The More Things Stay the Same, the More They Stay the Same

The blueprint for Canada's neoconservatism movement was created several decades ago, and while much of it was inspired by the Religious Right south of the border, a good deal was homegrown.

In fact in some areas, we inspired them.

However, the move to legislate Canadian morality began, or was renewed, in 1963, when the Anglican Congress sought out Pierre Berton, to write a book on Christianity in Canada. Under Pope John XXIII, Vatican II, sought to modernize the Catholic faith, to meet the challenges of a changing society*, and the Congress was hoping to do the same for protestants.

I have Berton's little book: The Comfortable Pew, and have read it. They couldn't have chosen anyone better. But not everyone saw it that way, and one man raised, pardon the pun, 'Holy Hell'. Ted Byfield, one of the founding fathers of the Reform Party, would call it blasphemy and suggest that the government should start to legislate morality.

We now have that government.

Byfield would go on to help create the Civitas Society, thought to be the policy arm of the Harper regime.

They list as their Founding Directors: Janet Ajzenstat, Ted Byfield, Michael Coren, Jacques Dufresne, Tom Flanagan, David Frum, William Gairdner, Jason Kenney, Gwen Landolt [REAL Women of Canada, an anti-women group], Ezra Levant, Tom Long, Mark Magner, William Robson, David E.Smerville [National Citizens Coalition], Michael Walker [Fraser Institute]. A few names I'm sure you'll recognize.

David Frum, in outlining the new conservatism, suggests that one determination in establishing policy, is that "it must eliminate incentives to personal misconduct..." and that government should never offer protection "against the miseries caused by idleness and addiction." (1)

Brian Lilley, one of the characters on Fox News North, applies this theory to the decision by Stephen Harper to fight against the continued life of Insite in Vancouver.

He writes that Deciding on InSite is a moral judgment

There has been snickering among my critics on the left who think giving junkies a good place to shoot up is an honourable thing. It turns out that I committed the sin of questioning heroin injection sites, labeling them clearly (they are not safe) and pointing out that just because it is backed up by peer-reviewed literature doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do.

But Dan Gardner reminds us that it is indeed the right thing do, even on moral grounds.

A long list of scientific research papers published in prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals showed that Insite had done exactly what it was designed to do. Overdose deaths down. Rates of HIV and hepatitis C infection down.

And yet:

From the moment the Conservatives came to power in 2006, they insisted that the decision on Insite's future would not be guided by politics or ideology. The evidence would settle it. But as the evidence of Insite's effectiveness steadily mounted, the Conservatives' hostility to the facility never wavered. They wanted to close it then. They want to close it now.

That's because as usual, they care nothing for the evidence, but base all decisions on the need to legislate morality.

Their version of morality, where killing human beings in war is fine but saving lives through a program they disapprove of, is deemed immoral.

Expect more of this. Much more, as Harper will implement an agenda drafted at least a half century ago. Or perhaps as one of Jason Kenney's teachers once said, "not the 1950s, but the 1550s."

Footnotes:

*Jason Kenney attended St Ignatius Jesuit school in San Francisco, which was created to refute Vatican II. An old video surfaced recently of Jason Kenney from his time at St. Ignatius, along with an article he had written then, comparing Planned Parenthood to the Ku Klux Klan. He had started a petition demanding that all Catholic universities in the U.S. remove the word 'Catholic' from their name if they promoted this. A former teacher claimed that Kenney was trying to take the Church back to the 50's "I do not mean the 1950s, I mean the 1550s: Obedience, obedience, obedience."

Sources:

1. What's Right: The New Conservatism and What it Means for Canada, By David Frum, Vintage Canada, 1996, ISBN: 0-679-30858-X, Pg. 12-13

Stephen Harper's Social Contract. Are we Really Prepared For This?

In June of 2004, when it looked like Stephen Harper's newly formed 'Conservative' Party might win the upcoming election, journalist Frances Russell asked her readers, if voters were really prepared to give this party a mandate for radical change.

Are voters so angry they are prepared to relive the trauma of decades-old searing national debates on a woman's right to control her own body and the death penalty? Are voters so determined to get "change" they are willing to jeopardize the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and his spin doctors are working overtime to convince Canadians he and his party are mainstream. But you don't need the Liberal attack website to measure the paradigm shift the Harper Conservatives plan for Canada.(1)

Indeed it was his party's attack on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that resulted in their losing the election.

Mr. Harper's antagonism to the charter is fundamental and well-documented. He said this week he would propose for the top bench only candidates who agree courts must defer to Parliament. "The role of the court is not to invent rights that are not in the Charter."

He was on record many, many times opposing the Charter and the judiciary:

"1 share many of the concerns of my colleagues and allies about biased 'judicial activism' and its extremes. I agree that serious flaws exist in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." (Globe and Mail June 13, 2000)

"I consider the notwithstanding clause a valid part of the Constitution." (Canadian Press March 15, 2004)

"Right from the beginning, the charter has been controversial. There were a large number of politicians who did not support that approach to civil liberties. They prefer the traditional approach of common law and parliamentary supremacy." (Kitchener-Waterloo Record Sept. 29, 1994)

Just because he no longer speaks of these things, does not mean that he does not still hold those views. And as Russell stated: "Consider how all this would play out with the possible reinstatement of capital punishment by a Conservative government. The high court would almost certainly strike it down as unconstitutional, inviting the use of the notwithstanding clause." Ultimate power to a government of one.

There is an excellent new book, written by Christian Nadeau, Rogue in Power, that will serve well as an election primar. It does not contain ad hoc statements like 'Harper is an idiot' (guilty as charged), but is just a practical, yet fundamental assessment of this movement. And it is a movement, as confirmed recently by Conservative MP Rob Anders.

This is something that every Canadian should be concerned with, even Conservative supporters. Are we ready for this?

In his now famous 2003 Civitas Society speech, he outlined his plan.

Harper distinguished between two versions of conservatism. The first, economic conservatism, attaches vital importance to individual freedom, and therefore promotes private enterprise, free trade, religious tolerance, and legal limits on government action. The other type of conservatism, inspired by Edmund Burke, argues for respect for customs and traditions, especially religious traditions. To achieve this goal, unbalanced moral standards and misconduct need to be corrected through moral and legal sanctions.(2)

In other words, he would like to legislate morality.

This comes as no surprise. One of the founding members of the Civitas Society was the late Ted Byfield, who was also one of the founding members of the Reform Party. Byfield once claimed that the only thing the government should legislate is morality.

This was a deliberate move away from the Libertarian principles of individual freedom. You are only free if you do as you're told.

Stephen Harper is an ideologue, who believes that if we go back to the 1950's and search for the lives portrayed by shows like Father Knows Best or Leave it to Beaver, then everyone will be happy. We won't sin, we won't commit crimes, and if we do we will not be rehabilitated, but severely punished.

- We will rise out of poverty through hard work.
- We will become better citizens if we all convert to Christian fundamentalism.
- We will no longer "choose" to be gay, but can be cured.
- Women will stay home, stay married, and look after their own children.

And perhaps more importantly women will have those children.

They've defunded family planning, so the only plan is for "married couples" to have very large families. But as Gloria Steinham said recently, the Right's belief is that "life begins at conception but ends at birth". Don't be expecting no government hand outs.

This is social engineering.

Tom Flanagan in his book Harper's Team, admits that Canada is not a right-wing conservative country, but that "it can be governed by conservatives as long as they know what they are doing".

Hence Flanagan has formulated a series of precepts aimed at gaining power (the Ten Commandments of Conservative Campaigning), which he describes in his book. According to him, the Conservative Party must avoid useless internal arguments and instead seek unity, which implies moderating its political objectives and directing its actions towards making slow but sure progress. The caution is only strategic, as the party's political ambitions can and should be set quite high. When the Conservatives do form the government, says Flanagan, a hard line is required. (2)

And whether we want to admit it or not, in the five years that Harper has held power, he has radically changed how we do business. We have lost our standing in the world as evidenced by our loss of the UN Security seat, for the first time in our history.

