Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in New Orleans yesterday to give speech to a prominent American Jewish group. This was on the same day that his government said it would move ahead with hundreds of new housing units in disputed east Jerusalem.
Greeting the Israeli PM was a group of protesters from Young Leadership Institute of Jewish Voice for Peace.
Rae Abileah, a 28-year-old protester from San Francisco, shouted "the settlements betray Jewish values". A man sitting in front of her attempted to ram a seat cushion into her mouth, just before she was hauled off by police.
Other protesters were pushed, sworn at and taken away.
It would appear that Netanyahu is attempting to use the protests over the planned expansions as proof that Palestine is not serious about wanting to talk peace, despite the fact that the new apartments are being deliberately constructed on land where the Palestinians hoped to place their future capital.
And as unfair as that seems, we are not allowed to suggest that Israel is being unfair, without the risk of being called anti-Semitic.
How did we get to this point?
A group calling themselves the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism, is trying to define a "new anti-Semitism" as being any criticism of the country of Israel or it's actions.
What they are essentially doing, as you'll hear on the video, is allowing a foreign country to dictate the rights of Canadian citizens.
We need an open and honest debate on this issue. We cannot allow our government to simply state that we cannot demand sanctions, for instance, against any foreign country engaged in human rights abuses. And this includes Israel. The country.
Sure we should be upset with comments made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the past, and we should be diligent about Iran and the possibility that they could develop nuclear weapons.
Mr Ahmadinejad reportedly spent no money on his first presidential campaign in 2005 - but he was backed by powerful conservatives who used their network of mosques to mobilise support for him. He also had the support of a group of younger, second-generation revolutionaries known as the Abadgaran, or Developers, who are strong in the Iranian parliament, the Majlis. The campaign focused on poverty, social justice and the distribution of wealth inside Iran. He also repeatedly defended his country's nuclear programme, which worried the US and European Union.
But Israel actually has nuclear weapons. Lots of them. We should be worried about them too.
Canadians are a pretty smart bunch. We can make up our own minds. This kind of silencing, may only drive people to sympathize with those our government prefers we not sympathize with.
It's not just a new anti-Semitism but a new McCarthyism. And it is wrong. And we need to tell our government that it is wrong.
The following video was made by a group called Independent Jewish Voices, and I'm pretty sure they're NOT anti-Semitic. We should listen to them.
"In Germany they came first for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me—and by that time no one was left to speak up." (Martin Niemoeller - 1892-1984)
As many were beginning to draw parallels between the Harper government and the Nazi Regime, I dismissed it as nonsense.
However, I believe it's time to start looking at this seriously. This country is in far more trouble than just being on the brink of losing our health care. We are now teetering on the the brink of losing our basic freedoms.
And one of the most important freedoms in a healthy democracy is dissent.
Martin Niemoeller was a German Lutheran pastor, who was initially supportive of Adolph Hitler and his agenda.
When Hitler stressed the importance of Christianity to German nationality and Christianity's role in the renewal of national morality and ethics, Niemöller enthusiastically welcomed the Third Reich ....
But later as he realized what was happening, he began to speak out, especially over the new German Christian Church that taught a pro-Nazi dogma. He ended up spending seven years in a concentration camp, before being rescued by a Allied soldiers.
A key to the success of the Nazis was propaganda, and anyone who questioned their public statement was deemed an enemy of the state.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a 'control freak,' who prides himself on being a top-flight political strategist, and central to his strategy is tight control over his government's messages. But let the pundits wail, thrash about, and pontificate. They are irrelevant to the PM's strategy.
Stanbury quotes from an earlier Hill Times article:
Harper has sought "to manage the government information flow to the media as well as the public appearances and statements of his own MPs and Cabinet ministers." Critics have said that "the wall of selective silence and control that shrouds the entire government undermines the free flow of information citizens could normally expect in a western democracy."
Has anything changed since either article was written? Of course not. In fact it might be worse. This new so-called 'openness' of a live interview on YouTube, is just more message control. I tried to ask a question about the legitimacy of accepting such a huge gift from Google, who are a registered lobbyist. It wouldn't accept my question. Others have tried to ask questions about abortion and the same thing happens.
They are clearly filtering what will be asked, and the answers are already being scripted in the backrooms. But that's it. That's what we get.
Some of the professor's concerns, and he later compares this to known 'propaganda' driven regimes, which includes:
Centralize communications for the entire government in the PMO (Prime Minister's Office). Threaten Cabinet ministers and others with pain of dismissal if they fail to keep their mouth shut, or when told to open it to speak from the centrally prepared talking points. This only works because Harper also centralized all important government decision-making in the PMO backed up by the PCO (Privy Council Office). This is perhaps the most extreme example of court government in Canada's history.
The most 'extreme' example. That word 'extreme' is becoming all too common when describing this government.
Those of us paying attention knew that Stephen Harper was from the 'extreme' faction of society. He was involved in some pretty 'extreme' groups back in the day before our taxpayer funded image consultants made him look 'prime ministerial'.
Many in the media remember those days, but sadly few of them are speaking up today.
According to one authority, "Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels," (Richard Alan Nelson, A Chronology and Glossary of Propaganda in the United States, 1996).
But in their defense, there is another word that is driving those in the know: FEAR. This is a government of fear, and if you do speak, up they will ruin you. Lesley Hughes, Linda Keene, Richard Colvin; are only a handful of the people that Harper has viciously attacked.
I should correct that. King Stephen doesn't get his own hands dirty. He'll be seen on TV watching a hockey game, playing the piano or sipping coffee; while his minions do his dirty work.
I'm firmly convinced that this government has a sinister objective for the Middle East. Driven by religious extremism and fueled by hatred, I think they are going to use Israel to launch a nuclear attack on it's 'enemies'.
Spearheading this initiative are fundamentalists like John Hagee and Charles McVety, who head up a group called Christians United for Israel. Hagee preaches from his pulpit that Israel must be left alone to do it's job.
That Harper is suddenly pro-Israel would be an understatement, but this is more than just mere support for another nation. They have taken this to the worst possible level, because they are now trying to pass legislation that prohibits dissent. Merely stating that you believe that Israel must be accountable for their actions, including war crimes, could land you in hot water.
Jason Kenney has been saying for months that criticism of this country could be deemed to be a hate crime under the guise of anti-Semitism.
