Not a Good Time for Stephen Harper to be Compared to Richard Nixon

The historian Garry Wills once observed that Richard Nixon wanted to be president not to govern the nation but to undermine the government. The Nixon presidency was one long counterinsurgency campaign against key American institutions like the courts, the FBI, the state department and the CIA. Harper has the same basic approach to politics: attack not just political foes but the very institutions that make governing possible. The state for Nixon and Harper exists not as an instrument of policy making but as an alien force to be subdued.

If it's not the media, or the courts, or the Senate, or Elections Canada, it's the Wheat Board, the federal government's own spending power, the bureaucracy, the gun registry ... Canadians should rightly wonder why their head of government has such a problem with so many Canadian institutions. (1)

It certainly is a "wonder" and a bigger "wonder" how someone who hated our institutions this much, was given the job of upholding them.

From Nixonland to Harperland, a story is told of unprecedented control in what are supposed to be healthy democracies.  National Post's Kelly McParland said that it was the result of a "siege mentality".

One of the many online encyclopedias defines “siege mentality” as “a shared feeling of helplessness, victimization and defensiveness” which “refers to persecution feelings by anyone in the minority, or of a group that views itself as a threatened minority.” If there’s anything that typifies the Conservatives under Mr. Harper, it’s the notion that anyone outside the party is to be viewed with suspicion, and even within the party trust is to be handed out sparingly. Beyond the fortified redoubt of the Prime Minister’s inner circle, everyone is on permanent probation. (2)

Richard Nixon kept enemy lists maintained by Watergate plumber Chuck Colson.  Word was that you didn't want to get on that list.  Many in the media did make it there.

"Never forget," he tells national security advisers Henry Kissinger .. and Alexander Haig in a conversation on December 14 1972, "the press is the enemy, the press is the enemy. The establishment is the enemy, the professors are the enemy, the professors are the enemy. Write that on a blackboard 100 times." (3)

Harper's enemy list extends to young girls who share photos of themselves standing with his political opponents, on Facebook.

There is yet another book written on the life of Richard Nixon, that uncovers not only more control and paranoia, but a violent temper, a battle with alcoholism, wife beating and even homosexuality.  I'll leave out the last three in comparing Harper to Nixon, but his pathological control and violent temper are well known, despite attempts to keep it from the public.

Harper's former VP when he headed up the National Citizens Coaltiion, Gerry Nicholls, writes in his book Harper, Me and the NCC, that Harper's temper is not red hot but icy blue, and when he was in a "mood" you kept out of his way.

Lloyd Mackey in The Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper, tells of a chair throwing incident at a Conservative Party convention because things were not going his way.

Former Alliance MP Larry Spencer, in his book Sacrificed: Truth or Politics, relates an interview he had with Harper, where he was torn down for a radio interview, in which he spoke of a "homosexual agenda".  Harper wasn't angry about about the gay bashing, but it's timing, suggesting that he was "put up to it" by his political enemies.

Belinda Stonach and Garth Turner took similar dressing downs, where the air was so blue, the big guy may have set a new record for his use of profanity.  Others have confirmed, off the record of course, that Harper has quite a potty mouth, and they never want to get caught in his verbal line of fire.

In the many books written on Stephen Harper, the authors have tred softly, opening up many areas for discussion, that for the most part have remained closed.  Of the ones I've read, Lawrence Martin's Harperland and Christian Nadeau's Rogue in Power, are the most revealing, and the ones that we should be paying attention to.

Jeffrey Simpson in his critique of Harperland wrote for the Globe and Mail:  Looking for Nixon-like tendencies in Harperland

... the interesting comparisons arise between Mr. Harper and Mr. Nixon. By all accounts, and especially those in Harperland, the Prime Minister is not only a partisan, as all prime ministers must be, but he viscerally hates Liberals. His objective is not just to defeat but to obliterate the Liberal Party of Canada. For that purpose, the gloves are off all the time, from nasty attack ads against Liberal leaders to ritualistic, partisan punches from him and his ministers.

Mr. Nixon saw enemies everywhere: in the media, the “liberal elites,” the Ivy League colleges .... He carried enormous resentments, remembered many past slights, and bottled them up inside where they fed paranoid streaks in his character. He was a control freak, and demanded that his staff act accordingly.

With the release of Nixon's Darkest Secrets, Harper might want to tone it down a bit, before someone starts looking for his.

