Does Stephen Harper Have the Legal Right to Govern?

The 2006 federal election was one of the most bizarre on record. Going in the Liberals had a ten point lead. And in a little Deja Vu, this was the news in July of 2005:

Stephen Harper moved yesterday to revive his political fortunes in the electoral heartland of Ontario even as a new poll shows that 59 per cent of Canadians want him replaced, including more than one-third of his own supporters.

The poll also found that the difficulties of the just-completed sitting of the House of Commons have left Canadians with an increasingly negative image of Mr. Harper, with 41 per cent saying their opinion of the Conservative Leader has worsened .... "The poll, which found that the Liberals continue to maintain a nine-point lead on the Tories in voting intention, came yesterday as Mr. Harper glad-handed in cottage country north of Toronto. The Conservative Leader is touring Canada this summer to build party support in preparation for an election next winter.

After losing the 2004 election, and his thwarted attempt to form a coalition with the Bloc and NDP to bring down Paul Martin at the throne speech, we had all but written Harper off. He couldn't be trusted.

But what we couldn't have known was that the Harper team was engaged in political guerrilla warfare. Monopolizing on the Sponsorship Scandal, they were able to paint Paul Martin as a crook, despite the fact that he wasn't involved and it was he who ordered the Gomerey investigation.

And that summer, when Stephen Harper was glad-handing, what he was really doing was mobilizing the Religious Right. Helped along with radio spots, purchased in over a hundred Canadian stations by James Dobson, the American behind the group, Focus on the Family.

Many of Harper's stump speeches regaled against same-sex marriage, while these radio spots did the same.

A foreign country interfering in a Canadian election.

But that was only the tip of the iceberg.

Friends of Science

The Conservative policy on the environment was weak at best, offering only an abstract 'Made in Canada' solution. As a result, a group calling themselves Friends of Science, also began buying up radio spots to sell the Conservative message that Global Warming was a hoax.

An investigation into FOS revealed that the group was actually tied directly to Stephen Harper and the oil and gas industry.

From the Globe and Mail:

Friends of Science has taken undisclosed sums from Alberta oil and gas interests. The money was funneled through the Calgary Foundation, to the University of Calgary and on to the FOS though something called the “Science Education Fund.” All this appears to be orchestrated by Stephen Harper’s long-time political confidante and fishing buddy, U. Calgary Prof Dr. Barry Cooper. It seems the FOS has taken a page right out of the US climate change attack group’s playbook: funnel money through foundations and third party groups to “wipe the oil” off the dollars they receive. (1)

And from the University of Calgary's Gauntlet:

The University of Calgary has discontinued its relationship with the controversial Friends of Science organization and, after the results of an internal audit released Mon., Apr. 14, the U of C will revise policies related to research funding. But the audit did not determine whether funding from two trust funds at the university for an anti-Kyoto ad campaign was in violation of the Canada Elections Act. (2)

It was in fact in violation, but by the time this was made public, Harper had been in office two years, and this possible criminal act was buried in the larger scandal of another election financing scheme.

The RCMP Complicity

At a point when the Liberals were assured victory, former RCMP boss, Giuliano Zaccardelli, appeared to have engineered a smear campaign against Ralph Goodale, suggesting that he and the Liberal Party by association, were involved in a bit of insider trading.

That too got swept under the rug.

Following the election, there was no immediate call for an inquiry. For the defeated Liberals to have demanded one would have appeared self-serving. The NDP had played the role of willing enabler for the RCMP plan, so it was not keen to demand accountability. And Prime Minister Stephen Harper, unlike Paul Martin and his zeal to appoint Judge Gomery to uncover his own party's scandal, had no interest in investigating a scandal that had helped the Conservatives win. (3)

The "In and Out"

In April of 2008, at about the same time as the Friends of Science scandal broke, the RCMP raided the Conservative Party headquarters, as part of an investigation into an election financing scheme.

During the campaign, the Conservative party conducted a series of financial transactions in which it wire-transferred money to Tory candidates, who then returned cash to the party in the form of advertising purchases. One campaign official interviewed by Elections Canada staff referred to these transactions as “in-and-outs.”Many of the ads in question were for the national party and the only reference to the local candidates who paid for them were small tag lines at the end.

This enabled them to spend over a million dollars more than the other parties on advertising, in the final days of the campaign. A direct violation of the election act.

But what this also meant was that local candidates, who would receive rebates of up to 60% of their expenses, were able to claim credits they weren't entitled to on money they themselves never spent. Almost $800,000.00 in tax payer dollars. And while Elections Canada froze rebates after discovering the scheme, many had already been issued.

A Parliamentary committee was organized to look into the affair, but Stephen Harper directed those called, to ignore the subpoenas, closed down the committee, then broke his own law by calling a snap election, putting Canadian taxpayers on the hoof for another 300 million dollars, simply because he didn't want to deal with what could eventually lead to criminal charges.

Undemocratic, given that his was the only party ready for election, since they were the only party aware that he would make such a daring move.

Stephen Harper has kept this tied up in the courts, while he continues to govern like nothing happened. As though he has a legal right to be where he is.

During those five years that he has held office, he has stolen our reputation, our democracy, our money and our sovereignty.

And his entire right to govern may have been the result of a fraud. Or several frauds as it turns out.

But we will take this information into the next election campaign. He can't escape justice forever.