His assistant Alykhan Velshi was a Bush administration insider who was the former (?) Manager of Research for a group; the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
In early 2001, a tightly knit group of billionaire philanthropists conceived of a plan to win American sympathy for Israel's response to the Palestinian intifada. They believed that the Palestinian cause was finding too much support within crucial segments of the American public, particularly within the media and on college campuses, so they set up an organization, Emet: An Educational Initiative, Inc., to offer Israel the kind of PR that the Israeli government seemed unable to provide itself.
And to be sure that we don't start to give any support to the Palestinians cause, new legislation both provincially and federally, will put us in our place. From Linda McQuaig.
The great 19th century political theorist, considered one of the seminal thinkers of Western civilization, is perhaps best known for his fierce defence of free speech as one of the foundations of liberty. Mill surely would have found it curious that elected members of the provincial legislature – presumably people who value liberty and democracy – unanimously voted last month to condemn "Israeli Apartheid Week", an annual student-run teach-in held on campuses in Canada and around the world, which takes a critical look at Israel's policies towards the Palestinians.
The attempt by our elected representatives to discourage this sort of critical examination of a nation's policies is particularly disturbing since it was directed at students, who are doing exactly what they should be doing. Our universities should be about more than just preparing young people for a slot in the corporate world. They should be hotbeds of critical thought, places where the conventional wisdom is ruthlessly scrutinized, where sacred cows are slaughtered. This sort of scrutiny isn't just one of the perks of living in a free society; it's actually an essential tool for preserving that freedom ...
And what will the government do if students protest tyranny anyway? Will we see another Tiananmen Square?
A similar motion was presented in the Canadian Parliament which didn't get unanimous consent but still passed to the next stage. According to Murray Dobbin:
On Thursday, a number of NDP MPs denied the unanimous consent of the House of Commons required to hear a motion from a Conservative back-bencher which would have condemned Israeli Apartheid Week. Risking the wrath of the vicious and well-funded Zionist lobby in Canada took courage as that lobby has managed to cow Michael Ignatieff and Liberals who run for cover whenever they are called upon to act with integrity on the Palestinian issue. No Liberals denied unanimous consent.
Don't get me wrong. I really like Dobbin, but he may have forgotten that horrible hate mail that was distributed by the Reformers in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods. Will we see some of this poison now sent to the ridings about the NDP? We can be sure that they will receive the wrath of Stephen in some form, and very soon.
The motion was part of the international effort to silence the voices exposing the racist nature of Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. Many suspect that these resolutions will gradually lead to laws making it illegal to refer to Israel as an apartheid state. The denial of unanimous consent is a real victory in this fight and a set-back for Harper and his pro-Zionist policies.
This attempt to silence dissent should be of concern to every single solitary Canadian. This is not democracy, this is fascism.
And until my rights as a Canadian are completely stripped from me, I will continue to sound the alarm. Because unless our media and our citizens wake up and see what's going here, we have very little hope of saving this country from Harper's no longer secret 'secret agenda'.
Chris Selley wrote in the National Post, defending Jason Kenney's prejudices toward Arab Canadians and blind support of Israel by suggesting that he was well within his rights:
If you've been paying attention, you will know that Mr. Kenney's government makes no secret of supporting Israel more hawkishly than its namby-pamby, honestbrokering, Palestinian-coddling, UN racism conference-attending Liberal forebears.
Palestinian coddling? How is that not hate speech?
If we don't speak up now, who will be left to speak up for us? Consider this me speaking up.
During this summer’s (2006) Middle East war, Harper reversed decades of Canadian foreign policy with his adamant support for Israel, even after its jets smashed a clearly marked United Nations observation post, killing a veteran Canadian peacekeeper.
His admirers argue that steadfastness could turn the burgeoning bond between evangelical Christians and Jews into a powerful and unprecedented alliance that could leave him unbeatable at the ballot box. But a growing chorus of critics warns that Harper has already paid a high price for that strategic calculation, irrevocably alienating Canada’s mushrooming Islamic population and leaving in shreds the country’s reputation as an even-handed peace broker. Harper’s stand has also raised more unsettling questions. What does it mean if and when a believer in the infallibility of Biblical prophecy comes to power and backs a damn-the-torpedoes course in the Middle East? Does it end up fuelling overenthusiastic end-timers who feel they have nothing to lose in some future conflagration, helping speed the world on Hagee’s fast track to Armageddon? (Marcie McDonald, Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons: The rising clout of Canada’s religious right)
The Harper government has hooked it's wagon to John Hagee and Charles McVety's Christians United for Israel, that promotes a dispensationalist religious belief that all Jews must return to Israel, where they will accept Jesus or be killed; before Christians can fell the rapture.
For now Israel is embracing them because it has proven to be very lucrative for tourism and American weaponry. But not all Jewish people agree.
One pastor in Jerusalemfrom a mainstream church expressed skepticism about the motives of the Christian Zionists — and of the cynicism of Israelis who play along. "It's the worst kind of anti-Semitism," says the cleric, who asked to remain anonymous given the sensitivity of the issue. "At the end, these Evangelicals say that all the Jews will be dead except those who become Christians. But in the meantime, the Israelis are happy to fill their hotels with them and use their help to get American weapons."
Shortly before Hagee's tour, American Rabbi Eric Yoffie from the liberal Reform Jewish Movement denounced the friendship between Israel and Christian Evangelicals, not only because Hagee and his like-minded brethren reject the two-state solution (with East Jerusalem as capital of a future Palestinian state) but because they are often at odds with liberal Jews in the U.S. over such incendiary topics as abortion and gay rights.
But why should we be concerned about this? If he is hanging out with religious nuts, so what?
This is a very dangerous thing, since John Hagee believes that only a nuclear attack on the Middle East will pave the way for Christians and that whole rapture thing. And our little Stevie will do anything to hold onto power.
For Harper, the courtship of the Christian right is unlikely to prove an electoral one-night stand. Three years ago, in a speech to the annual Conservative think-fest, Civitas, he outlined plans for a broad new party coalition that would ensure a lasting hold on power. The only route, he argued, was to focus not on the tired wish list of economic conservatives or “neo-cons,” as they’d become known, but on what he called “theo-cons”—those social conservatives who care passionately about hot-button issues that turn on family, crime, and defence.
"Even foreign policy had become a theo-con issue, he pointed out, driven by moral and religious convictions. “The truth of the matter is that the real agenda and the defining issues have shifted from economic issues to social values,” he said, “so conservatives must do the same.