Sources:
 
1. The Canadian Nixon: Stephen Harper's feud with Elections Canada is just the latest front in his war against government institutions, By Dimitry Anastakis and Jeet Heer, The UK Guardian, April 24, 2008

2. Harper discovers it's easy to find enemies, if you look hard enough, By Kelly McParland, National Post, April 23, 2008

3. Recordings reveal Richard Nixon's paranoia: Recordings show Nixon urged staff to use all means to discredit his political opponents, both large and small, By Dan Glaister, UK Guardian, December 3, 2008

Hooligans and How the Cultural Left Can Beat the Political Right

This week in the Winnipeg Sun, a column by Tom Brodbeck; Hooligan Harper haters: Crime bill protestors partisan hypocrites, irked me on many levels.

From the eye rolling "Harper haters" that's been done to death, to the notion of opposition to Bill C-10, being a partisan issue.

I contacted Mr. Brodbeck and asked if he had actually spoken with any of the protesters.  He dismisses anyone who challenges this government's policies, as simple "Harper haters", without asking those protesting how they actually feel about Mr. Harper.

Why is it that when Liberal governments bring in tougher sanctions for serious crimes they’re seen as being thoughtful and concerned about public safety?

But when Prime Minister Stephen Harper brings in harsher sentences for sex offenders and killers, he’s a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who wants to jail everyone and throw away the key. It’s a bit of a double standard.

Many are simply angry over the Draconian crime bills, that are even being denounced by the law and order state of Texas. 

Brodbeck also dismisses the protesters as "hooligans".  A hooligan by definition is "a rough lawless young person."  In the image he provides, I see no roughness, unless you count a profanity on a sign, and I see no laws being broken.  In a healthy democracy dissent is not only allowed but should be welcomed, as proof that we do indeed live in a democracy.  As Lawrence Martin reminds us in his book, Harperland: The Politics of Control:

“In the run-up to the election, Stephen Harper had rolled out the rhetoric on the need for clean and transparent government, expressing frustration with Paul Martin's Liberals over their alleged secrecy and obstructionism. "When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent," Harper declared in a statement to be later viewed as notable for ironic content, "Is frankly when it is rapidly losing its moral authority to govern.”

However, with so much "dissent" over Bill C-10, rumour has it that Stephen Harper is planning to simply again prorogue.  According to Lori Turnbull in the Globe and Mail:

Rumour has it that Prime Minister Stephen Harper is planning yet another prorogation of Parliament. This means the work of the House of Commons, including its committees, would stop and our elected officials, as a group, would be rendered incapable of performing their basic functions, including holding the government to account in Parliament. 

The prorogation rumours are not surprising, given the other tactics the government has employed to “manage” opposition scrutiny. During the current parliamentary session, the Conservative government has invoked strict time limits on House debates on complex bills, including its omnibus crime legislation, and forced committee proceedings behind closed doors, out of the public eye.

Stifling dissent, operating behind "closed doors", and limiting debate.  This man has no shame and clearly no "moral authority to govern".

Hats off to the Hooligans

If a "hooligan" is simply someone who opposes government policies or practices, then I think we must pay homage to history's "hooligans".  Like Harriet Beecher Stowe (above) who protested against the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law that prohibited assistance to fugitives.  Wrote Stowe:  "I feel now that the time is come when even a woman or a child who can speak a word for freedom and humanity is bound to speak... I hope every woman who can write will not be silent."

Though arguably not a youth at 40, when she wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin, she inspired others, young and old, by injecting an anti-slavery message into popular culture.  And of course her work with the abolitionist movement is legendary.

But what of other "hooligans"?

Like Barbara Johns, who at the age of 16, took over her black high school and shut it down, leading to the legal crisis that wound up in the U.S. Supreme Court as Brown v. Board of Education, the case that ended legal segregation in America.

Or Claudette Colvin, who at 15 in 1955, defied segregation laws by refusing to surrender her bus seat for a white passenger, choosing instead to be arrested.  Civil Rights leaders contemplated organizing a bus boycott then, but were concerned with Colvin's age.  How much traction could the movement obtain by backing a "hooligan"?  It wasn't until 42-year-old Rosa Parks, inspired by the young activist, did the same, that they had their heroine.

