for the Huffington Post says it well:

Make Big $$$ By Selling Texas Your Baby
Huffington Post
Chris Kelly

Texas state senator Dan Patrick has a bold new plan to reduce abortions. It involves legalizing the slave trade, and putting it in the hands of big government, but hear him out.

Here's how it works: If you're a U.S. citizen, Texas resident, pregnant, and you want an abortion -- and you can prove you really want it -- you may be entitled to $500. All you have to do is carry the fetus to term and sell it to the state.

It's kind of like those ads where Art Linkletter says you can get a tax break for donating your car. Which raises an interesting question: Isn't he dead?

Anyway, five hundred dollars is (almost by definition) five hundred dollars. Which seems like pretty good money, compared to my shifts at Waffle House, and I'd make and sell fetuses to the State of Texas in a second... but there seems to be a lot of paperwork involved.

And what about my older kids? What'll Dan give me for them?

Dan Patrick (nee Dannie S. Goeb) is the author of S.B. 1567, a bill that was referred to the Texas Senate Health and Human Services Committee on Wednesday. It calls for the health department to "develop a program to encourage pregnant women to place their children for adoption rather than have an abortion... The program must include a $500 payment to each woman who is a resident of this state and a citizen of the United States who places a child for adoption rather than have an abortion."

And who could object to that? Sure, it sounds like social engineering. But at least there's money involved, so it's also creepy as shit. And the stuff about proving you're not Mexican gives it a nice nativist edge, too. Here's the problem: How do you make sure the pregnant woman you're screwing with isn't just in it for the money? Goeb is way ahead of you:

Sec. 50.002. APPLICATION FORM.

(b) The department may only distribute the application forms to abortion providers.

The only people who can get the money to have a baby are those who've proven -- by going to an abortion clinic -- that they don't want a baby. If you don't want to have a baby, you can get $500 to have a baby, but only if you don't want it. That's some catch, that Catch 22.

Another way to think about it is like the popular game show Deal or No Deal. Only with human lives.

Of course that's not what this is really about. The $500 offer is just more paperwork to make terminating a pregnancy as unpleasant as humanly possible. Because otherwise it would be such a lark. Texas law already says the doctor has to tell his patient: The risks of infection, hemorrhage and future infertility, the risk of breast cancer; that counseling is available, that adoption services are available, and that the father can be legally compelled to pay child support.

Time he'd otherwise just waste asking about her symptoms.

He also has to tell her that Jesus sees everything and cries easily.

Yes, it sounds sort of onerous, but it's not as if privacy is a really important right. It's not like she's buying a gun. (I think the breast cancer link has been pretty thoroughly debunked, too, but what the hell. It's Senator Goeb, not Doctor Goeb.)

(Although he did run for office warning that illegal aliens spread "tuberculosis, malaria, polio and leprosy.") (Malaria can only be spread of mosquitoes. So not only do we need to build a wall; we could also use some screen windows.)

There will be some unintended consequences if the bill passes. There are about 77,000 abortions in Texas every year, and at $500 a pop, they'll run the taxpayers $40 million dollars to buy off. (A small price to pay, when you're doing the lord's work, by creating unwanted children.) Also, passing the law will require vacating another Texas law, the one about not buying and selling people. And, I guess, the emancipation proclamation. But that may turn out to have its upside and downside. That's for history to judge.

Now, Dannie Goeb is obviously just a hateful street corner crank, and he'll get his in hell, but if the law passes, there's a way it can actually help people: If you want to have a baby, move to Texas. Pretend you want to abort it, get $500, put it up for adoption, and then adopt it back.

More Postings on Dean Del Mastro:

1. The Dean Del Mastro Story: Tax Payer Abuse, Corruption & Scandal

2. Dean Del Mastro Might Want to Change the Record

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

Rod Bruinooge: Prophet or Profit for the Lord?

Rod Bruinooge is the Conservative MP for Winnipeg South. His bio claims that he is a businessman, an amateur film maker and computer games designer. All true.

He is also a Metis and the Harper government loves to hold him up as an example of how enlightened they are. Drawing in aboriginal candidates helps them to shed their old image of being harsh toward Canada's First Nations.

Unfortunately, Bruinooge is not an aboriginal member of Parliament, but a Member of Parliament who happens to be of aboriginal descent. In fact the Native community has never endorsed him.

During the 2004 election, Bruinooge and party leader Stephen Harper were the targets of a protest by aboriginal activists, including David Chartrand of the Manitoba Métis Federation.