"Arguing that the party had to come up with tough, principled stands on everything from parents’ right to spank their children to putting “hard power” behind the country’s foreign-policy commitments ... " ( Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons, The rising clout of Canada’s religious right, by Marci McDonald, October 2006)
I'm doing something a little different with my blog, trying to organize archives, etc. so I'm using this page to link my stories to Harper's dnagerous policies when it comes to his blind support of Israel.
Feel free to use anything.
We've got to start preparing ourselves for the next election. Harper's party is the wrong fit for Canada and really must be put out to pasture, before they completely destroy this country.
My Postings on Harper, Israel and His Party's Antisemitism
I never thought that I would ever find myself in a position to start criticizing someone's religious beliefs, but unfortunately; Christian extremists have now entrenched themselves in the Harper government; a very dangerous thing.
Charles McVety who heads up Christian United for Israel seems to be calling the shots and determining which religious organizations get funding. First on the chopping block was Kairos, who not only believe we need action on climate change, but dared to speak out against Israeli occupation of Gaza.
I'm glad that several Jewish groups are speaking out against this nonsense, and Gerald Caplan laid everything out well in a Globe and Mail article.
This is not only a threat to our freedom of speech, but a threat to national security; since Harper is now allowing them to dictate foreign policy.
Criticism of Israel is not antisemitic. It is simply criticism of a nation and a war. Canadians used to be able to do this. It was called democracy.
Stephen Harper and the Jewish question The Conservatives' blatant wooing of Canadian Jews doesn't add up. What do they want from such a tiny, privileged group anyway? Gerald Caplan The Globe and Mail December 13, 2009
Old Jewish joke: Rabbi tells a survivor that the pogroms against Jews are proof we are God's Chosen People. Survivor says: “Do me a favour, Rabbi. Tell God to choose some one else next time.”
This is kind of how I feel about the way Stephen Harper's government has been so blatantly wooing Canadian Jews. What do these guys want from us anyway?
It's little remembered that during the 1990s, Jewish neocons in the United States forged a perverse political alliance with right-wing Protestant evangelicals. Many of the latter were bigots and anti-Semites who believe that at end time Jews would be cast into eternal hell and damnation if they didn't convert to Christianity. But to reach that thrilling apocalypse, biblical prophecy apparently demands a Jewish state in the Middle East. So these evangelicals became fanatical supporters of Israel against the Palestinians – at least in the short run. The neocons fully understood all this.
Personally, it seemed to me that with allies like Pat Robertson and the rest of the kookamongas, Jews didn't need enemies. But as neocon pioneer Norman Podhoretz helpfully explained, support for Israel trumped everything else, even anti-Semitism and a belief in the final Holocaust of the Jewish people. And for both neocons and the Harper government, any criticism of any Israeli government constitutes anti-Semitism. Never mind that there are few harsher critics of their government than Israelis themselves.
My collection of exotica about this matter also includes a Canadian government pamphlet, one of those notorious taxpayer-funded 10-per-centers, mailed to my home by some Conservative MP named LaVar Payne. The cover has a photo of Harper holding a menorah with the flag of Israel prominent in the background, and the bold words, “Committed to Canada's Jewish Community.” The message begins: “When it comes to fighting anti-Semitism, the Conservative government will not compromise.”
The photo was taken when Harper was given the 2009 Simon Wiesenthal International Leadership Award. This was a low point in the history of the controversial Wiesenthal organization, honouring a Prime Minister who has brought civil political discourse in Canada to a new low and who shamelessly plays the anti-Semitism card as a partisan political wedge issue.
As for my government standing on guard for me, I'd be more grateful if I knew from whom I actually needed to be protected. By any conceivable standard, we Canadian Jews are surely among the most privileged, most secure, most successful, most influential minorities in Canada and indeed in the entire world. We don't have a powerful Christian right-wing that is openly prejudiced, as in the United States, and the anti-Semitic incidents that do occasionally happen, while deplorable, are almost invariably caused by kids, crackpot white supremacists or marginalized thugs.
This taxpayer-funded Conservative Party pamphlet was sent out to ridings with large Jewish populations.
The B'Nai Brith annually publishes the number of anti-Semitic incidents that are reported to it, but these reports are never checked out or confirmed. And whatever those numbers, the vast majority of Canadians Jews know perfectly well that they now live their entire lives completely untouched by anti-Semitism.
Indeed, perhaps the most politically correct stand in Canada today is the race by political and community leaders to immediately denounce even the slightest hint of anti-Semitism, however unproved or trivial. You could say they compete to see who will win the anti-anti-Semitic championship.
Folks, trust me it wasn't always this way.
Last week, the Harper government vetoed CIDA funding for a fine NGO called KAIROS, Canada's pre-eminent faith-based human rights organization. Eleven Christian organizations run KAIROS. You would think that the Harper government, whose Christian piety is worn pretty close to their sleeves, would be among KAIROS's great admirers, doing the Lord's work by fighting injustice around the world.
And yet when asked why KAIROS had its funding proposal peremptorily turned down for the first time, John Baird, the government's rabid pit bull, replied that his party, then not in government, had opposed anti-Semitism at a human-rights conference in Durban, South Africa, back in 2001. This same curious little factoid appears in my government brochure as well. Those of course were the good old days when the Reform Party's generous representation of creationists, misogynists, gay-baiters, choice-deniers and other proud members of the Cashew Coalition had not yet had their lips sewn together.
Like every self-respecting NGO, KAIROS supports causes that the Harper government disdains. Presumably, though, the government doesn't intend to de-fund every group that cares about global warming or the exploitation by plundering Canadian mining companies of impoverished Congolese workers. But who really knows?
I think Baird's bizarre answer points to an even more unforgivable sin perpetrated by KAIROS. The organization cares a great deal about justice in the Middle East. So they oppose the illegal Israeli occupation of the West Bank and support Palestinians who have peacefully protested against illicit Israeli policies and practices. But for the Harperites, whose ignorance about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems to be a matter of principle, this “one-sided” stance may have been the last straw.
Why is this Conservative government so determined to woo Jewish support? Why is it so reflexive, so mindless, in its support for Israel? Given their single-minded pursuit of ethnic voters, politics seems a more plausible explanation than conviction. Yet Jews constitute only 1 per cent of the Canadian population and are a factor in only a tiny number of seats. Most Jews vote Liberal and while some have defected to the Conservatives over Israel, most still will. So the unseemly Conservative embrace just doesn't add up.