And if you need further evidence of how he has undermined our democracy and time-honoured institutions, you can pick up an Australian newspaper. They know.

The good news is that we are no longer boring. The bad news is that until then, the Australians are singing "Oh Canada, we cry our hearts for thee."

So again I ask: Are we really prepared to give this man another mandate? Or more importantly, are we prepared for the consequences?

Sources:

1. Harper Hides His Social Agenda, By Frances Russell, Winnipeg Free Press, June 11, 2004

2. Rogue in Power: Why Stephen Harper is remaking Canada by Stealth, By Christian Nadeau, Lorimer Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-1-55277-730-5

Three Blind Mice and the Think-Tank Dance

Watching our government on the run, trying to justify spending billions of dollars of taxpayer's money on prison expansion, for the corporate sector who will be taking them over, reminds me of The Three Blind Mice. Not sure why, but maybe because it's just so darn comical. And a little sad given the fate of those now tail-less mice.

But you know they're in trouble when the "think-tanks" have to come to their rescue. That myriad of bogus "non-partisan" spin doctors, who draft policy for our hapless horde of ministers.

This time they went right to the top. The Civitas Society, where Stephen Harper laid out his plans for a theocracy and Republican pollster Frank Luntz told Harpo to talk about hockey every 14 seconds if he hoped to ever get a majority.

Jason Kenney hangs out there, as do all of Harper's buddies from his old haunt, the Northern Foundation. I don't think he makes a move without first consulting their Ouija board.

The Three Blind Mice and Canada's Crime in the Streets

1. Stockwell Day - Blind mouse number one. This man only has a high school education and believes that if it isn't in the Old Testament it's not worth discussing. An eye for eye, etc. When the prison expansion plans were announced, the question was why, when Canada's crime rate was the lowest in our history. Their plans will cost taxpayers billions of dollars, not only in the original design and construction costs, but in paying the corporate sector to run them, which is always at least double what we could do it for.

So Stocky in all his wisdom claimed that the prisons were for "unreported crimes". Thank heavens for the Ouija boards, which will replace the gun registry and all other tools used by police. I hear one is being installed in every officer's vehicle.

2. Scott Newark - Blind mouse number two - After Stocky's announcement and the laughter died down, a name began appearing in all the papers, in support of Day. Scott Newark, who agreed with the notion of the mystical criminals lurking in every bush and around every street corner.

He had seen them (insert eerie music). And furthermore, we should listen to him because he is with .... drum roll please .... a "think tank". A "non-partisan think-tank". An "award winning non-partisan think-tank". For now we'll ignore the fact that this award also went to the Koch brothers and their Cato Institute. We're in enough trouble without going down that road, where the real criminals hang out. Suffice it to say that the Koch brothers are backers of the Tea Party, and sometimes walk funny with Stephen Harper's hands in their pockets.

For those who don't know, Newark is a former policy adviser to Day and was once involved in a lobbying scandal, also known as an "unreported crime", bilking taxpayers out of more than $300,000. Oops!

3. Brian Lee Crowley - Blind mouse number three - with Crowley taking time out of his busy schedule to weigh in on the issue, you know they are now in desperation mode. Crowley is the big cheese, founder of yet another "non-partisan think-tank". And if you don't believe they are non-partisan they have christened their new endeavour the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, after Sir John A. from Canada's now defunct Tory Party, and Wilfred Laurier, a former Liberal prime minister.

Crowley is past president of the Civitas Society and founder of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, a group pushing for "deep US-Canada integration with "Atlantica"

I never said they were sane.

According to Wikipedia, the MacDonald-Laurier Institute is "directed by high-profile businesspeople with an emphasis on lowering business taxes, reducing government spending, privatizing the healthcare system and "working toward a common security perimeter with the United States." In other words, they are running the Harper neocon agenda.

Oh, and did I mention that Crowley is also a policy adviser to Jim Flaherty, helping him to draft his budgets, and has been shrieking about lowering corporate taxcuts since he was old enough to go potty by himself.

These guys are so transparent and have the credibility of a gnat.

Study claiming crime on the rise gets shot down by experts

Criminologists say a study that attacks the long-standing measurement of Canada’s crime rate is “highly politicized” and without statistical merit. Crime and punishment appear to be shaping up as a defining ballot question when Canadians next go to the polls, so the statistically unorthodox claim that violent crime is on the rise is noteworthy.

Scott Newark, a former Harper government adviser who counts himself a contributor to the Conservatives’ 2006 justice platform, released the 29-page study last week questioning Statistics Canada’s methodology on compiling crime stats. Newark asserts that “many of the most common conclusions that are drawn about crime in Canada are in fact incorrect or badly distorted.” “Serious violent crime is increasing,” the former executive officer of the Canadian Police Association flatly asserts.

Although Newark’s report for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute was given prominent coverage by both the Globe and Mail and National Post, the wider academic community that relies on the data was not consulted.

Just who exactly is running our country anyway?

Glass Shatterer? LMAO. Jenni Byrne is Stephen Harper's Jabba the Hutt

In 2003, at the national conference of the Civitas Society, Guy Giorno gave a presentation entitled "Transplanting Provincial Successes to Ottawa".

The Civitas is the policy arm of the Harper government and many members move back and forth. Ian Brodie, a director at Civitas, was formerly Harper's chief of staff, and many others, founding members of the Reform Party.

But Guy Giorno is a stickler for details, so when he spoke of "transplanting" the success of Ontario's Mike Harris, he meant transplanting every single thing.

So you might call it a "remake", where a script written in 1995, would be followed line by line. Only a few of the actors would be replaced.

If you google 'Guy Giorno and Ontario Legislature', you'll find that many of the complaints raised by the opposition then, are eerily similar to those being raised in federal Parliament today.

ORAL QUESTIONS: GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING, Ontario Hansard - October 28, 1998

Question: What you are doing is unprecedented. Your current $4-million spending spree is just the latest. It comes on top of millions spent on education propaganda. It comes on top of millions spent on wasted welfare propaganda. It comes on top of millions wasted on business propaganda. In total so far, and it's early going yet, early days yet, you have wasted over $42 million worth of taxpayers' money in a desperate attempt to save your own skins.

Minister, why should taxpayers be involved in this plot to fund your re-election campaign? Minister, you're wasting $42 million of taxpayer dollars on PC Party propaganda. It doesn't matter how you slice it and how you dice it, that's what it's all about. Let's understand what this would have meant in terms of health care dollars for patients: $42 million would have allowed you to hire almost 1,000 new nurses; $42 million would have allowed you to wipe out the entire deficit of the Ottawa Hospital, which right now stands at $41 million; $42 million would have allowed you to pay for your share of 40 MRIs desperately needed by communities right across this province; $42 million would have allowed you to pay for your full-year funding commitment to attract doctors to under serviced areas in communities right across the province. How can you justify wasting taxpayer dollars that ought to be devoted to health care and putting them into your campaign to re-elect Mike Harris?

Answer: There's nothing that I think is more important than communicating to the public about major changes that are taking place.

Feds spent $42M promoting stimulus spending, documents show, By Glen McGregor, Ottawa Citizen: April 27, 2010

Federal departments have spent nearly $42 million promoting the Harper government's economic stimulus programs. Documents introduced in Parliament
detail the massive wave of print, radio, TV and online advertising intended to highlight the Economic Action Plan launched in January 2009.The advertising blitz includes everything from $110,000 in newspaper ads for the Agriculture Department's slaughterhouse improvement program to the $44,000 spent to wrap two Go Transit commuter trains in the Toronto area with the distinctive green and blue EAP logo.

Critics charge that the promotion of the unprecedented government spending is a form of political advertising but the government defends the ads as critical to communicating with Canadians as the country navigates its way out of the economic downturn.

See. They are following a script, and a plot line. It now just involves a lot more money, with the Harper government spending 45 million on signs and over 100 million on self promotion ads. And it's not about to end anytime soon.