And what of the "hooligan" Joan of Arc, or the less well known, Sybil Ludington, who like Paul Revere took a famous ride.  At just 16,  Ludington rode twice the distance Revere did, through a rainstorm no less, to warn the countryside that Red Coats were sacking Danbury,  Connecticut.  Ludington alerted militia men, and the militia was able to stop the invasion, chasing the Red Coats back to their ships.  A "rebel" on the right side of history.

Or how about the 15-year-old Louis Braille, who created the Braille writing system, while a student at Paris's Royal Institution for Blind Youth.  Teachers at the school revolted, banning students from using it, claiming that the paper-punching note-taking was noisy and disruptive.  Braille has changed the lives of so many people living without sight, because he was a rebel.

Young "hooligans" like Brigette Depape, who challenged authority with the 'Stop Harper' sign on the Senate floor; or Emma Sullivan, who refused to apologize to a governor for a disparaging remark she left on Twitter, are inspirational.  I hope Pat Martin is now following Sullivan.  If we can't even Tweet dissent, where is our democracy?

Or maybe Brodbeck should wonder about another political agitator, or "hooligan",  born into a time of occupation and oppression.  Arriving at an annual festival, with a very large following, he attacked the greedy bankers, was later arrested and put to death.  His name was Jesus of Nazareth.

We can't dismiss youth simply because they are young, nor can we dismiss those wonderfully crazy enough to believe they can change a vote, a policy, a bill, or the world.

We go along to get along until someone doesn't. 

Why I Believe That the Cultural Left Can Beat the Political Right

There is a very interesting book, written by Michael Kazin, American Dreamers: How the Left Changed a Nation.  In it he discusses, as the title implies, the contributions made by the Left to Western culture.  Naturally, the New Right is trying to topple them all, and yet they are not succeeding, I think because the notions of justice and injustice are fundamental to who we are.

Critics have blamed liberals for not doing enough to denounce right-wing rhetoric, but the nature of liberalism is in support of free speech.  The Right likes to use "free speech" as their rallying cry, but the fact is that they only promote "free speech', when that speech is what they want to hear. 

Kazin argues that liberal, or left culture, can impact the political, when their message resonates with voters, even when they are not involved with a political party.  Chances are pretty good that the young people in Brobeck's photo, are not affiliated with any.

Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, was not really anti-slavery.  In fact, abolitionist Frederick Douglass, called Lincoln "the white man's president".  In 1864, one year after the Emancipation Proclamation, Douglass threw his support to Lincoln's opponent, John Fremont (he was not able to actually vote until 1869).   Lincoln only began to listen to the abolitionists, mid-way through the Civil War, when he realized that emancipation could speed victory for the North.  Almost 200,000 black soldiers then joined the fight, recruited by Douglass himself.

A cultural movement inspired a political change.

The post WWI militant union activists, did not gain real validity, until FDR realized that he needed labor votes.   Lyndon Johnson gave up on the white South, to denounce Barry Goldwater.  He won in a landslide, and passed Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts.

Says Kazin, "For a political movement to gain any major goal, it needs to win over a section of the governing elite", but that doesn't mean that they began the movement on behalf of any political party.  They only worked through, or against, the government of the day.

In a January 2003 column, headlined It's not Canadians who've gone to the right, just their media, Lawrence Martin quoted an unnamed European diplomat as saying "You have a bit of a problem here. Your media are not representative of your people, your values. Too many political commentators are right of centre while the public is in the middle.  There is a disconnect."

If you judged the Canadian mood based on our media, you might think that Canada is indeed a right-wing country.  However, that is not the case.  We repeatedly prove in opinion polls, that we are progressive, and care about things like poverty, war, climate change, human rights, etc.

If Stephen Harper had to rely solely on his base for votes, he would probably be leading a third or even fourth place party.  In fact, his Reform-Alliance had stagnated by 2003, propped up primarily by the West.  It was only when he bought out the rights to the PC party and began calling himself a "Tory" that he was able to garner more mainstream support.
 
He himself wasn't pleased with the new name.  He had referred to the PCs as "elitist" and called Red Tories "Pink Liberals" promising to "jettison them" from the party once he took over.
 
In January of 2004, he told the Hamilton Spectator, when asked if his Reform-Alliance Party would now be called 'Tories':

"It's actually not a label I love… I am more comfortable with a more populist tradition of conservatism. Toryism has the historical context of hierarchy and elitism and is a different kind of political philosophy. It's not my favourite term, but we're probably stuck with it." (Stephen Harper, Hamilton Spectator, January 24, 2004)

He may have felt that he would be "stuck with it", but capitalizing on the "Tory" name has given him enormous political advantage, since many people who vote for him, believe they are actually voting "Tory".  The media has perpetrated a grave injustice, by allowing him to keep up the facade.