That's why I'm with that survivor at the top of this piece. I'm always happier when people aren't paying us so much attention. Thanks, Conservatives, but no thanks. Do me a favor and embrace someone else.
There was a brief but important piece in the National Post today by Keith Landy, on the horrendous ten per centers distributed by Harper and his Reformers, accusing the Liberal Party of anti-Semitism.
To call a Jewish leader anti-Semitic was beyond reprehensible, especially one who has been so active in human rights issues. Were they hoping he wouldn't run again? I'm hoping he does.
Much has been made of late in regards to the Conservative 10-per-center and most specifically the role of the then-Liberal government at Durban 1. According to the handout the Liberals "willingly participated in the overtly anti-Semitic Durban 1." In August of 2001, I was a delegate to Durban 1 as the then-national-president of Canadian Jewish Congress. Allow me to say what occurred there.
We all were excited by the prospect of Durban 1. It was the early part of the new century, 911 was still nothing more than an emergency phone number and we hoped this international anti-racism conference would sow the seeds for a better world to come. How wrong we turned out to be.
As we came closer to the beginning of this gathering it became increasingly clear that the enemies of Israel were determined to hijack it. Israel was to have attended but the more anti-Semitic activities in and around the Durban site were countenanced the more it became clear that Israel simply could not stay. We too began to wonder if Canada should be there at all. In fact we called for Canada to leave.
However, following a conversation with then-deputy foreign minister of Israel Michael Melchior, we decided otherwise. Rabbi Melchior urged us to remain in Durban to combat the anti-Semitism and hatred that was evident even before the conference began. His reasoning was that since the Oslo accords, Israel had left the international stage, leaving it open for the demonizers to take control. Rabbi Melchior believed that the hate-mongers must be confronted.
In no way can it ever be insinuated that the Canadian government of the day willingly engaged in an anti-Semitic conference. On the contrary, the Canadian delegation --along with representatives from my organization and B'nai Brith Canada -- stared anti-Semitism in the face at Durban 1. By doing so I am convinced we played a significant ameliorating role, and raised the alarm to the rest of the world.
Frances Russel wrote a great column in the Winnipeg Free Press about the horrendous anti-Semitic ten per centers sent to Jewish communities by the Reformers.
It was politics at it's worse.
Mentioned in the article was the fact that if we allowed these to be OK, then others could find themselves targeted. But Rob Anders already did that with Muslims in his community. This kind of behaviour is appalling and must be stopped.
Of all the racial/religious/regional wedge issues the Harper Conservatives have exploited in their quest for a majority, the taxpayer-funded pamphlets associating the Liberals with anti-Semitism are the most contemptible. Last week, in a relatively rare occurrence, Commons Speaker Peter Milliken ruled the flyers breached parliamentary privilege, an ancient right protecting members of Parliament from attacks designed to cripple their representative role.
He found that former justice minister Irwin Cotler, an internationally recognized human rights expert, had been dealt a "direct and personal" blow by the flyers mailed into his Mount Royal constituency and four other opposition ridings containing significant numbers of Jewish voters.
"I must agree with several members who suggested that there is no denying the critical role that context played in shaping the cumulative net effect of the words used in this mailing," Milliken said. "The mailing constitutes interference with (Cotler's) ability to perform his parliamentary functions in that its content is damaging to his reputation and his credibility."
Cotler called the Conservatives' accusations "loathsome and dangerous... Some of the responses to the flyers in my riding called upon me to leave Parliament, to in fact even leave the Jewish community, as I had betrayed that community. There could not be a more pernicious and prejudicial fallout from this damaging flyer."
He added he had been accused of being a "self-hating Jew" and continued: "There can perhaps be no greater betrayal for the people of Jewish religion than the portrayal of one of their own as anti-Semitic, and that holds true as well for the member for Winnipeg South Centre."
But the government was not about to apologize. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney called the issue "ridiculous."
"Members opposite are trying to make a capital case out of a conventional political communication, using the same tactics and distribution they use all the time, even on the same set of issues. Basically, incontrovertible facts are presented that are matters of conventional political debate."
How "incontrovertible facts" can be the subject of conventional debate Kenney didn't explain, perhaps because the "incontrovertible facts" in this instance are half-truths.
The perennial target of the most pernicious forms of discrimination and persecution over the millenia, concluding with the Holocaust, Jews are particularly vulnerable to any attempt to single them out.
Yet the Harper Conservatives did just that; hopefully without knowing what they were doing. Winnipeg South Centre Liberal MP Anita Neville gave the issue its true context in her parliamentary remarks:
"In the 61 years since the creation of the state of Israel, 11 people have occupied the office of Prime Minister of Canada and none, until now, has ever sought to turn that broad support for Israel into an issue of partisan politics. However, the current government and the current Prime Minister try to govern on the principle of divide and conquer, divide and rule. In this case, they are doing it by singling out Canadian Jews for a special message and it is a message that, I would submit, is based on deception, innuendo, half-truths and non-truths.
"For the current government, such conduct seems to be instinctive. However, I would submit again that it is not the Canadian way. A government that sees nothing wrong with a ten percenter targeting Canadian Jews now will see nothing wrong with targeting Sikhs or Muslims or Serbs or Bosnians tomorrow.
"The manipulation of religious or ethnic minorities for short-term political gain...is a recipe for long-term disaster. A country like ours becomes ungovernable when a government seeks to mobilize or divide people on the basis of their culture and their religion.
"In this particular case, a ten percenter targeted at Jews or any other minority attempts to turn them into political fodder and the communities in which they live into someone else's battleground.
"As a Canadian Jew, I would say that we are quite capable of managing our own disagreements without the interference of the national government or any political party."
The Harper Conservatives should apologize -- and stop playing politics on the incendiary field of race, religion and identity.
Voices are getting louder in protest, and I swear if these damn ten per centers are not stopped immediately I am going to organize a march. We will gather up as many as we can and drop them on Harper's doorstep (or on his head).
The Reformers spent twice as much as all other parties together on this nonsense, and each one is more ridiculous than the last. Michael Ignatieff has called for reform; I call for a complete stop.
Ten million dollars can be put to much better use. Housing for the homeless, food for the hungry, job creation. One way tickets for the Harper government to Lower Soblovia.