The Liberals have made a weekly event out of highlighting what they perceive to be wasteful spending measures on the part of the Conservative government. On Friday, the target of their ire was the half-million dollars the government spent on “partisan-style” backdrops from press conferences and meetings and $6.5-million promoting tax measures that were introduced in 2006.

“Following Haiti’s earthquake last year, rather than delivering aid as quickly as possible, the Conservative government wasted $27,000 on single-use backdrops, conveniently coloured Tory blue, when they were coordinating a response to the earthquake,” Liberal MP John McCallum told a news conference. “To put that in context, it’s about 55 times the income of the average Haitian.” Mr. McCallum also said the government spent $10,000 on backdrops to unveil the G8 logo. In total, he said, in just over a year, the government has spent more than $500,000 on backdrops alone. Documents explaining how he reached those figures are available here. And he pointed to a Globe and Mail Story published Thursday that said the government is spending $6.5-million of public funds to promote its tax-cutting record in an advertising campaign centred on what is shaping up as a key election issue.

In the private sector these actions would be called embezzlement. But in the neocon world it's business as usual.

One Actor Eliminated

The only thing different between the original movie How Guy Giorno Stole Millions From Taxpayers for Mike Harris and the remake How Guy Giorno Stole Millions From Taxpayers for Stephen Harper, is that they have eliminated one character. Deb Hutton and Leslie Noble from the original, are now embodied in the character of Jenni Byrne.

Like Guy Giorno, Leslie Noble was a top lobbyist who had her own gold plated cheque book. But she used to berate, ridicule and taunt elected MPPs, because she knew that she had more power than them. And she also kept them all election ready.

Noble has no official job with government but regularly briefs Harris, his cabinet ministers and Tory MPPs on what needs to be done politically to stay in power ... One pipeline [Leslie] Noble has to influence government decision-makers is the unelected cadre of political aides in the offices of the Premier and his top ministers. These aides, many of whom report to Noble during the election campaign, wield tremendous power in government, a reality acknowledged by some Tory MPPs. Tory backbencher Bill Murdoch says they openly flaunt their power. ``They say, `Hey Murdoch, we didn't even have to go through an election and we're running the place.' '' Queen's Park Speaker Chris Stockwell, a Tory MPP, calls them a "cabal'' and says they make decisions without input from elected politicians.

Jenni Byrne:

It has not gone unnoticed by some staffers that a hakapik, the weapon used to club to death baby seals, sits on her desk. “She has cultivated a reputation where most people are terrified of being on the wrong side of her,” says a senior Conservative official who knows her well. No wonder then that many of her colleagues who were interviewed for this article asked not to be identified. Ms. Byrne refused to be interviewed.

The other female character that has been absorbed by Byrne is Deb Hutton, now married to Tim Hudak, the man we have to make sure doesn't become our next premier in Ontario. Hutton was called Jabba the Hutt, because if you wanted to talk to Mike Harris you had to go through her, and few got through.

Meanwhile, Deborah Hutton, who remained as the premier's legislative assistant, was given the nickname "Jabba the Hutt" by ministerial aides terrified of her legendary tantrums. One of these aides, like those working for the Conservatives, was willing to be more specific, only on the condition of anonymity. According to the disgruntled staffer, Hutton was and remains "a one-person Blitzkrieg against party morale. (Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 170)

Jenni Byrne

Described by colleagues as possessing a volcanic temper with a penchant for yelling at cabinet ministers, staffers and senior bureaucrats alike, Ms. Byrne is fiercely loyal to the Prime Minister...

So to Gloria Galloway, do your homework. If you think Jenni Byrne is a ground breaker ... or glass breaker ... she's about 15 years too late. I've seen this movie before and I know how it ends. The leader resigns because of corruption, and when they are voted out of office, they leave not only a bare cupboard, but a province (and now a nation), with a record deficit and swimming in debt.

The Defrauding of Taxpayers II.

The Politics of Religious Nationalism: Taking us Down a Dangerous Path

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

'War is always at the most unrestrained when religion vests it with holy purpose.' Michael Ignatieff - Warrior's Honour

In light of our recent rejection by the United Nations, it's time to revisit Harper's foreign policy from his ideological perspective.

I'm doing a separate posting on those who influenced his early political thought. People like Peter Brimelow, Paul Fromm, Donovan Carter, Stan Waters, Peter Worthington, etc., all militantly anti-Communist, which made them viscerally anti-Liberalism.

But while the UN snub is bad for Canada's image, it might play right into Stephen Harper's hands. He will no longer have to pretend to support this international body, and can now focus on his long term plans, as dictated by the Religious Right.

Author Marci MacDonald had sat in on a meeting of the Civitas Society where Stephen Harper gave a speech:

... 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 ... 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 ..." (1)

"Hard power" behind our "foreign-policy commitments".

Funny. I don't remember him campaigning on that.

In Alfred Rosenberg's book, "Mythology of the Twentieth Century", he also outlines a plan to combine religion with fierce nationalism and foreign policy (from above newspaper clipping, May 30, 1938).

"The religion of Jesus was undoubtedly the preaching of love, but a German religious movement which wishes to develop into a people's church must declare that it unconditionally subordinates the ideal of neighborly love to the idea of national honor."

and

"The essential condition of all German instruction is the acknowledgment of the fact that Christianity did not bring us civilization but that Christianity owes its enduring values to the German character."

The official "philosophy," as the Times points out, if it means anything means that the millions of Nazi soldiers, the millions of workers in the "Labor Front" are now having their minds made over, after a thousand years of painful history, to accommodate a special Nazi religion.

A broad coalition vested with a holy purpose.

And before you think this is hyperbole, as Lawrence Martin points out in new book Harperland:

His devotion to the war effort and the revitalization of the armed forces were part of an effort to shape a Tory patriotism, one predicated on symbols and traditions .... He had progressed since the days of his Alberta-centric regional thinking. Now he was sounding like he wanted to build a firewall around the entire country.

And that's what he's been doing. Isolating Canada, while attempting to build a nationalistic, militaristic nation, not unlike the vision outlined for Germany, by Alfred Rosenberg in 1938.

And as Martin reminds us, Stephen Harper does not like the "soft power" we've become, but views our foreign policy as a "clash of civilizations", rather than as "one big family" living peacefully. And the Religious Right, Armageddon crowd have given him their full support, because they cannot feel the rapture until the world is rid of Communism once and for all.

You can hear their guru, Tim Lehaye, describe it to Rachel Maddow. In fact this entire segment sounds like our current government. But she explains how communism is a battle cry to the Religious Right. And Stephen Harper is allowing them to dictate our "clash of civilizations".




And back to the 1938 newspaper article:

It seems to be definitely anti-Christian in principle. But it is more. Stripped of non-essentials, what Herr Rosenberg means by substituting "neighborly love" with "national honor" is the displacement of civilized orderliness by an aggressive fanaticism. There is something rather childish in these attempts to deliberately divert the stream of historic culture. But when adults in power indulge in it, the farcial side of it is overshadowed by the tragic and the dangerous.

Pay attention people.

There are some very good columns on Canada' fall from grace since Stephen Harper decided to put "hard power" into our foreign policy to appease the theocons. He once wanted to build a firewall around Alberta, and now he is building that"wall" around us.

1. Harper's U.N. debacle shows how his disrespect for foreign affairs was noticed, By Yves Engler, October 18, 2010

In a stunning international rebuke, Stephen Harper's government lost its bid for a U.N. Security Council seat last week. The vote in New York was the world's response to a Canadian foreign policy designed to please the most reactionary, short-sighted sectors of the Conservative Party's base -- evangelical Christian Zionists, extreme right-wing Jews, Islamophobes, the military-industrial-academic-complex, mining and oil executives and old Cold-Warriors.