Returning again to Martin's Harperland:

The merger was a ruse of sorts. This was no equal partnership. The merged party had five times as many Alliance MPs as old Tory ones. In the election before this merger, the Alliance Party had won sixty-six seats, the Tories only twelve. Before long, Harper won the leadership of the new party, making the domination of the Reform-Alliance wing even more pronounced. This wasn't so much a merger as the Alliance Party's annexing of an auxiliary group.

This is actually good news for the "Occupy" movement, because most Canadians are not right-wing, but have an ingrained sense of justice and faith in democracy.  If the 99% of those who feel that they are not being given equal opportunities for success, or the roughly 2/3 who did not vote for the New Right party of Stephen Harper, or even those who voted Conservative, having fallen for the bait and switch, come together; we could see positive political change.

We won't alter Harper's ideology, but his own party could demand that he loosen the reins, if they are forced to wear his full frontal assault on our democratic institutions, with his unheard of control.  They can't enjoy being muzzled and scripted.
 
We could also inspire opposition parties to include our demands in their platforms.  They'd be crazy not to.
 
Says Kazin, "The divergence between political marginality and cultural influence stems, in part, from the kinds of people who have been the mainstays of the left." 
 
Not necessarily, those who march, clash with police, get arrested or want to overthrow the government; but those who have been able to articulate their grievances.  People like Martin Luther King Jr., Harriet Beecher Stowe and Tommy Douglas. 
 
The Occupy Movement has our attention, as they are beginning to articulate their message, and Canadians are listening.
 
So hats off to the "Hooligans" and thumbs down to a column that condemns them without cause.

The Conservative and Government Websites May be the Same But The Slogan Belongs to Neither

Dan Gardner pointed out today on Twitter that the Conservative Party's and the Government of Canada's, websites were almost identical.

Conservative Site.

Government's

But the slogan they are using Stability, Security, Prosperity; is stolen.

The right-wing European People's Party, have that as their motto, as does the American Tea Party Patriots.

Their version is part of Americans for Prosperity (Koch Brothers) who promote "stability and security".

Americans for Prosperity are helping Harper with his healthcare reform (service will depend on the size of your bank account) and the Koch brothers with the pipelines that will send all the good jobs South.

Still think we're a sovereign nation?

James Moore's Double Standard

Heritage Minister James Moore is angry. Apparently, a Canadian punk rock group, Living With Lions, who received a government grant, trashed Christianity and the Bible on their latest album.

Ezra Levant reached into his bag of prose and called them "a bunch of losers".

James Moore issued a statement calling the CD “offensive” and “simply wrong” and expressed his “profound disappointment” with the grant.

But where was his outrage last week, when we learned that taxpayers helped to sponsor the Islamophobic Geert Wilders, as part of the Tulip Festival?

Moore could have stopped his appearance, but didn't. The Right refer to Wilder's hate filled diatribes as "freedom of speech". Why then is Living With Lions not given the same consideration?

They are an anti-establishment punk band, who would appeal to a very small demographic, though the headlines will probably help them sell more albums.

However, there is a troubling double standard taking place in Canada today.

Geert Wilders fine, George Galloway out. Hate speech at a Tulip festival fine, young people expressing themselves silenced.

Welcome to Harperland.

Signs of the Times and Harper's Permanent Markers

The Canadian Press has learned that several Conservative cabinet ministers expressed the desire to make the Canada Action Plan signs permanent.

Those temporary Economic Action Plan signs promoting federal stimulus projects have proved so popular with Conservative cabinet ministers that some want to make them permanent. Documents obtained by The Canadian Press reveal that a formal recommendation for a “permanent signage” program went to Prime Minister Stephen Harper last Dec. 17 — at the request of his ministers.

“Interest has been expressed by ministers in the placement of permanent signage at selected, completed Economic Action Plan (EAP) project sites,” says the opening line of a 12-page memo to the prime minister dated Dec. 17, 2010. “If you agree, we will work with departments and your office to ensure implementation of the guidelines.”

The proposal was rejected, but they got around it by opting for plaques instead, like this one in Tony Clement's riding. A permanent reminder that he paved roads to nowhere.