LIKE the rest of us, Canada’s MPs have a right to free speech. But they are abusing one free-speech perk other Canadians don’t have — free postage — though the scam of 10-percenters.
MPs’ free mailing privilege is just that — a privilege. Mail to and from them is carried without postal fees. Why? It’s not because Canadians are crying for more campaign propaganda in between campaigns. The purpose is to enable people to contact their representative and to encourage MPs to help and report to constituents. Essentially, it’s a subsidy to support representation and accountability.
But this privilege is being abused by the rising use of "10-percenter flyers" — campaign-style mass mailings written by party central offices, not local MPs, and sent to targeted ridings using the pooled distribution privileges of individual MPs ....
If Stephen Harper held press conferences, or spoke with the media now and then, we might be able to ask him if he thinks this is a good use of more than ten million dollars. But we'll never know what he thinks, because he doesn't talk to us.
IS THIS REALLY CONSERVATIVE? IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA?
But judging by the comments after on-line newpaper articles on the subject, something like this could make it rear it's ugly head. The Globe and Mail had to dispense with comments because they were becoming so visceral.
Jewish leaders ask Harper to trash Tory flyer Canadian community members disturbed by mailing they say paints the Liberals as anti-Semitic Michael Valpy Globe and Mail November 23, 2009
Leading members of the Jewish community – many identified as Liberals – have sent a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper asking him to withdraw a taxpayer-funded Conservative flyer that they say portrays the Liberal Party as anti-Semitic.
The letter is signed by academics, lawyers, politicians, a member of the wealthy and influential Bronfman family and at least one high-ranking former civil servant – Robert Rabinovitch, president of the CBC from 1999 to 2007. About two-thirds are Jews.
“We find it highly disturbing that any party or parliamentarian would attempt to use Israel as a wedge to divide the Jewish community and, indeed, Canadians, for partisan gain,” the letter says.
“Support for Israel should not be portrayed as exclusive to one party. The Liberal Party has a history of support for Israel, working co-operatively and effectively with the Canadian-Jewish community and speaking and acting against terrorism.”
The latest nonsense portrayed with the vile ten per centers distributed by the Reformers, has exposed a much bigger problem in Canada. The notion that any criticism of Israeli aggression can be deemed anti-Semitic.
The debate in Parliament now seems to be who can claim to be the most pro-Israel and by default the least anti-Semitic. When did we go insane?
And people like Omar Alghabra are being targeted, simply because they want to have an open and adult debate about the situation in the Middle East.
In fact, the latest Ref-Con flyers are a prime example of what anti-Semitism really is. They have racially profiled and stereotyped all Jewish Canadians as being pro-war and pro-Israel, when in fact many, many, many; simply are not.
And yet, Canadians' ability to speak out against Israel is being compromised by a group called Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism (CPCCA).
Independent Jewish Voices Canada has started a petition against the CPCCA, which states in part: The Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism (CPCCA) is conducting eight hearings starting November 2 to December 14. “Witnesses” have been selected from some 150 submissions to further the CPCCA’s political agenda.
Many of those critical of the CPCCA agenda to equate criticism of Israel or Zionism as anti-Semitism made submissions. To the best of our knowledge, they have all been excluded from the hearings.
The CPCCA’s goal is to criminalize criticism of Israel and Zionism, not to hold impartial hearings.
Therefore, we oppose the CPCCA as an ideologically biased organization with an agenda that will harm free speech and human rights activity in Canada.
We oppose the CPCCA’s Orwellian distortion of anti-Semitism. It is a danger to both Canadian liberties and to the genuine and necessary fight against anti-Semitism.
Journalist Murray Dobbin also wrote an article on the subject that is well worth a read.
Ever since the Israeli invasion of the Gaza strip last December, the global debate surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has intensified with both sides upping the ante, and the stakes of the framing battle increasing almost daily. One of the most recent — but almost totally unreported — developments in Canada is something called the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism (CPCCA). It is not an official parliamentary body but is a multi-party, voluntary association of 13 MPs. It is currently holding an inquiry into antisemitism because, it says, “The extent and severity of antisemitism is widely regarded as at its worst level since the end of the Second World War.” ...
I was appalled that the Reform Conservatives singled out Mr. Alghabra, as being anti-Semitic. This is absolute nonsense. This young man has always fought tirelessly against hate crimes of any kind, and for the Reformers to suggest that he is anything but an honourable man is scandalous.
They owe him an apology.
It's incomprehensible to me that a Prime Minister can condone hate literature; profiling Jewish Canadians and stereotyping them all as being pro-Israel. They are Canadians who deserve the right to decide for themselves how they feel about events in the Middle East.
Mr. Alghabra wrote a very nice article on the situation. I commend him for standing up to the Prime Minister.
In the summer of 2006, during the Israel/Lebanon military conflict, the Conservatives used the crisis to fill their own coffers by sending out a fundraising appeal that mentioned the conflict. Now, the Conservatives are exploiting the Middle East conflict again to attract votes. They are sending out flyers into Jewish neighbourhoods (racial profiling?) claiming that they have the monopoly on defending what is important to the Jewish community. The Liberals? Not so much.
While innocent people on both sides in the Middle East are living in fear and frustration, the Conservatives are shamelessly exploiting the anxiety of Canadians who care. The Conservatives and Stephen Harper have done nothing to advance peace in the Middle East, yet they are trying from the comfort of their own homes in Canada to politically benefit from the suffering of children in the Middle East. A sad devolution of our political discourse in this country ....
While I continue to believe that criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, the notion by the Reformers that Irwin Cotler is not supportive of Israel is insane. His daughter is in the Israeli army.
I find it inexcusable that Stephen Harper would condone this nonsense. A Prime Minister is supposed to hold this country together, not try to divide it in such a horrible manner. I am so ashamed.
Nor does it mean hurling drive-by accusations of anti-Semitism, as one senior Conservative spokesperson did Wednesday on national television. It’s beyond the pale to falsely charge political opponents of anti-Semitism as a tactic for vote-getting. The Liberal targeted by that attack, former Mississauga-Erindale MP and current Liberal candidate Omar Alghabra, has dedicated himself to fighting all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism. His commitment to the cause of peace in the Middle East is deep and ongoing.
Standing shoulder to shoulder with Israel certainly doesn’t mean resorting to lies to smear your political opponents. Irwin Cotler put it best when he stood up on a point of privilege in the House of Commons to denounce the flyers being sent to voters his riding.