2. With the glory days of Pearson’s internationalist foreign policy behind us, Canada needs a new brand, By Daryl Copeland Adjunct Professor and Senior Fellow, Munk School of Global Affairs, U of T, Mark News, October 16, 2010

Policy? Capacity? Leadership? Any way you cut it, this is a signal moment for Canada, and a full assessment will take time and require concerted analytical attention. In that respect, it is unfortunate that the dramatic resolution of the Chilean mining disaster came on the same day as the UN elections. In Canada, that human interest mega-tale immediately bumped the Security Council story from top place in the news cycle on Oct. 12. As coverage this week of the rescue’s aftermath has continued to dominate the media, attention to the implications for Canada of its repudiated candidacy has waned. That’s too bad, because there remains much to consider and reflect upon. It seems to me that a larger and longer-term consequence of the defeat may reside in the impact on Canada’s image and reputation, expressed in terms of both how others see us and how we see ourselves.

Copeland also cites the unprecedented control on communications, as knee capping any serious bid.

3. Why the World Doesn't Like Canada's New image: Harper’s aggressive foreign policy is the reason Canada was denied a UNSC seat, By Saeed Rahnema Professor, political science, York University; media commentator on the Middle East, The Mark News, October 15, 2010

Despite significant lobbying efforts to get a seat on the powerful UN Security Council, Canada failed to receive the backing of two-thirds of the UN General Assembly. Canada withdrew its bid after coming behind Portugal in the second ballot. It was disappointing, but perhaps not surprising, that Minister of Foreign Affairs Laurence Cannon blamed this failure on Michael Ignatieff’s lack of support. In reality, Stephen Harper’s government has no one to blame but itself and its misguided foreign policy.

Canada has never been an aggressive nation, and I'm pretty sure that had Stephen Harper campaigned on a "clash of civilizations", he would never have been elected.

Previous:

The Politics of Contempt: The Nixon-Harper Ticket

The Politics of Hate: Where Will it Lead?

The Politics of Conceit: "Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better"

/he Politics of Opportunity: Election Tampering

T/e Politics of Jabberwocky: As Canada Plummets Down the Rabbit Hole

The Politics of Ballyhoo: David Emerson and the Soft on Sovereignty Trade Deal

Sources:

1. Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons: The rising clout of Canada’s religious right, Walrus Magazine, October 2006)

Stephen Harper, Deceit, and the Exploitation of Religion

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

I was combing through Tom Flanagan's book Waiting for the Wave, which was written in 1995 when the Reform Party was first entering the political arena; and came across an interesting passage.

[Preston] Manning does have an increasing tendency to surround himself with evangelical Christians, not for policy reasons but because a common approach to religion encourages rapport and loyalty. Strikingly, all five officers in the first Reform caucus (nominated personally by Manning) were Evangelical Christians. Yet non-evangelicals such as Cliff Fryers, Gordon Shaw, Stephen Harper, and Rick Anderson have also played key roles as organizers and advisers. (1)

"Non-evangelicals such as ... Stephen Harper"?

It has been suggested by many, including Lloyd MacKey who wrote a book on the topic: The Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper, that Harper's route to salvation was a cerebral journal. However, he had to actually call the Conservative leader's pastor to verify that he was a member. I know several Evangelicals and they do not hide their beliefs, but allow them to direct their lives.

Douglas Todd once wrote in the Vancouver Sun:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is damned if he does talk about his evangelical beliefs and damned if he doesn't. If he continues to avoid answering questions about his religious convictions, political observers say he appears secretive, like he's hiding something. But, at the same time, most Canadians do not share the moral convictions of his evangelical denomination, the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church. (2)

However, I don't think that Stephen Harper shares "the moral convictions of his evangelical denomination, the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church." I think the whole thing was a scam and part of creating his public persona. He would never gain the financial support of the Religious Right if he was not seen as "one of them".

He would have assuredly lost to Stockwell Day, who wears his Evangelism on his sleeve.

In fact during the leadership race, Stephen Harper went public with Stockwell Day's exploitation of religion:

Stockwell Day yesterday continued to seek support from evangelical Christians with a barely publicized campaign stop at Canada's largest Bible college, even as one of his opponents warned the Canadian Alliance leadership race risks being "perverted" by a single-interest group. Mr. Day held a campaign rally at Briercrest Bible College in Caronport, Sask., an event that attracted hundreds and was not included in the public itinerary posted on the candidate's Web site. He campaigned earlier in the day at the evangelical Victory Church in Moose Jaw, Sask.

Mr. Day lashed out at rivals Stephen Harper and Grant Hill for accusing him of aiming his campaign primarily at devout Christians and opponents of abortion ... Last week, organizers for Mr. Harper went public with concerns that Mr. Day is appealing to a narrow base of religious groups -- including orthodox Jews, Pentecostals and anti-abortion Catholics -- in a bid to regain the leadership post he was forced to relinquish late last year. (3)

But then after winning the leadership, Stephen Harper realized just how beneficial hooking your wagon to the Religious Right could be.

The only route, he [Harper] 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.” (4)

Preston Manning was often accused of bringing religious fanaticism to politics. However, I never really thought of Manning as a fanatic, certainly not in the same vein as Stockwell Day or Jason Kenney. His political views were based on both "the will of the people and the voice of God". (5)

But because he was evangelical, his thought process was based a large part on his personal beliefs. However, Stephen Harper has never really held any personal faith, and I don't think that he was ever himself an evangelical.

In 1995 Tom Flanagan, his close advisor, knew that. Harper was 35 at the time, and yet when he was on the the Drew Marshall program in 2005, he told the host that he had "found Jesus" when he was in his 20's.

In his 20's he was dating Cynthia Williams. In fact they were engaged. But when Harper's Biographer, William Johnson asked her about her former fiance's religious beliefs, she became embarrassed and simply said that they never went to church or anything. (6)

The pastor at the Christian Missionary Alliance told Marci MacDonald that he rarely attends, and he has never met Harper's wife. They were married in a civil ceremony.

Harper's VP when he was with the National Citizens Coalition, also confirmed that his colleague never mentioned his faith. He only called himself a "born again Christian" when it became politically expedient. Leo Strauss would be impressed. Me, not so much.

By pretending to be Evangelical, he misses the basics of Evangelism. Deceit is not a virtue. And by tapping into the worst of fundamentalism, he has painted them all with a fanatical brush, furthering the divide.

I think he always believed he could shed the fanatics once in power, but now he finds that they may be all he has left. Centrists have abandoned him and Progressive Conservatives have realized that this is not a party of fiscal conservatives.

I've asked original Reform supporters if they find the excesses of the G-20 and G-8, or the abuse of tax dollars with the bogus Canada Action Plan, principled. I can't imagine any of them condoning this kind of corruption.

But I'd like to also remind his religious supporters, of something they probably already know in their gut. Stephen Harper is not, nor has he ever been, an Evangelical.

Like almost everything else he claimed to be, this was just another part of Strauss's Big Lie.

It's time for him to make an exit.

Sources:

1. Waiting for the Wave: The Reform Party and Preston manning, By Tom Flanagan, Stoddart Publishing, 1995, ISBN: 0-7737-2862-7, Pg. 9

2. Why Stephen Harper keeps his evangelical faith very private, By Douglas Todd, Vancouver Sun, September 10, 2008

3. Day slips into Bible college for Rally, By S. Alberts, National Post, February 13, 2002

4. Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons: The rising clout of Canada’s religious right, By Marci McDonald, The Walrus, October 2006, Pg. 2

5. Flanagan, 1995, Pg. 3

6. Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, McClelland & Stewart, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3

Fabricating a Reason For War by Taking on "New Enemies"

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

"To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom. Their courage teaches us a great lesson—that there are things in this world worth defending. To the Afghan people, I say on behalf of all Americans that we admire your heroism, your devotion to freedom, and your relentless struggle against your oppressors." Ronald Reagan (1)

When Ronald Reagan first came to power, he had no intention of promoting peace, other than through the Orwellian "Peace Through Strength" initiative. He had been a member of the revived Committee on the Present Danger, whose mandate was to encourage an aggressive foreign policy, to assume control of the world's resources, especially oil. As a result the defense budget was increased to unheard of levels in an effort to build up arms.