In 2006, though Bruinooge was a member of the Manitoba Métis Federation, that organization endorsed his Liberal opponent, Reg Alcock. He beat Alcock by just 111 votes.

At the First Nations General Assembly in Nova Scotia in July 2007, Bruinooge described the Paul Martin government's Kelowna Accord on aboriginal investment as nothing more than an "expensive press release". This statement was strongly criticized by Assembly of First Nations leader Phil Fontaine. The deal had been hammered out over five years, and one of Harper's first acts as prime minister was to scrap it.

Fontaine argued that the accord "was designed to eradicate poverty in First Nations communities and make Canada a better place."

William Davison of the Indian Métis Christian Fellowship, who works with urban aboriginals in Regina, said he wasn't surprised that the Tories chopped the funds. But he said the billions promised in the Kelowna Accord would have gone a long way to helping improve the lives of aboriginals in Canada.

"I work with a lot of hopelessness and despair within the aboriginal urban community dealing with traditions and cultures and dealing with those trapped in the streets," Davison told CBC News.

Hardly a simple "press release".

Instead, as a member of Canada's Religious Right, Rod Bruinooge has focused most of his attention on re-criminalizing abortion, validating feminist Gloria Steinem's claim, that the neoconservatives believe that "life begins at conception but ends at birth".

Child poverty rates are on the rise in Canada. In November of 2009, Vipal Jain wrote in the Toronto Star:

One in nine Canadian children, more than a million, live below the poverty line according to the 2008 Report Card on Child and Family Poverty in Canada ... “For many families, it’s very difficult to get out of poverty. There isn’t enough money to feed the children, clothe them properly, or even enough money to pay for the bus fare or to look for a job,” says Grant Wilson, President of Canadian Children’s Rights Council. It’s even harder for new Canadian children and aboriginal families as they are at a greater risk of living in poverty. (1)

UNICEF confirms the plight of many First Nations children. From their 2009 annual report:

Aboriginal children are among the most marginalized children in Canadian society. Despite some advances, in almost any measure of health and well-being, Aboriginal children – including First Nations, Inuit and Métis -- are at least two or three times worse off than other Canadian children. As children, they are less likely to see a doctor. As teens, they are more likely to become pregnant. And in many communities, they are more likely to commit suicide.

This disparity is the greatest children's rights challenge facing our nation.

The Canadian Press reported that:

... infant mortality rate for native babies in Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand is up to four times that of non-native newborns, says a groundbreaking new study ... Dr. Janet Smylie, a researcher who works through St. Michael's Hospital and the University of Toronto, says the international replication of startling native health gaps among such diverse populations suggests social deprivation – not genetics – is to blame.(2)

The Native Women's Association of Canada, post that "our infants are challenged right from the start, and that our infant mortality rates are equal to developing countries such as Chile, Sri Lanka and Fiji, and higher than Latvia and Lithuania."

If Rod Bruinooge was really pro-life and an "aboriginal" MP, he would be doing something for these children, instead of exploiting his heritage for political gain.

When First we Practice to Deceive

When Dr. Henry Morgentaler was slated to receive the Order of Canada, many in the pro-life movement came out in opposition.  It's a divisive issue.

Fortunately, the honour remained, and Morgantaler was rewarded for his work in offering safe abortions.

Most of the Conservatives didn't see it that way, but Rod Bruinooge went above and beyond.  He was behind a poll that appeared on Lifesitenews, suggesting that "56% of Canadians Oppose Morgentaler Order of Canada".

The poll was commissioned by Lifesitenews, and conducted by KLRVU polling.  But what they don't mention, is the fact that KLRVU polling is run by Allan and Katherine Bruinooge.  Rod's brother and his wife.

Prophet or Profit?

Canadian dominionist, Faytene Kryskow, has called Rod Bruinooge, a 'Prophet for the Lord', because of his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage.  Her organization, 4MY Canada, threw their support behind his election campaign, and continue to endorse his political career. (3)

But just how righteous a man is he?

In an alleged shady deal with a former Brian Mulroney crony, Gary Thomas Brazzell, Bruinooge showed that he could play the game.

It began with a patronage appointment in 2007.  According to WaverleyWest:

There was a recent Tory appointment that the WFP [Winnipeg Free Press] missed, as they always seem to miss it. That man is the one Manitoban who got plum appointments from both Prime Ministers Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper. That man is Ladco Board Member and former Rod Bruinooge lawyer Gary Brazzell. (4)

Ladco is one of the primary owners of  Waverley West development (35%).  Bruinooge lobbied hard for the Waverley underpass, which would be beneficial to Waverley West.