What standing shoulder to shoulder with Israel does mean is changing Canadian law to ensure Hezbollah and Hamas were designated as terrorist organizations, as the Liberal government did in 2002.
What it does mean is condemning anti-Semitism vociferously as the former Liberal government did at the Durban I conference, and staying on at the conference to witness the atrocious statements made there at the request of the Israeli government.
What it means is standing by Israel, as the Liberal Party has, since 1948. “My party will never claim to be the only genuine defenders of Israel in Canadians politics,” Michael Ignatieff said in a speech to the Canadian Jewish Congress, "Because I don’t want my party to be alone in the defence of Israel. I want all parties to be genuine defenders of Israel."
Mr. Cotler's Point of Privilege
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in respect of a flyer subvented by Parliament and the Canadian public, targeting ridings with identifiable Jewish communities and comparing the positions of the Conservatives and the Liberals in respect of what they call matters of value to the Jewish community. Let me relate each of the three matters of value that they speak of: fighting anti-Semitism, fighting terrorism, and supporting Israel.
Let me begin with the first. I will cite directly from the flyer, which I will table accordingly as well. The type of language used in this flyer must be borne in mind. The flyer states that the Liberals: Willingly participated in the overtly anti-Semitic Durban I. For shame. This is a false, misleading, prejudicial and pernicious slander, which itself constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege, associating the Liberal Party with support for anti-Semitism and, I might add, associating me as a member of the Liberal Party and each of us as members of the Liberal Party with supporting anti-Semitism.
This flyer is also false, misleading and prejudicial to me personally and my reputation and standing as an MP, constituting yet another prima facie breach of privilege, and I am referring here to the statements with regard to privilege.
I participated in Durban I as a member of the Canadian delegation. I went to Durban I, as did Canada, with other states in the international community, because we hoped and believed at the time that this was going to be the first world conference against racism in the 21st century, as I wrote at the time. However, a world conference against racism turned into a conference of racism and anti-Semitism against Israel and the Jewish community. I spoke then, during the conference. I have spoken and written since. At the risk of sounding self-serving, though I think this is a matter of empirical fact, I believe I have spoken out on Durban I perhaps as much as, if not more than, any member of any other parliament in the world.
Yet this flyer purports to identify me and the members of my party as associating with and willingly participating in an anti-Semitic Durban conference. Not only did the Canadian delegation and I myself speak unequivocally in condemnation of Durban I, but, and this is an important fact as well, the Government of Israel, at the time, publicly commended Canada for its participation and the nature of its participation in the Durban I conference. The Government of Israel publicly commended Canada for Canada's condemnation of anti-Semitism at Durban I.
Does that mean that the Government of Israel, by supporting the Government of Canada, was also identifying with anti-Semitism? What kind of absurdity is that coming out of the members of the Conservative government? This is as absurd as it is false.
Let me go to the second scurrilous allegation. The flyer claims, on matters of fighting terrorism, that the Liberal Party: opposed defunding Hamas and asked that Hezbollah be delisted as a terrorist organization. Let the facts speak for themselves. It was a Liberal government, in 2002, which listed Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations under Canadian law. I have no problem in commending the Conservatives for doing that which we or any other party would do, whether it be in support of Israel or to condemn anti-Semitism.
What I condemn them for is massive political identity theft on the matters of Hamas and Hezbollah. The Conservatives, in this flyer, take credit for listing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. If they want to take credit for regarding Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations, I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the member saying that we in the Liberal Party supported Hamas and Hezbollah. For shame.
The hon. member is trapped by the facts and he cannot escape the facts. When they take credit for being the first in the world to stop funding for Hamas, it was illegal under Canadian law from 2002 onwards to provide any support for Hamas. How can they take credit that after 2006, they then de-funded Hamas? My god, there has to be some respect for truth and some respect for honesty.
Finally— Hon. Peter Kent: You are splitting hairs. Hon. Irwin Cotler: I do not split hairs with the truth.
The third allegation, lest they say I would overlook the third allegation, is as I quote, that Michael Ignatieff “accused Israel of committing war crimes”. As Voltaire put it, if one takes something out of context, one can hang anybody. Mr. Ignatieff apologized and said the following, and I quote—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, order.
The hon. member knows he cannot use another member's name. He will have to stick with titles.
Hon. Irwin Cotler: The member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore said in 2006, at the same time the Conservatives misleadingly excerpted text from his statement, that: “Between a terrorist militia and a democratic state, Canada must always side with Israel”.” I want to conclude with his remarks, as they bear exactly on the issue before the House. I quote: ...it is beyond reckless for political leaders to try to score points by branding one another as 'anti-Israel'—to try to win votes by claiming a monopoly on supporting Israel.
My Party will never claim to be the only genuine defenders of Israel in Canadian politics—because I don’t want my Party to be alone in the defence of Israel. I want all parties to be genuine defenders of Israel. In closing, I want to cite from House of Commons Procedure and Practice in reference to an action you took, Mr. Speaker:
In April 2005, Speaker Milliken ruled that the reputation of [the member for Windsor West] may have been unjustly damaged by Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat) who had distributed in the Windsor West riding a bulk mailing containing inaccurate and misleading information about Mr. Masse’s House and committee activities. There have been bulk mailings not only in my riding but also in ridings across this country with identifiable Jewish communities. Those bulk mailings not only contained false and misleading information, but they also contained information that was slanderous, damaging, and prejudicial to the Liberal Party and to the performance of each of our individual and collective duties. That is a prima facie breach of privilege and I would call on the Conservatives to cease and desist from these pernicious mailings and to publicly apologize for this false and misleading action.
The more I think about these horrendous ten per centers that the Reform Conservatives have been distributing, the angrier I get. Jewish -Canadians have been profiled and stereotyped. Why would he assume that all Jewish-Canadians support his aggressive policies?
This is horrible discrimination. Worse still, it can't even be debated in Parliament because anyone who brings up the subject risks being accused of anti-Semitism. I've never heard anything so outrageous in my life. And Peter Kent getting involved is rich. He and the B'Nai Brith are currently being sued over his little fiasco with Lesley Hughes.
We need to have an open and frank discussion, because it would appear that the Reformers are more concerned with targeting votes than doing what's best for Canada. And I can't believe that Mrs. Peacock's Kindergarten class has missed the obvious.