When the Reagan administration took office in January 1981, it had little interest in nuclear arms controls or disarmament. To staff its national security posts, the administration drew heavily upon members of the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), a hawkish group that had led the opposition to Carter-era nuclear arms control ventures. By November, 32 members of the CPD--including Ronald Reagan himself--had joined the administration. CPD member Richard Perle, the new assistant secretary of defense, told the press: "That we and the Russians could compose our differences, reduce them to treaty constraints ... and then rely on compliance to produce a safer world--I don’t agree with any of that." Indeed, as Reagan recalled, "there were some people in the Pentagon* who thought in terms of fighting and winning a nuclear war."Reagan’s personal qualms about nuclear weapons were offset by his virulent anticommunism and the hawkish military posture it entailed. (2)

Most members of the CPD were neoconservative followers of Leo Strauss, but they also had the backing of the American Enterprise Institute, whose members include Newt Gingrich, Paul Wolfowitz, Irving Kristol, Michael Novak, Richard Perle and David Frum. (who has since been fired)

And after 9/11, whether you believe it was a conspiracy or not, it definitely provided a very large window of opportunity.

The new Pearl Harbor arrived at 8:46 A.M. on the morning of September 11, 2001, less than eight full months into the Bush presidency .... Bush's first-day response to he attack appeared wobbly but the next few weeks were arguably the strongest of his presidency, highlighted by a well-received speech to Congress and a military move against Afghanistan that was supported by leaders of both parties and most Americans.

But behind the scenes, Bush and some of the PNAC alums immediately saw an opening for also ousting Saddam, strengthening America's presence in the world's main oil-producing region. "Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at the same time," Secretary Rumsfeld scribbled on a pad while the Pentagon was still on fire. "Not only UBL [Osama, or Usama, bin Laden]. Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not." By mid-2002, the push for invading Iraq, one of the things not related, was under way, and it became clear how much America and the world had changed. While Reagan had declared publicly that killing civilians in a military response to terrorism was "terrorism itself," U.S. officials spoke in 2002 and into 2003 of a new doctrine of "shock and awe," massive bombing aimed at scaring an enemy population into a speedy surrender. (3)

Sounded good to some, but why were they bombed in the first place?

In his book Lawless World, Philippe Sands, a law professor at University College London, describes the actions of the Bush administration as mounting to "a full-scale assault, a war on law."' This rejection of the rule of law and the global rules created following the Second World War has freed up a boisterous crowd of neoconservatives operating within the U.S. administration to unabashedly pursue policies aimed at enhancing America's global dominance. The administration's plans, the Wall Street Journal noted in March 2005, envision "a military that is far more proactive, focused on changing the world instead of just responding to conflicts" (italics added).' The distinguished U.S. journalist Mary McGrory captured this aggressive U.S. behaviour colourfully in a column in the Washington Post when she described America as the "SUV of nations. It hogs the road and guzzles the gas and periodically has to run over something—such as another country—to get to its Middle Eastern filling station."' (4)

David Frum and the Axis of Evil

While Ronald Reagan brought on members of the Committee on the Present Danger to direct his foreign policy, George Bush recruited directly from the American Enterprise Institute, including the Canadian David Frum, to act as speech writer. He has been credited with creating the term "Axis of Evil", but according to Frum the original speech read "Axis of Hate." With that speech, Frum was hoping to invoke the sentiments of Reagan's "Evil Empire' and FDR's justifications for going to war.

When Bush delivered his first post-9/11 State of the Union address, he stunned many watching by describing Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as an "axis of evil." Critics immediately questioned the remark, noting that not only did it seem overly aggressive but there was no evidence that the nations were working in concert, as was the case with the original "Axis" powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan, which had signed a nonaggression pact before World War II. (Iran and Iraq, in contrast, had fought a protracted war against each other in the 1980s.)

Delaware Democrat Joe Biden, who was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at the time, said that America's allies were confused by the resident's "axis of evil" remark, and so was he. "Was it meant to stake out a general notion that we know these guys are bad guys but not the only bad guys? NOr was it meant to be an all-inclusive list? Or was it ... a rhetorical connection between Roosevelt and Reagan—'axis' and 'evil'?" The short answer was, yes.

White House speechwriter David Frum, who authored that section of the speech, said he'd been reading up on Franklin Roosevelt's response to Pearl Harbor, in part because he wanted to learn how FDR had convinced the nation to enthusiastically support the war against Germany when it had been Japan that attacked the United States. He believed that the three nations made up what he called an "axis of hate," and he claimed Bush himself changed it to "evil." (2)

But Frum went beyond simple aggressive speech writing to launching a media campaign, along with Richard Perle, to demonize those he erroneously brought into his "Axis of Hate." Or as Gary Kamiya, in a review of their book, An End to Evil, put it: "Undaunted by the Iraq debacle, uber-hawks David Frum and Richard Perle air their fevered wet dream of a national-security superstate that slaps down uppity Muslims, bombs North Korea, slices and dices civil liberties and scatters the Palestinians like birdseed."(5)

Frum is a member of the Civitas Society, that helps to direct Harper's foreign policy, and a close associate of Jason Kenney's.

From Civitas: (You'll recognize most of the names because they are all tied to the Reform/Alliance/ Conservative Party

Founding President: William Gairdner

Other Past Presidents: Tom Flanagan, William Robson, and Lorne Gunter

Founding Directors: Janet Ajzenstat, Ted Byfield, Michel Coren, Jacques Dufresne, Tom Flanagan, David Frum, William Gairdner, Jason Kenney, Gwen Landolt, Ezra Levant, Tom Long, Mark Magner, William Robson, David E. Somerville, Michael Walker

Frum is the son-in-law of the controversial Peter Worthington and long time associate of Conrad Black. His sister Linda was given a patronage senate appointment by Stephen Harper.

Things in Afghanistan Now Worse Than Ever

With the leaked documents related to the War in Afghanistan, several important things have been revealed.

The most pertinent point for Canadians is that the situation in Afghanistan today is far grimmer than painted in the leaked papers. Obama’s military surge of 30,000 additional troops has not stopped the Taliban from controlling more territory. They are using more roadside bombs and hitting more NATO convoys and bases, even in Kabul. They are organizing more suicide bombing missions and assassinations.

The NATO offensive in Marjah also failed to root the Taliban out of that key district in opium-producing Helmand province. The area remains ungovernable, “a bleeding ulcer,” as the dear departed Gen. Stanley McChrystal called it. The much-touted offensive in Kandahar, designed to bring the entire Taliban-dominated south under NATO/Afghan control, was set for spring, then June, then July. It won’t begin this month, either, as the fasting month of Ramadan starts mid-August. It may not begin until October, if it all, the locals having revolted against the prospect of another American-led war. So much for the Afghans wanting us to liberate them from the Taliban, whom many now consider the lesser of two evils. (6)

I never supported the war in the first place. The Taliban government wanted to negotiate with the Bush Administration, and agreed to turn over Bin Laden if they had evidence that he was behind 9/11, but Bush turned them down flat. He wanted a war.

In fact, there was also an opportunity to create an allegiance with Iran.

What the world didn't know—but was reported four years later in the American Prospect—was that a back channel of cooperation to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan and deal with al-Qaeda, which Tehran saw as a threat, had secretly opened between the United States and Iran, and Bush's efforts to sound Reaganesque all but destroyed these links. (A second push for accommodation by Iran did come around the time of the Iraq invasion, but it was also rebuffed.) Rather than encourage and work with moderates in Tehran, the overt U.S. hostility was greeted with the election of hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president and escalating tensions over its nuclear program. (2)

We are now in a situation where we can't realistically pull out of Afghanistan, even if we wanted to. Harper has simply set a date for retreat, without any peace initiative He wants to "cut and run", meaning that all those lives and all that money was for nothing.

We need to resume our Peacekeeping role, while we rebuild, not simply hand everything over to the private sector as the Harper government proposes.