But what the plaques don't tell you is that the Harper government handled the planting of signs like the Gestapo.

The federal government is taking flak for its extensive use of "Canada's Economic Action Plan" signs marking infrastructure projects Ottawa has supported. Halifax NDP MP Megan Leslie spoke out against a sign the Harper government had installed on an uninhabited island in Halifax Harbour. "There's no one over there," Leslie said Wednesday. "This government is obsessed with, 'We need to get credit for this.' It's all about political games."

The signs, which are seen at a range of projects across Canada, only acknowledge federal support, though it is often the case that other levels of government have contributed. Cathy McCarthy, a member of the Friends of McNabs Island Society, said they had to install the sign, take a photograph of it and note the GPS coordinates to get the $73,500 in federal funding.

And despite the fact that the funding came from three levels of government, no Harper sign, no tax dollars.

So what next? No public funds unless you name the project after King Steve?

The Harper Highway to Texas? The Harper School for the Ignorant Masses?

Alicia Gordon and Randy Camp Denounce Democratic Principles That Stand in the Way Of Multinational Corporations

Ralph Surette, one of my favourite columnists, writes this week: Why Harper must not have his majority

In it he tells the story of how after exposing Harper's treaty with the European Union, that allowed multinationals to take over our fisheries, he received a threat from one of his MPs.

Shortly after, I got a call from Randy Kamp, parliamentary secretary to the fisheries minister and an MP from B.C., who aggressively demanded that I tell him where I got my information and rang off with "the government of Canada is unhappy with you." Keep in mind that in many, if not most, countries on the face of this Earth, a phone call like that from a government official to a journalist constitutes a death threat.

I was disturbed, but also baffled. I’d had governments unhappy with me for 40 years and never heard the like, and nothing in the Canadian tradition explained it. So I assumed this was just one out-of-control individual who didn’t know his job. I checked with people I know in Ottawa. They told me emphatically: "That’s them. That’s them exactly!"

Allan Gregg in his review of Lawrence Martin's book Harperland, confirms that that is exactly how Harper and Co. conduct business. With threats and intimidation.

And what Surette found even more disturbing, was that despite the fact that the elected MPs voted against the treaty, Harper signed it anyway. He just does as he pleases.

Majority or minority it won't matter. We need to vote him out. It's that simple.

This Sure Isn't Canada. It's Harperland Now

Another interesting video has surfaced, where police officers during the G-20 weekend from hell, tell peaceful protesters that they weren't in Canada now (about the 4 minute mark in video at bottom).

Like they needed to be told.

York police media officer Sgt. Gary Phillips said the incident was the subject of a citizen’s complaint. In the video, a woman’s voice from behind the camera points out that the protesters are not within 5 metres of the cordoned-off zone — the area in which Torontonians were led to believe, erroneously, that they could legally be searched by police officers at whim. The male protester insists that, as a Canadian, he has the right to refuse the search. But the officer disagrees. “This ain’t Canada right now,” he says.

The Politics of Authoritarianism: "I've Never Seen Anything Like It"

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

"In a democracy, a wannabe tyrant is just a comical figure on a soapbox unless a huge wave of supporters lifts him to high office." - Bob Altemeyer

When accusations arise that Stephen Harper is too controlling, his supporters will attempt to compare him to people like R.B. Bennett, Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien. All of these men took a disciplined approach to governing.

However, the most common remark heard from supporters and critics alike is that they have never seen anything like this before. Not in Canada. Not in a democracy.

Two years into his governance, the man who brought in the Accountability Act was already hearing complaints that he was one of the most unaccountable prime ministers ever. A couple of other words were being used more often to describe Stephen Harper: autocratic and authoritarian. (1)

Pierre Trudeau certainly expanded the size and power of his office, and Jean Chretien kept an iron grip on his caucus, but Harper surpassed even Chretien.

Chretien had nothing like the extraordinary vetting system put in place by the Conservatives. Advisers Eddie Goldenberg and the late Jean Pelletier did wield enormous power--especially in the later years, when Chretien faced an internal uprising from Paul Martin's supporters—but at least caucus members and civil servants felt free to talk to the media without prior approval. (1)

And over the past five years Stephen Harper has continued to wield enormous control, while refusing to be accountable for any of his actions.

We know why the corporate media let him off the hook, "corporate" being the operative word, but why do his followers?