Less than two years after the Kenaston underpass finally ended traffic mayhem on one major south Winnipeg artery, the area's MP says it's time to do the same thing on Waverley ...  (Waverley West is a project of ladco) And Winnipeg South MP Rod Bruinooge says his government is prepared to pony up its share of the cash." (Senior Manitoba minister Vic Toews has signalled to me that should the province come on board, the federal government will be there," Bruinooge said.

"My interest now is in convincing the premier they should also come to the table." Bruinooge said the additional 30,000 homes in the Waverley West subdivision makes the underpass at Waverley a desperate need."A lot of people don't use Waverley because they can't count on it," Bruinooge said. "It's been a constant burden." (5)

But was Bruinooge really concerned with congestion, or something else?

Seems that the MP owed Brazzell a favour.  A Waverley West watchdog group provides a bit of background:

December 2, 1998 Lawyer Gary Thomas Brazzell is made a director of Abject Modernity Internet Creations.   Its president is Rodney Bruinooge (now the MP for Winnipeg South.)

December 23, 1998 Brazzell buys 25,000 shares of Abject stock.

December 23, 1998 Brazzell provides share certificates to Bruinooges’s step-brother’s co-worker.

February 1999 Brazzell provides share certificates to an uncle of Chantale Marion (Bruinooge’s wife). They had been backdated to December 23, 1998.

Brazzel had actually once been removed from the Ladco board for questionable business practices.

From a report by the Manitoba Securities Commission:

C1. BRAZZELL acknowledges and agrees that he acted contrary to the public interest in that he: (a) traded in securities without having been registered and without prospectus in contravention of sections 6 and 37 of the Act; (b) facilitated or permitted the purchase of shares by a number of investors under the sole name of one investor, so as to minimize the number of apparent investors in an effort to purportedly rely upon the private company exemption under section 19(2)(i) of the Act; (c) failed to ascertain whether the company in question was in fact a private company as defined in the Act, thereby causing shares to be traded in reliance upon such exemption, when the exemption was not so available; (d) facilitated or permitted the purchase and sale of securities in ABJECT in the name of one investor, when he knew or ought to have known that the shares were intended to be purchased by a number of other investors in addition to the investor so named. Brazzell will pay the Manitoba Securities Commission $3,000 plus costs for his actions.

Is Rod Bruinooge really a "prophet for the Lord"?

I'd say he's just another self serving Conservative politician.

Sources:

1. Rich Nation, Poor Children, by Vipal Jain, The Toronto Star, November 20th, 2009

2. Native infant mortality rate four times non-natives', By Sue Bailey, Toronto Star, March 30, 2009

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

4. Gary Brazzel gets federal appointment to the Intellectual Property Office (CIPO),  Trade-mark Agent, March 2, 2007

5. Time for Waverley underpass: Tory MP, By Mia Rabson, Winnipeg Free Press, June 16, 2008

Continuation:

What is Rod Bruinooge's Private Members Bill Really About?

Vic Toews anti-Gay Muster Bluster and Filubuster

There is an old proverb that states: 'Where there is no vision, the people perish', and I believe that a lot of the problems with the Conservative Party today, is the result of a lack of vision. They allow ideology to cloud their judgement, and fight tooth and nail to halt natural progress.

Perhaps one of their hardest fought battles has been over same-sex or equal marriage. They claim it to be a moral issue, but given the militant reactions of the Religious Right, it's something much deeper.

Promise Keepers, one of the faith based groups that prop up the Tories, make it very clear about their views, on this issue and abortion.

Their founder Bill McCarthy, states: "Homosexuals are a group of people that don't reproduce. Yet they want to be compared to groups that do reproduce." This is homophobia based on demography, since it would appear that the white race is being bred out. Of course the fact that we have been killing each other for centuries, is probably the biggest factor, but you'd never get them to admit to that.

Many gay couples are raising children, and not just those they adopt. Through artificial insemination, a lesbian is able to become a mother and surrogates often provide gay male couples with paternal biological offspring.

Also a number of heterosexual couples are opting not to have children at all, so is their marriage less valid?

All members of the old Reform Party who currently sit in the Tory caucus, object to equal marriage, but in 2005, Vic Toews took it to a different level.

You might wonder why this is pertinent today, but after watching some of the attack ads against Michael Ignatieff, based on old lectures and books he has written, I think it's a good time to remind Canadians of the nefarious past of our current Prime Minster and his team.

When Stephen Harper's 1997 speech to a an American neo-conservative group surfaced, in which he regaled against Canadians; his spokesperson claimed that he said those things as a private citizen, and no longer feels that way. Obviously a double standard here, because when Michael Ignatieff wrote and lectured on a variety of subjects now being cherry picked by the Conservatives, he too was a private citizen.