OTTAWA–The federal Conservatives are making no apologies for painting the Liberals as anti-Jewish in the newest wave of attacks on their political rivals.
In fact, they carried on the campaign in the Commons on Thursday, even as former justice minister Irwin Cotler, a Montreal MP and human-rights expert, was formally lodging a protest over the Conservatives' bid to portray Liberals as unfriendly to Israel and Jewish voters in Canada.
"For shame," Cotler said, as he asked Commons Speaker Peter Milliken to rule against the Conservatives' use of taxpayer-financed flyers to target Liberals in ridings with significant Jewish populations. Milliken will rule at a later date.
"There have been bulk mailings not only in my riding but in ridings across this country with identifiable Jewish communities," said Cotler (Mount Royal), whose daughter has served in the Israeli military. "Those bulk mailings did not only contain false and misleading information, they contained information that was slanderous, damaging and prejudicial to the Liberal party and to the performance of each of our individual and collective duties."
The flyers accuse the Liberals of participating in the 2001 United Nations conference on racism in Durban, South Africa, which was controversial because of open anti-Semitism on display. The Conservatives also allege that Liberals support terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas and accuse Michael Ignatieff of being against Israel for talking about "war crimes" during the summer of 2006. (Since when are we not allowed to talk about "war crimes"?)
Pierre Poilievre, parliamentary secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, stood by the accusations, saying in reply to Cotler's protest: "We as a party have been prepared to defend the positions we have taken and the decisions at which we have arrived. If the member across the way is uncomfortable with the positions that his party has taken, then I would encourage him to speak up against his party when they take those positions."
Cotler was repeatedly heckled through his remarks by Peter Kent, minister of state for foreign affairs. One of Kent's outbursts prompted an angry Ken Dryden (York Centre) – who also spoke out against the attack campaign in the Commons – to shout that Kent, a former TV anchor, should go back to reading a teleprompter.
As well, backbenchers Lois Brown (Newmarket-Aurora) and Candace Hoeppner (Portage-Lisgar) spoke in the Commons on Thursday to condemn the Liberals' approach to Israel and Jewish issues.
The attack campaign comes as an all-party coalition into anti-Semitism – founded by Cotler and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney – is holding weekly hearings on Parliament Hill. It is not clear why the Tories have chosen this issue to use as a wedge against Liberals.
Former Liberal MP Omar Alghabra, who plans to try to regain the Mississauga-Erindale seat in the next election, was also targeted in the mailout and he sent out a written condemnation of the tactic. "This irresponsible behaviour of randomly calling people anti-Semitic doesn't help the cause of combatting anti-Semitism. It is even worse when the source is a political party that is in government. Anti-Semitism is real and our society deserves an honest effort to deal with it instead of exploiting it for political gain."
I just read the articles in the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star, about the horrendous piece of hate mail that the Reform Conservatives have been distributing and I can't remember when I've ever been this disgusted.
I went from shock, to anger to feeling physically ill.
Michael Ignatieff might be an adversary of Harper's but he is still a Member of Parliament and you do not marginalize a group of people by suggesting that there is a Member of Parliament who does not like them.
The Jewish community should be absolutely disgusted. I can't even imagine anyone distributing this kind of hate literature, but when it's your own Prime Minister, it's inexcusable.
If Mr. Ignatieff wanted to take the low road, he could certainly mention a few things that might be more upsetting.
Or how about Jason Kenney and his close relationship with Charles McVety? One of the teachers at McVety's Canadian Christian College, Reverend Dean Bye, states: "It is estimated that upwards of six million Jewish people are still dwelling in North America ... North American Jews must recognize they must all “return” to Israel and he warns: “the time of the U.S.A. being a safe haven for the Jews has ended!” . He adds that “we don’t throw them overboard [like Jonah] but lovingly assist them home to Israel. "
Everyone has been able to overlook Stephen Harper's past with the Northern Foundation, chalking it up to youth (he was 28), but how he could risk having this dredged up again is beyond me. Maybe he's still just the same hateful person he was back then.
If anyone in the media condones this, then we are in even more trouble than I thought. The Globe and Mail had to suspend comments because it was getting so ugly. This is exactly what happens when you distribute hate literature. You validate hate.
A new page in Conservative narrow-casting has the Liberals crying foul. Using the free-mail privileges of MPs, the Conservatives are sending out flyers to ridings with large Jewish communities, arguing they are committed to Canada’s Jewish Community and the Liberals are not. The leaflets argue the Conservatives have done more to fight anti-Semitism abroad, fight terrorism and support Israel than the Liberals. It asks recipients, “Who is on the right track to represent and defend the values of Canada’s Jewish Community,” and to choose the answer from the names of the four major-party leaders ....
In my research to discover how a party founded in bigotry is now running our country, I have to stop now and then and remind myself that they do not represent the views of the majority of Canadians. The video I posted is wonderfully inspirational and a shot of humanity that I need right now.
This story is about an early Reform Party member, Doug Collins. It kind of represents the thinking within this party, and the views of Preston Manning and Stephen Harper. While they encouraged extreme right-wing fringe groups, they also tried to distance themselves from them, if they proved to be an embarrassment. Then and only then, did they expel them. But Mr. Collin's story is a little different and kind of epitomizes the ideology.
Preston Manning would always use the tired phrase of his father's when anti-semitism was exposed in the Social Credit party 'A bright light attracts bugs'. But as my own late father would probably say; 'so does shite!'
Doug Collins, Racism and the Reform Party of Canada
Depending on who you talk to, Doug Collins was either a crusty, tell it like it is, journalist; or a racist pig. In fact, he was somewhere in between the two, but his story is worth telling. We heard him speak in favour of the National Citizens Coalition's 'Boat People' campaign, and the ridiculous notion that it was part of an Asian invasion. However, his bigotry went much further than that, making him a perfect fit for the Reformers and Harper's Northern Foundation.
"Doug Collins is a member of Canadian Friends of South Africa ... and has written numerous sympathetic articles ... Collins is also a member of CFAR ... an extremist right-wing group founded by Paul Fromm. While Manning felt obliged to stop the candidacy of the outspoken Doug Collins (he wanted to run for the reform Party in 1988), he seems less concerned about Donovan Carter, a man whose activities - including organized spying for a foreign power - have been mostly clandestine and therefore not an embarrassment to the party." (Dobbin. 1992. Pg. 100-107)
Not an embarrassment to the party. That's definitely what it was all about.