What a tragic waste

Footnotes:

*Including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld

Sources:

1. Message on the Observance of Afghanistan Day, Ronald Reagan, From the Oval Office, March 21, 1983

2. Reagan and Nuclear Disarmament: How the Nuclear Freeze movement forced Reagan to make progress on arms control, By Lawrence S. Wittner, Boston Review, April/May 2000

3. Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy, By Will Bunch, Free Press, ISBN: 978-1-4165-9762-9 5, Pg. 178-179

4. HOLDING THE BULLY'S COAT: Canada and the U.S. Empire, By Linda McQuaig, Doubleday Canada, ISBN 978-0-385-66012-9, Pg. 1-2

5. "An End to Evil" by David Frum and Richard Perle, By Gary Kamiya, January 30, 2004

6. Afghanistan: It’s even worse than you thought, By Haroon Siddiqui, Toronto Star, August 1, 2010

The Roots of Canadian Fascism: From Bad Boys to Worse Men

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

In the early 1980's, a grade thirteen student from Etobicoke, while at home on Christmas break, was listening to the radio, tuned into the upstart Toronto station: CKEY. On that day, the guest on their popular talk show was right-wing journalist Peter Worthington.

Listening to the exchange, this young man found that he could identify with Worthington, one of the staunchest critics of then Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

So he called into the station and on air suggested that the Liberals had turned into socialists, to which Worthington replied: "That young man speaks for millions of Canadians." (1) According to John Ibbitson it was at that moment when Guy Giorno's political thought took a sharp right turn. (2)

However, I think that may have oversimplified things. Though his father had been a delegate at the Liberal convention that named Trudeau as leader, Guy was probably drifting to the right before this.

"I had become increasingly disenchanted with Trudeau's arrogance. At the time the Liberals had railroaded metric down our throats, and I wondered what next? In the summer between grade twelve and thirteen, I had won a four day holiday at Camp Enterprise, a pro-business initiative sponsored by the Rotary Club. Up until then I had bought the Liberal idea that big business is bad. My attitude was starting to change." (1)

According to the Camp Enterprise literature, they " ... believe in the private enterprise system as a critical element of strength in the broadest, soundest governmental structure yet developed by man. It is on this foundation that Camp Enterprise was founded ..."

This now right-wing ideologically driven young man would go on to attend St. Michael's College, where according to Ted Schmidt, his name was bandied about, as a contributor to the right-wing Catholic Digest: "... a veritable house organ for the then Cardinal Carter*, mixed as it was with Cold War politics, slavish pro-Rome obeisance and one-note social activism - the anti-abortion movement." (1)

Reading Giorno's neo-con rants I used to wince - 'Nelson Mandela was espousing violence, unions have too much power, doctors should have the right to double bill', the list goes on. "How could they give a guy like this space in a Catholic paper?" I remember thinking ... [now] Giorno is one of the most powerful insiders in the Ontario Tory government. (1)

That was written in 1997. Schmidt continues:

Most Ontarians have never heard Giorno's name, but every one's life is going to be irrevocably changed by what he has in his head. Slowly, journalists are twigging to his favoured place in the Tory Constellation. (1)

In fact many in Queen's Park, though they knew of him and his unprecedented power, could not have picked him out in a crowd.

Guy Giorno himself continued to play a crucial role as policy director of strategic planning. Viewed by ministerial aides as a "true believer" who toiled at the centre of the web, he could be rigidly inflexible if departmental initiatives failed to conform to his expectations ... After three years at Queen's Park, the man ... described as the "intellectual heart" of the Harris government was still unknown to many**, including Liberal House Leader Jim Bradley, who allegedly asked to have him pointed out at a Queen's Park Christmas reception. (3)

And with Giorno's ideology and power, came an authoritarianism that was quite alien to what was supposed to be a democratic government. And every one's life is still being irrevocably changed "... by what he has in his head."


Another Young Head Gets Filled

The notion that Guy Giorno or Stephen Harper could have been thought of as "bad boys", would no doubt make their former classmates laugh out loud.

But it was not booze, drugs or rock and roll that directed their fall from society, but hard right politics. Introduced to William F. Buckley by his friend John Weissenberger, Harper's neo-Liberal views began to form while a student at the University of Calgary.

He was already a member of the National Citizens Coalition, when Preston Manning, with a lot of corporate money, set out to start the Reform Party. And at the opening assembly, the powers that be, arranged for Harper and his friend Weissenberger, to sit at a table with David Somerville, then president of the National Citizens Coalition.

The NCC was started by Colin Brown to fight against Tommy Douglas and Medicare. Initially Brown only placed full page ads in major newspapers, condemning public health care until he read a little book, called Political Realignment, written in 1967 by Ernest Manning, with the help of his son Preston. Brown immediately arranged to meet the Mannings and it was Ernest who encouraged him, instead of just paying for ads which could be forgotten, to instead set up a non-profit "free enterprise" advocacy group.

Ernest Manning also opposed Tommy Douglas, stating that "Giving to the individual societal benefits such as free medical care ... breeds idleness... causing a break down in his relationship with God ... where the state imposed a monopoly on a service ... the sinful philosophy of state collectivism scored a victory." (4)

Brown hand picked David Somerville, who was a columnist with the Toronto Sun, when Peter Worthington, the man who made Giorno "see the light" (by pushing him into the darkness), was editor.

However, the National Citizens Coalition was only a stepping stone for Harper. It was another group that he became involved with, that was far more disturbing.

The Northern Foundation:

"... the Northern Foundation was the creation of a number of generally extreme right-wing conservatives, including Anne Hartmann (a director of REAL Women), ... author Peter Brimelow, Link Byfield (son of Ted Byfield and himself publisher/president of Alberta Report), and Stephen Harper." (5)

And:

"‘The Northern Foundation was established in 1989, originally as a pro-South Africa group . . . lists among the founding members of the Foundation both William Gairdner and Stephen Harper ... " (6)

Their first order of business was to fight for the continuation of apartheid in South Africa, but they took up many causes of the right-wing movement, including the fight against gay rights.

The foundation's magazine carries a half-page ad in every issue for The Phoenix, a pro-white South Africa magazine, and regularly solicits support from members on special causes, from property rights to English language rights. Attacks on homosexuals and homosexual rights are frequent, including a call in the Winter, 1990 edition for "No Special Privileges for Homosexuals," which carried a special financial appeal for the fight against "tax dollars going to homosexual activists."

In its Spring, 1991 edition, it lists "thinkers and activists who are working for freedom." Among them are: David Somerville, of the NCC; Judy Anderson, of REAL Women; Ted Byfield; Link Byfield; Richard Pearman, who led the fight to have Sault Ste. Marie city council declare the city "English only"; Kenneth Hilborn of the NCC and pro-South Africa groups; columnist Barbara Amiel (Conrad Black's wife); and Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute. (6)

According to Dr. Debra Chin in the Canadian National Newspaper, "Toronto: Sun columnist Peter Worthington [has] been affiliated with the Northern Foundation." She also states that:

Corporate mass-media owners would seek to remake Mr. Harper and the Conservative Party from being ultra right, into a fabricated image of a non-threatening "moderately conservative" party ... “He [Mr. Harper] had little trouble doing so, as the media had been largely muffled by one fact: press baron Conrad Black, then reaching the height of his powers was also a member of the Northern Foundation and equally shy about having it publicly known ... Journalists feared incurring his wrath as he employed many of them at the time, and was a potential employer for those whom he didn’t employ. Had they made the membership list public, Mr. Black would have been exposed." (7)

Now apparently, according to Stephen Harper, he was kicked out of the group for not being right-wing enough and would refer to them as "Quasi-Fascists". (8) Fair enough.