But in not so distant history, and while members of the government, the Reform-Conservatives exploited their position to try to halt this important piece of legislation. It didn't work, but not for lack of trying.

FILIBUSTER BY VIC TOEWS AT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Latest on Conservative Leadership’s OBSTRUCTION OF BILL C-38

The Conservative leadership has done everything in their power to delay passage of the government’s equal marriage bill, Bill C-38. Following their defeat on April 12 on the vote on Stephen Harper’s amendment, they shed any pretense of allowing Parliament to act.

Now at the Legislative Committee, Conservative Justice Critic Vic Toews is openly filibustering in a desperate, last-ditch attempt to run out the clock.

Here is a history of the Conservative leadership’s obstruction:

SECOND READING DEBATE- When the second reading debate began on February 16, 2005, Stephen Harper moved an amendment to the Prime Minister’s motion, which called for the House to decline to read the Bill a second time. This procedural delay tactic is known as a “Hoist”.

- Conservative leadership advised the other parties they were content to follow the usual procedure and have the vote on second reading take place on the same day as the vote on Mr. Harper’s amendment. This was borne out by the fact that during debate Conservative MPs spoke to the Bill itself, not the amendment.

- On March 22, after 47 MPs had spoken, the Conservative leadership advised the other parties that the Conservative leadership was insisting on an additional debate after the vote on the amendment. They said that 10 – 12 Conservative MPs would speak in the additional debate.

- Conservative leadership agreed debate was to end on April 4 or 5. On April 4, Conservative MP Steven Fletcher moved a Motion for Concurrence which consumed 3 hours that had been allocated for debate on C-38.

- On April 5, Conservative MP Bob Mills moved another Motion for concurrence which consumed 3 hours that had been allocated for debate on Bill C-38. As a result, the C-38 debate did not end as had been agreed. It finally ended on April 6, after the government allocated more time for it.

- Also on April 5, the Conservative leadership told the other parties the Conservatives planned to have up to 20 MPs speak on the additional debate.- On April 11, the Hill Times reported “Tories poised to filibuster” Bill C-38.

- On April 12, following the vote that defeated Mr. Harper’s amendment, Conservative Justice Critic Vic Toews told reporters that the Conservatives would insist on as full a debate as possible before the second reading vote, and would introduce further motions and take additional measures to delay the vote. Earlier in the day, Conservative leadership had made clear to the other parties their intention was to do everything in their power to obstruct and delay Bill C-38. The total number of MPs who spoke during the second debate was 98, including 49 Conservatives.

- Conservative MPs used motions for concurrence over and over again during the second round of debate on C-38. As a result, the second reading vote did not take place until May 4. Once again, the equal marriage bill easily passed this vote.- During the second debate, 45 Conservative MPs opposed to the Bill spoke, including 21 who had already spoken during the first debate. The total number of MPs who spoke during the second debate was 62.

LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

- The Legislative Committee on Bill C-38 met on May 5. Since second reading means approval in principle, the purpose of the Legislative Committee is to hear from technical witnesses on how best to implement equal marriage.

- A Subcommittee was created to decide such things are which witnesses the Committee will hear from. The Subcommittee includes a representative of each party. The Subcommittee agreed to a balanced list of 41 groups and individuals.

- Witness hearings began on May 11, and four hearings were scheduled for the week of May 16.

- On May 16, when the Committee was asked to formally approve this list, Conservative Justice Critic Vic Toews objected. He demanded that 15 additional witnesses, all opposed, be added. He began his filibuster, which forced the Committee to cancel witness hearings on May 17 and 18.

- On May 17, Mr. Toews presented his list of additional witnesses, which had grown from 15 to 20. The Committee was willing to add these witnesses provided a timeframe could be established for the Committee’s work. Mr. Toews said he could not respond immediately as he needed direction from his House Leader.

- On May 18, Mr. Toews increased his demand to 22 additional witnesses and refused to establish a timeframe for the Committee’s work. He threatened to hold up the Committee’s work until he got his way. When the Committee did not accept his demands, his filibuster continued in earnest. He stopped it only long enough to hear from 4 groups opposed to equal marriage.

- The Committee is scheduled to meet on Monday, May 30 at 3:30 pm in room 237C of Centre Block. No witnesses are scheduled. It is unclear whether Mr. Toews will continue his filibuster, now that the Conservatives say they are willing to let Parliament get back to work.

All for nothing.