I've said it before, that all of the parties that Stephen Harper and Preston Manning were involved in, were all about the anti's and the notion of some kind of conspiracy. For Social Credit it was a Jewish conspiracy. Later Ernest Manning made it about a socialist/communist conspiracy. Part of that was Pierre Trudeau, whom Manning firmly believed was a communist; and the notion of immigrant 'invasions' from communist countries, especially 'Red China'. It then went to any non-white 'invasion' that threatened the anglo culture.
For the current Conservative party, it is primarily a Muslim invasion though Jason Kenney is trying to keep out all the 'undesirables' (anyone not white, wealthy, Christian, heterosexual and Conservative). But what it all boils down to is the notion of 'pro-Anglo' culture and 'white nationalism'. Other groups with similar goals are called 'white supremacists' and neo-Nazis.'
When Stephen Harper was working as the legislative assistant to PC James Hawkes, Mr. Hawkes stated that Steve did a lot of work on immigration. "Harper soon found himself studying the intricate relations between immigration and the economy, demography and politics." He criticised Mulroney for not making the tough decisions.
After reading Peter Brimelow's book, Harper bought 10 copies to share with friends. William Gairdner became a party mentor and sold his book at all Reform gatherings. Paul Fromm spoke at several Northern Foundation conferences and sold memberships to C-FAR at Reform Party assemblies. The Reform Party regularly advertised in NF's publication the Northern Voice.
Besides being just a controversial journalist, Doug Collins had connections with several questionable people and organizations. Mind you most of these were also connected to the Reform Party and possibly members of our current government.
I've already mentioned Paul Fromm and C-FAR, but another person who played a role was Doug Christie. I mentioned Mr. Christie in several of my posts about Stockwell Day. He was a good friend of Stockwell's father and the Sr. Day was an active member of Christies separatist party, the Western Canada Concept.
Doug Christie was also the lawyer for many of the most notorious anti-Semites, including James Keegstra and Ernst Zundel. Doug Collins attended the latter's trial to show support "...and Doug Collins, a B.C. weekly newspaper columnist and revisionist who labelled the Canadian Jewish Congress "hatemongers." ( Web of Hate: Inside Canada's Far Right Network - Author: Warren Kinsella Toronto : Harper Collins, 1994 ISBN 0-00-255074-1 Pg. 80)
Doug Christie is also general counsel for an organization called the Canadian Free Speech League (CFSL), which has presented its "George Orwell Award" to controversial figures, including BC columnist Doug Collins, who authored an article titled Swindler's List attacking Steven Spielberg's Holocaust film Schindler's List.
"Our defence in this issue is truth and fair comment. The meeting in question was hosted by Christie's Free Speech League and attended by people who've promoted hate and published racist views in the past." "These people include Doug Collins, who suggested Holocaust deaths were exaggerated in a column he wrote in the North Shore News."
Mr. Collins' beliefs and connections would not be news to Harper or Manning, but it was also becoming apparent to the 'grassroots', that this was not a populist party, and that maybe 'grassroots' views were not the issue.
"Rumblings of Grassroots Discontent - By the fall of 1990, the provincial politics issue was turning into the most divisive issue in the party ... the issue was focusing attention on the party's central office and it's alleged desire to control the membership.
"Dissidents in the party ... openly claimed that the party was being run by a 'Calgary clique' "A lot of people are frustrated - we're seeing the inevitable erosion of grassroots politics into a smaller more domineering group at the top...'
"The clique that was being criticized in 1990 consisted of Manning and four of his staff members. One of the key members was thirty-two-year-old Stephen Harper, a founding member of the party, it's Chief Policy Officer, and the man who became known as Manning's chief political lieutenant. Though only a staff member, he often made speeches and was one of the two people, the other being Waters, whom Manning trusted to speak for the party. He spent four years working for the oil industry after arriving in Alberta from Toronto in 1978..." (Dobbins pg 121-122)
This discontent was reflected in the Reform Party candidacy of Doug Collins, who was acclaimed in Capilano—Howe Sound riding in the 1988 federal election. Initially Preston Manning was on board, but after some complaints of Collin's past racist remarks, Manning had a change of heart.
However, he didn't stop him from running, but only agreed to sign his nomination papers if Mr. Collins would refrain from making anymore public comments that could be deemed racist or anti-Semitic. Naturally the outspoken Collins refused, so was dropped from the list of candidates.
What's interesting to note here, and is a recurring theme, was that they had no problem allowing someone with his extreme views to possibly sit in Parliament, he just had to keep his views to himself. There is something very wrong with that. How can he represent a multicultural country when he believes that only one segment of that country's people are worthy of representation?
Another group with ties to the Reform Party, was the League of Rights and they had a lot to say on the subject.
"When well known Vancouver journalist, Doug Collins, offered to stand for the Reform Party, he felt that here was a party which might tackle some of Canada's basic problems, including immigration. ... A large and enthusiastic Reform Party virtually demanded that Collins stand as their candidate. No other candidate was even considered. But 12 hours after accepting the Reform Party nomination, Collins was bowing out with Reform Party leader ... Manning, refusing to sign his nomination papers .... Manning suggested he sign a document which he described as 'most remarkable ever sent to any candidate seeking political office, and that included the Soviet Union'. A man of great moral courage, Collins appeared as a witness at the Keegstra and Zundel trials; claiming that the basic issue was freedom of speech."
"The most notable political developments of the past few weeks were the election of Stephen Harper as the new leader of the Alliance Party, succeeding Stockwell Day; and Mr. Harper's immediate meeting with PC leader Joe Clark, in which he challenged him to stop piddling around and wasting time, and join the Alliance in 'uniting the right,' or else get out of the way as the Alliance moves forward ... Mr. Harper, because of his early background with the Reform movement, his several years' experience in the House of Commons and as leader of the National Citizens' Coalition, should be well equipped for his new role. As this short report is written (April 10), Mr. Harper seems well on his way to bringing unity and esprit de corps to his own party. His challenge now is to prepare the Alliance for a major breakthrough in Central Canada within the next two years, in order to mount a successful challenge to the present government in the next federal election."
The Reform-Conservatives 'clique' and muzzle system hasn't changed. Many in the party have very controversial views, so I can understand why he doesn't allow them to share those views. But why elect a Member of Parliament to speak for us, when they aren't allowed to speak at all?