However, I'm not sure that I believe him, and I'll tell you why in two words:

Civitas Society:

According to their own website:

Founding President: William Gairdner

Other Past Presidents: Tom Flanagan, William Robson, and Lorne Gunter

Founding Directors: Janet Ajzenstat, Ted Byfield, Michel Coren, Jacques Dufresne, Tom Flanagan, David Frum, William Gairdner, Jason Kenney, Gwen Landolt, Ezra Levant, Tom Long, Mark Magner, William Robson, David E. Somerville, Michael Walker

Let's break it down a bit:

William Gairdner - was a founding member of the Northern Foundation

Tom Flanagan - was the Man Behind Stephen Harper

Lorne Gunter - was with Ted Byfield's Alberta Report that helped to launch the Reform Party

Ted Byfield - helped to found the Reform Party and was the father of Link Byfield, a founding member of the Northern Foundation

Michael Coren - Is a notorious homophobe. Quotes of Coren's include: "While everything human must be done to find a cure for this plague [Aids], it is hard to deny that the majority of sufferers in North America contracted the disease through perverse sex ... Nobody cared very much about these men and women before AIDS was brought to North America and, frankly, nobody cares very much now."

David Frum - former George Bush speech writer who coined the term "axis of evil". He was also behind uniting the right and is a longtime associate of Jason Kenney and Stockwell Day. His sister Linda was one of Harper's patronage senate appointments and his father-in-law is Peter Worthington.

Gwen Landolt - is the president of REAL Women of Canada, and spoke regularly at Northern Foundation functions.

Tom Long - was a member of the Mike Harris government and one of the authors of the horrible Common Sense Revolution. He was also a member of what was referred to as the "Little Shits", along with Guy Giorno, Deb Hutton (Ontario Conservative leader Tim Hudak's wife) and Tony Clement. (1)

Mark Magner - was a member of the Canadian Alliance National Council, (The Alliance Party of Canada board) that included Jason Kenney and Stockwell Day.

David Somerville - Ex-president of the National Citizens Coalition.

Guy Giorno is also a member and in 2003 at their national conference, gave a presentation entitled "Transplanting Provincial Successes to Ottawa".

They are almost the same group as the original Northern Foundation. And if Stephen Harper wasn't right-wing enough for them, why did they invite Republican Pollster Frank Lutz, to instruct him on how to win a majority? And why is he a regular speaker at their "private" functions?

Now personally I don't care who belonged to what group. What I do care about is the fact that Guy Girono and Stephen Harper, were both indoctrinated when young into the neoconservative philosophy, which Harper himself described as "quasi-fascism', and are running this country with the help of the Civitas Society, the "new" vanguard group of the extreme right.

Guy Giorno-- or Double G, as he's known in government circles -- is probably the most powerful man you've never heard of. The 44-year-old former lawyer is the Prime Minister's [Stephen Harper's] chief of staff, a position he also used to fill for former Ontario premier Mike Harris. He is closer to the Prime Minister than any other individual in government and his counsel is sought on decisions that affect millions of people and billions of dollars. (10)

Both men are driven by pure ideology. And as warned by Ted Schmidt in 1998, when speaking of Guy Giorno: "... every one's life is going to be irrevocably changed by what he has in his head." (1)

This is not your parent's Conservative Party. Harper has already suggested at the G20 that nations must adopt a neo-Liberal (neoconservative) platform. When speaking at the Reform Party assembly in 1991 he stated that Canada should drop the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security, and had no business providing what was then called unemployment insurance (now EI). He also told the NCC that "It's high time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act."

He bailed out our banks to the tune of 200 billion dollars so that they could provide their execs with an 8 billion dollar bonus. This is the party of big business, while the rest of us just get in their way.

I for one am not ready to be "irrevocably changed" by what is in their heads. Are you?

Footnotes:

*Cardinal Gerald Emmett Carter (1912-2003) was a key player in the pro-life movement during the Trudeau years when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was being drafted.

**"When Guy Giorno, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, made a rare public appearance recently to testify before a House committee looking into government secrecy, even some veteran Parliament Hill news photographers needed to have him pointed out so they would know which way to aim their lenses."(6)

Sources:

1. The Man Behind Mike, by Ted Schmidt, NOW Magazine, January 8-14, 1998

2. Promised Land: Inside the Mike Harris Revolution, By John Ibbitson, Prentice Hall, 1997, ISBN: 0136738648, Pg. 76

3. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 170

4. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin, Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, Pg. 9

5. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, By Trevor Harrison, University of Toronto Press, 1995, ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6, Pg. 121

6. Dobbin, 1992, Pg. 100-101

7. Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper demonstrates continued ultra right wing affiliations by blocking pro social justice Toronto candidate, by Dr. Debra Chin, Canadian National

8. Jeffrey, 1999, Pg. 430

9. Judging Giorno, By John Ivison, National Post, February 20, 2010

10. Guy Giorno: national man of mystery, by John Geddes, MacLeans, May 31, 2010

Society for Academic Freedom and Canadian Constitution Foundation

As progressives are starting to understand, the funding, planning, and coordination of the conservative movement has led to tremendous success in elections and government policy. But another arena of ideological competition has gone largely beneath the radar. An asymmetric political war is raging at universities across the country, and once again conservatives are running circles around progressives.

The campus Left, which is still organized for the most part by students and community activists, increasingly finds itself facing off against seasoned conservative strategists. And while progressive student groups are mostly self-funded, by the mid-1990s roughly $20 million dollars were being pumped into the campus Right annually, according to People for the American Way.

That money and expertise are directed at four distinct goals: training conservative campus activists; supporting right-wing student publications; indoctrinating the next generation of culture warriors; and demonstrating the liberal academic "bias" that justifies many conservatives' reflexive anti-intellectualism. (1)

In the United States much of this movement is being orchestrated by Morton Blackwell and the Leadership Institute. In Canada, it is the Manning Centre for Building Democracy, which was started with a ten million dollar anonymous contribution. What Manning is operating is anything but democratic, as he is stirring things up in a very negative way, at university campuses across the country.

The U.S. movement has had a thirty year head start, but in Canada they didn't need a head start, because most of the funding and expertise for the Canadian anti-Democratic movement is being shipped over.

I've been following the Canadian Constitution Foundation, that gets a great deal of funding from places like the Donner Foundation, Atlas Foundation, Aurea Foundation, etc., as well as from anonymous donors, who could be just about anybody.

The founder, John Weston is a Harper MP, and the current director, John Carpay; not only ran for the Reform Party but also worked on Stockwell Day's leadership campaign. They claim to take on "free speech" issues, but they have little to do with actual free speech, but more to do with an attack on common decency.

In a kind of upside down world, that they strive to create; Christian "values" now mean hatred for anyone not white, male and praying to some vengeful god at least 18 hours a day, and groups like CCF are paving the way.

But there is another group also turning Canadian Academia on it's head: The Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship. Their founding president is Doreen Kimura, a professor at Simon Fraser University. Kimura is a critic of affirmative action, and believes that males are biologically superior to females.

When I first found their site I was encouraged, because I noticed that they had taken up the cause for York University students. But alas, they are just another right-wing "non-partisan" group promoting nuclear holocaust in the middle east. They suggest that York has taken sides in the conflict against Israel. These so-called scholarly minds feel that by objecting to Apartheid in Gaza, you are somehow against all Jews.

Tom Flanagan is one of their directors, Stephen Harper's former right-hand man. You can also link to all of their campaigns here.

They are quite clever though, because they use an opinion piece written by David Frum to validate their claim that York is bias. Frum is a former speech writer of George W. Bush, his sister Linda was a Harper patronage senate appointment and he is one of the founding members of the Civitas Society. The Civitas Society where the current president of the Society for Academic Freedom, Clive Seligman, was invited to help answer the question "Can the universities be saved?"

I'd like to know if they can be saved from people like Clive, but I don't think that's what they meant.

Jason Kenney is also a founding member of Civitas. For those who don't know, Kenney and David Frum were Siamese twins, separated at birth, but they still speak with just one voice. It's uncanny really. You barely see Frum's lips move.

We've got to start exposing these groups, that all have ties to the Harper government. Peter Kent tried to interfere in York University elections. Steven Fletcher attacked the student newspaper in Manitoba, Peter Braid tried to teach students at Carleton how to cheat the University out of money.