Sources:

1. Oil Companies Funding Friends of Science, Tim Ball takes the brunt, Jim Hoggan, DeSmog Blog, August 12, 2006

2. Friends of Science audit released: University looks into policies regarding research funding, By Jon Roe, Features Editor, The Gauntlet, April 17, 2008

3. Losing Confidence: Power, Politics and Crisis in Canadians Democracy, By Elizabeth May, McClelland & Stewart, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-7710-5760-1, Pg. 132-147

Media Manipulation: Setting Agendas and Shielding Your Bum

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

"[The media] seem to be nothing in themselves, and often say that they merely report what goes on. In truth, they do nothing on their own; they act in the manner of a compassionate passerby who sees an accident in the street and rushes to see if someone else can be of any assistance. But the media greatly affect how we regard government." Harvey Mansfield Jr.

There is a lot of discussion today about the absence of independent media, and the way that the majority of journalists treat the news.

It has become a game where they set the rules.

And while the right claims that the media is against them, the exact opposite is true, as corporate media now controls the message, and corporations stand to gain the most from neoconservative/right-wing policies.

I prefer to read columnists who are neither right nor left, but honest. And I avoid those who have lowered themselves to the standard of partisan hacks.

Barry Cooper, a member of the Calgary School that helped bring Stephen Harper to power, co-wrote a book; Hidden Agendas: How Journalists Influence the News. In it, he correctly reveals how the media now manipulate the story, but his suggestion that it is always with a left-wing tilt, is wrong.

Case in point, though there are many examples, is the John Turner "bum pat".

In their book The Newsmongers: How the Media Distort the Political News, Mary Anne Comber and Robert S. Mayne discuss an incident during the 1984 federal election campaign.

After greeting Liberal president Iona Campagnolo: John Turner threw one arm around her shoulder, then slapped her backside and exclaimed, "Come on, Iona, let's circulate!" Iona's welcoming smile froze. She stepped behind Turner and whacked his backside. The pursuing reporters had their cameras rolling. The rest is history. The infamous "bum patting issue" was born.

It was offensive, dead wrong and definitely a political faux paus, but how important was the issue?

The way in which this story "broke" is interesting in itself. According to the Globe and Mail account, the film footage of John Turner patting Iona Campagnolo's bottom was first shown on the CTV news, July 20th, after a few days hesitation on the part of the network. The Globe and Mail claimed that, during the period between the event and the showing of the footage, pressure by reporters was mounting on CTV editorial staff to air the film clips. Finally, they gave in and aired the film. Could it be that CTV editors were asking themselves: "Is this fair coverage? Is this the kind of event we should draw to the public's attention?" We will never know. The footage was shown, and the extensive coverage that followed turned this one-minute event into the most-discussed issue of the 1984 federal election campaign.

The day after CTV aired the footage, the Globe and Mail printed two front-page articles on Turner and bum patting. In the days that followed, most Canadian newspapers carried editorials, cartoons and photos on Turner's gaffe. Bum patting was a bonanza! Everyone had an opinion on the matter, and the media establishment appeared to delight in just saying the phrase over and over again. (1)

John Turner didn't help matters, by refusing to apologize, and instead continuing the practice of not only patting the bums of women but men alike. Something he claimed he always did.

So it wasn't really a sexist issue, so much as an inappropriate one.

This might have been a perfect time to bring women's issues to the forefront, and as important as being seen as sexual objects was, there were other things that could have been discussed. Things like equal pay, a child care plan, discrimination. Maybe the fact that the president of the party was a woman, might have meant something.

The point of most interest about bum patting (besides all the wonderful opportunities it gave Canadians to make a wide variety of dreadful puns) is that it was an issue placed on the political agenda by the media. It wasn't that the party leaders had different policies on bum patting that needed to be publicly discussed or debated (although the imagination takes flight with the possibilities for slogans, placards, and Rhinoceros Party pamphlets.) No, the point is that the media placed bum patting on the agenda and then, by dint of constant attention, kept it there ... Turner's campaign aircraft was renamed "Derri Air" by reporters. (1)

We want our politicians to discuss issues of importance, but when we allow the trivial to dominate the agenda, we cannot expect intelligent political debate. Policy gets put on the back burner, when every one's looking for the "zinger" or the embarrassing image that can crush a hopeful. Like a prime minister mining old tapes of a political opponent during a time when the country wanted answers on the state of our economy.

And these incidences cross party lines. From Robert Stanfield fumbling the football, to Stephane Dion's difficulty with an intentionally convoluted question, to garner the expected response.

These images are "fair game", but how much is too much, especially when they overwhelm the important issues that our politicians should be addressing? And all too often those are the things that decide elections.

If we want to save our democracy, this is a good place to start. We won't get better from our media, unless we start demanding better. We are the ones who must set the agenda.

In 1863, Sir John A. Macdonald threw up during a campaign speech and his opponent tried to paint him as a drunk, suggesting that he was suffering from a hangover.

If that had been today, there would have been days of commentary, and the image of the puking Tory leader, played over and over. It would have been analyzed by experts, including a medical team who would reveal the contents of his stomach , and "Joe the boozer", who would provide an "expert" opinion on the stages of the "morning after".

Instead, MacDonald retorted: "I get sick ... not because of drink [but because] I am forced to listen to the ranting of my honourable opponent." – case closed.

Sources:

1. The Newsmongers: How the Media Distort the Political News, By Mary Anne Comber and Robert S. Mayne, John Deyell Printing, 1986, ISBN: 0-7710-2239-5, Pg. 44-45