You see it constantly as they come to his aid, leaving their comments at the end of articles, even when they expose corruption.

It's part of what Bob Altemeyer calls Authoritarian Submission.

Everybody submits to authority to some degree. Imagine a world in which people ignored traffic laws and sped through red lights. The cost of auto insurance would shoot through the roof (although the line-ups to buy it would become much shorter). But some people go way beyond the norm and submit to authority even when it is dishonest, corrupt, unfair and evil. We would expect authoritarian followers especially to submit to corrupt authorities in their lives: to believe them when there is little reason to do so, to trust them when huge grounds for suspicion exist, and to hold them blameless when they do something wrong. (2)

But what of the roughly 2/3 of the population who didn't vote for Stephen Harper?

They also appear to be submitting to his authority, questioning very little. They are the ones who frighten me more than the Harper devotees.

Is it just that it's become the new norm? According to Allan Gregg discussing Lawrence Martin's book Harperland:

Even though it has become a cliché to refer to Stephen Harper as a control freak, the power of Martin’s argument hits you like a jackhammer. Those of us who follow these things quite closely remember a number of occasions when the Conservatives have found themselves in hot water because of allegations of abuse of power, but we tend to forget just how frequently this has occurred and the myriad forms this malfeasance has taken over the last four and a half years. (3)

Maybe that's why it's working. We're shell shocked.

He was going to be a different prime minister and indeed he was. And though he was operating more like a monarch than an elected Member of Parliament, his people still defended him.

[They] were content to explain away the abuse of power with the rationale that other PMs had done it and therefore so could Harper. The line of reasoning hardly served to enhance the state of democracy. The system, said [Donald] Savoie*, had devolved into a "court government," with the leader and a few select courtiers, most of them unelected, exercising power with kingly presumption. Savoie had hoped that Harper would move away from such a model once he'd settled in to office. But in fact, he was going the other way. (1)

We've never seen anything like it.

Footnotes:

* Academic and specialist in governance and public administration

Sources:

1. Harperland: The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 120-122

2. The Authoritarians, By Bob Altemeyer, Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, 2006

3. Negative Statesmanship: Stephen Harper may end up being known for what he does not do more than for what he does, By Allan Gregg, Literary Review of Canada

The Politics of Fear Mongering: The Subtext is Muslim

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

To the condemned Jews of Auschwitz, Canada had a special meaning. It was the name given to the camp barracks where the food, clothes, gold, diamonds, jewellery and other goods taken from prisoners were stored. It represented life, luxury and salvation; it was a Garden of Eden in Hell; it was also unreachable.

In effect, the barracks at Auschwitz symbolized what Canada was to all the Jews of Europe throughout the 1930s and 1940s—a paradise, enormous, wealthy, overflowing and full of life; but out of bounds, a haven totally inaccessible ... a story summed up best in the words of an anonymous senior Canadian official who, in the midst of a rambling, off-the-record discussion with journalists in early 1945, was asked how many Jews would be allowed into Canada after the war. His response, though spontaneous, seems to reflect the prevailing view of a substantial number of his fellow citizens: "None," he said, "is too many." (1)

Fast Forward to present day Canada:

Among those who saw a pattern of discrimination in the actions of the [Harper] government was Gar Pardy, the former head of the consular services section of the foreign affairs department. Opposition MPs were suspicious as well. Charlie Angus, an NDP MP from Northern Ontario, said he was told by an immigration official of discriminatory practices by his department. The department would periodically post photos of newcomers on advertising displays to promote immigration. "They identified who gets in these photos in terms of what ethnic groups they were interested in," said Angus. But one group, he was told, was deliberately left out of the promotion materials. "They said, 'No Muslims.' This came down from government orders." (2)

You would almost believe that in 65 years Canadians had remained a country of exclusion. Where entry depended upon race, colour or religion. An unreachable Garden of Eden for the majority of the world's people.

And yet we know differently.

So why are we tolerating an immigration policy of "No Muslims"? Or the marginalizing of one million Muslim Canadians?

It's fear mongering. The same fear mongering used in Nazi Germany to justify human atrocity. Jews were working with Communists to take over the world the people were told. In fact the Social Credit Party, the forerunner to Reform-Alliance-Conservative, was founded on the notion of a Jewish conspiracy. (3)

And if you're rolling your eyes, thinking that was a long time ago, Marci McDonald, in her book Armageddon Factor, speaks of a conference she attended at Tristan Emmanuel's ECP (Equipping Christians for the Public-square) Centre*: "Islam: The Threat at the Door."