As Joshua Holland says, these right-wing student activist groups are being handled by seasoned conservative strategists. But they are also being funded by corporate sponsored think tanks and foundations, and are linked to current members of government. Progressive students are on their own, and ill prepared to handle this assault.

Their best defense is to ignore them, but they are aggressive. When students at the University of Manitoba were engaged in a day of protest against poverty, campus conservatives, under the direction of provincial conservative MLA, Hugh McFadyen; formed a human chain to prevent their progress toward the legislature, hoping for a physical confrontation.

These guys are not fooling around.

Sources:

1. Why Conservatives are Winning the Campus Wars, by Joshua Holland, Campus Watch, August 7, 2005

Ted Byfield and the Company of the Cross

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

In June of 2003, little more than a year after winning the leadership of the Alliance Party of Canada, Stephen Harper told members of the Civitas Society that he would now be embracing the support of the Christian right in Canada. Looking on with approval was long time mentor, and a founding member of the Reform Party, Ted Byfield.

He had been there in the early days when Harper was first cutting his political teeth and was in attendance when he delivered his "Achieving Economic Justice in Confederation" speech at the opening assembly of the Reform party on October 1, 1987.

In his presentation, Harper recited a litany of western grievances, from Macdonald's National Policy to 'the unlimited appetite of the Welfare State for tax grabs' and 'the special treatment accorded the Province of Quebec' in the form of transfer payments 'paid exclusively by Western Canada.' He then stated his reasons for believing that the existing political parties were incapable of correcting these injustices ... But Harper's comments regarding the Conservative party were the most telling, revealing implicitly where the new party believed its greatest potential support lay:

"... the Mulroney government has shown itself far too willing to back down on the issues that matter to its political base. We must serve notice to the Red Tory leadership that we will provide its Western supporters an option they can desert to en masse should they, for any reason, fail to successfully deliver on [free trade] or any other major initiative of importance to Western Canada. (1)

Manning would call his throwing down of the gauntlet speech the best of the weekend and Stephen Harper would then be named the head of Reform policy, and would serve as Manning's lieutenant. The same role that father Ernest Manning had played for William Aberhart, decades before.

Ted Byfeld had played an integral role in the formation of the party, through his Alberta Report magazine. He not only advertised their conventions and assemblies but before it's formation, he began running columns suggesting that it was time for a new Western party. The seed was planted and bore fruit on that fateful weekend in Winnipeg.

Things could have gone quite differently for Ted Byfield after a tragedy and controversy that continued to rage for several years after. It ended on a lake in Ontario but began several years before.

Company of the Cross and the St. John's Schools

Ted Byfield was a journalist who began his career as a copy boy for the Washington Post. Returning to Canada in 1948, he wrote for the Ottawa Journal, the Timmins Daily Press and later the Winnipeg Free Press. In the 1950s, he underwent a religious conversion after reading books by C.S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton.

Inspired, he joined the Anglican Church and working through them opened a private Christian school; Saint John's Cathedral Boys' School, and in 1962 left journalism to teach there full time. In 1968 he opened another near Edmonton and later a third in Ontario.

The schools were said to be cult like, run by a lay religious order, the Company of the Cross, who lived in a communal apartment building, and were paid a mere dollar a day. When Byfield started his magazine in 1973, he used the same group to create and deliver the publications, which regaled against things like homosexuality, abortion, the public education system, crime and prostitution.

The students at his schools didn't fare much better than the staff. They did all the janitorial work, cooking and serving food, cleaning the kennels of the sled dogs they raised, and even making and selling processed meat products door-to-door for fundraising (hopefully not from the sled dogs they raised). Byfield and co-founder of the schools, Frank Wiens, believed that boys were not challenged by the education system or by society in general, so pushed them to their breaking points to "build character", and if they didn't toe the line, they were dealt with a "flat stick across the seat of the pants."

In 1974 the National Film Board produced a glowing documentary about the schools:

St. John's Cathedral Boys' School, at Selkirk, Manitoba, is the most demanding outdoor school in North America, but it cannot accommodate all the students who would like to enroll. Boys of thirteen to fifteen begin with an initiation tougher than they have ever faced: paddling canoes through some five hundred kilometers of wilderness in two weeks, portaging and camping all the way, learning not only outdoor lore but cooperation and self-confidence as well.

But then in 1978 a gruelling canoe trip turned deadly for the Ontario campus. "The tragedy occurred after a group of 27 boys, aged between 10 and 15, and four instructors from St. John's School of Ontario, in Claremont, northeast of Toronto, began canoeing up Lake Timiskaming, about 370 kilometres northwest of Ottawa." Twelve boys between the ages of 12 and 14 and one instructor were drowned. (3)

There had been storm warnings earlier in the day that had either been ignored or missed.

James Raffan wrote a book about the tragedy, and took issue with the schools, that he stated were little more than sweatshops. He also expressed surprise with the attitudes of the parents and staff after the deaths. They seemed to be very defensive of the school's program, and unwilling to cast or share blame. (4)

However a law suit filed years later revealed the horrendous details of life at one of the schools.

A private Christian boys residential school near Edmonton, renowned for its tough discipline, has been sued by a former student for alleged physical and mental torture during and after a wilderness trip more than a quarter-century ago ... in the 14-page document he "was forcefully exposed to experiences on the trip that put his life, health and safety at risk."

The 10-day trip, which began on Sept. 2, 1976 -- the day after the then 13-year-old boy arrived at the school near Stony Plain, 30 kilometres west of Edmonton -- was comprised of a 100-kilometre hike through steep mountain passes and a 500-kilometre canoe trip through some of the most treacherous parts of the North Saskatchewan River.

"The plaintiff states that the defendant's putting his life at risk by forcing him as a 13-year-old boy, untrained, unprepared and unsuitable to participate in the dangerous and unsafe physical activities of the wilderness trip, such as the long and arduous canoe trip often through treacherous waters, as well as its other conduct and treatment of him, amounted to a callous and wanton disregard of his safety and well-being and of his civil rights and a betrayal of his trust," the claim alleges.

The claim says the school's staff picked on and encouraged other students to pick on the weak, subjecting Birkin to "public ridicule, contempt, humiliation, degradation and sadistic and verbal abuse." Birkin spent 10 days in Stony Plain Hospital following the trip, suffering from ulcers on his feet and legs and blistering on his thighs. According to hospital records, the claim says, when Birkin was admitted he had a large bruised area and linear marks on his buttocks which he told a doctor had come from being beaten with a stick to make him hike faster.

He claims that while he was on the canoe portion of the trip, when he was exhausted and unable to keep up with the five other student paddlers, he was
repeatedly struck in the lower back with a heavy wooden paddle. ... It is not the first major claim of negligence against Saint John's School, which has an enrolment of about 130 students and 30 staff and is located on 110 hectares of bush, park and farmland.

A 15-year-old boy, Matt Riddel, sued the school for $1.7 million in 1996 after he lost nine toes to frostbite on a winter camping trip. He sustained his injuries during a four-day, 50-kilometre snowshoe and dogsled expedition, under the supervision of the school's teachers, in which temperatures dropped to -28 C.

The schools are all closed now and his magazines defunct, but Byfield has moved on to other things. Besides being a founder of the Civitas Society, he also helped to found the Canadian Christian Coalition, based on the American counterpart, after attending a Washington Convention in 1995. Jason Kenney is also a founder of CCC and a founding member of Civitas.

Sources:

1. Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada. By Trevor Harrison Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6, pg. 116

2. Harrison, 1995, Pg. 60

3. Ville Marie, QB Canoe Accidents, Winnipeg Free Press Manitoba , June 14, 1978

4. Deep Waters: Courage, Character and the Lake Timiskaming Canoeing Tragedy, By James Raffan, Harper Collins, 2002

5. School sued after 26 years, By Daryl Slade, Calgary Herald, February 08, 2003

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