"The one threat that is greater to Western Civilization than Secular Humanism ... is the tyranny of Islamic Fundamentalism." ** Accordingly, the conference featured a mysterious former Islamic jurist from an unnamed North African country who had converted to Christianity after reading the Bible ... Under the cover of a protective identity, Sam Solomon, as he called himself, spent his time touring the West with Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, warning against the perils posed by his former faith.

Despite the mystery about his origins, Solomon turned out to be a regular on the evangelical conference circuit—such a regular, in fact, that it turned out I had seen him months earlier as the keynote speaker at the closing banquet of the Christian Legal Fellowship's annual conference, where he delivered a show-stopping performance. There, wiry and immaculate in a tuxedo, a microphone pinned to his lapel, Solomon roamed the ballroom floor, his timing worthy of a Vegas pitchman and his script packed with vivid and chilling details. His speech was punctuated by abrupt geysers of Arabic quotations from the Koran, barked out in the tones of a vengeful imam, then, just as suddenly, his voice dropped to a theatrical whisper as he recounted the heinous plot by fanatical Muslims to take over Canada.

"Islam is not a religion in the Western sense of the word," he declaimed. "It's a socio-political, socio-economic, socio-educational judicial and militaristic system, often garbed in religious terminology. There is not one word in the Koran about peace. The Koran is full of hate, violence, rape and the spoils of war." [Obviously he hasn't read the Old Testament]

At times, his speech smacked of an anti-immigration tirade as he brandished the spectre of a day when Canada would boast a non-white majority. That impression was reinforced when he pinpointed the government's defining misstep: the moment it adopted multiculturalism as an official policy. Other countries, including Britain, had done the same, Solomon declared: "Now the whole of the Western world is sinking under the weight of Islam."

... What most shook his audience of Christian lawyers, however, were his tales of an economic jihad being waged around the globe, complete with shariah-compliant banks in Britain and the launch of an Islamic index on the New York stock exchange. (4)

A "heinous plot by fanatical Muslims to take over Canada ... an economic jihad being waged around the globe." It has a familiar ring, doesn't it?

On December 7, 1943, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix published a petition by the Canadian National Committee on Refugees and victims of political persecution. It was during a time when Canada was thought to be a "paradise, enormous, wealthy, overflowing and full of life; but out of bounds" for Jewish refugees.

They ask the question: WHY IS CANADA AT WAR?

Is it not simply to preserve a place in the world for human decency? Is it not because we believe no man or race has the right to enslave or destroy another man or race? Is our unaccountable expenditure of lives, labor and wealth justifiable for any lower reason?

If the cause of humanity is worth such an effort, it is also worth the consideration of a the plight of a few thousand refugees ... Putting it another way, the whole Canadian war effort is weakened unless the principles which motivate it are applied in the specific, immediate and practical issues. Fighting Hitlerism means fighting Hitler's most bestial acts. It means rescuing those whom he would kill, giving sanctuary to those lucky enough to escape from him. It means admitting some of those refugees to Canada.

All this should but it is not. Canada, one of the richest and most sincere of the United Nations, should be first in giving refugees the right and room to live, which they were robbed of by Hitler. But she is among the last.

Stephen Harper's new love of Israel, means that we must hate Muslims by default. His junior foreign minister, Peter Kent, has suggested that a pre-emptive strike in the Middle East, is no longer a case of if, but when. (5) And Harper recently stated that he's "got bruises to show" for speaking out in the international community against enemies of Israel. Any enemy of Israel is an enemy of ours.

Is this reflective of the national mood or simply a case of national apathy?

Further to the 1943 petition:

To refrain from signing it [the petition] is to endorse the present attitude toward the refugees. An attitude little better than Hitler's. ... how much Canada will actually do will undoubtedly be greatly influenced by the number of signatures secured for this petition.

Let Canada remove this moat from her eye so that she can better see the beam in Germany's. Thousands of Canadians have already written in their own blood their responsibilities to Hitler's victims. We back home can at least put our responsibility in ink.

Unfortunately the Canadian response was weak.

There have been many apologies made for the way we treated not only Jewish refugees, but Jewish Canadians in general, since that time.

But who in 65 years, will apologize for us?

Footnotes:

*Tristan Emmanuel ran the election campaign of Ontario MP Randy Hillier, one of Tim Hudak's caucus members. He also worked on Jim Flaherty's leadership bid and when he held a pro-Iraq war rally, under a group he started 'Canadians for George Bush'; Jim Flaherty, Stockwell Day and Tim Hudak all spoke.

**Suggested reading: HOLDING THE BULLY'S COAT: Canada and the US Empire, By Linda McQuaig, Doubleday Canada, ISBN 978-0-385-66012-9

Sources:

1. None is Too Many: Canada and the Jews of Europe 1933-1948, By Irving Abella and Harold Troper, Lester & Orpen Dennys Limited, 1982, ISBN: 0-919630-31-6, Preface ix

2. Harperland:The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 201

3. Social Discredit: Anti-Semitism, Social Credit and the Jewish Response, Janine Stingel, Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press ISBN 0-7735-2010-4, Pg. 13

4. The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada, By: Marci McDonald, Random House Canada, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-307-35646-8 3, Pg. 304-306

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

Another Nation Gives Canada the Heave Ho as the Iron Curtain Closes a Little Tighter

Herr Harper is closing our iron curtain a little tighter, with the United Arab Emirates telling Canadians to stay the hell home.

They didn't use those exact words, but the list of nations spewing our name is growing.

We are so reviled, according to Brent Popplewell, that some Canadians travelling abroad are sewing American flags to their caps and backpacks.

Harper's new flag with a bullet and handcuffs, will no doubt soon be mandatory in Harperland, and he has personally designed uniforms for us all to wear.

They come in two colours. Khaki green and khaki greener.

Somebody please tell me that this is all a bad dream.

John McCain Criticizes the Cost Overruns of the F-35.

Despite criticism from all quarters, Stephen Harper is determined to go ahead with the purchase of the F-35s.

John McCain once said of these expensive and ill designed jets:

“I share our allies and friends’ deep disappointment about the cost overruns and the difficulties that have, we’ve experienced in development of this aircraft.” “It’s shameful almost the way that these cost overruns have continued in most major weapons systems that we develop in the United States. It’s got to stop.

It’s got to be fixed-price contracts. We’ve got to stop the cost-plus contracts.” “I can assure our friends that I will keep a very close watch on it, because the cost overruns so far have been absolutely outrageous.”

But this is Harperland. Expert opinions mean nothing to our king.

Omar Khadr: With All Due Respect. Canadians do Care. We Just Don't Know It.

On April 24, 2009, in response to queries about Omar Khadr, Lawrence Cannon shocked Members of Parliament and the media alike, when he stood up and made the claim:

" ... last night we were able to see television footage of Mr. Khadr's alleged building and planting of explosive devices that are actually planted in Afghanistan. Those devices are the devices that basically have taken away the lives of young Canadian men and women."

Khadr was tried in the House of Commons, based on the American television show 60 Minutes.

In July of this year, Lawrence Martin wrote a column in which he criticized our government's decision to not repatriate Omar Khadr, but did not confine his anger to the Harper government, but also expressed displeasure with the Canadian people.

To avoid depression over the standards of justice in this country, here’s a tip: Stay away from opinion polls on Omar Khadr. If you ever thought Canadians were a progressive, fair-minded people who believed in equal rights before the law, these soundings tell a different story.

They say most Canadians don’t want the Toronto-born Mr. Khadr to be returned to Canada from Guantanamo Bay for a legitimate judicial process. All other nations have repatriated their Gitmo detainees. Led by our counterclockwise Justice Department, we are the lone heathen holdout. (1)

First off, most polls that I read, showed the Canadian people were split down the middle on the issue. But the problem with polls is that the headline that accompanies their publication, is often misleading. And for those who read only the headlines, if they are called the next time the poll comes around, they often base their judgement on the headlines and not the facts.

The Omar Khadr case is far too complicated to be condensed to a few, often leading questions. And I think that if the poll was conducted after first giving Canadians all the facts, the results would be quite different.

The question was, should Omar Khadr be allowed to return to Canada and be tried by his peers? But before presenting the question, it should have included the fact that Canada was the only country NOT to repatriate our accused, housed at Gitmo. The only one. That's important information.

And they should also mention the fact that Khadr was a "child soldier".

And that he had been indoctrinated from the age of nine.

And they should remind us that when in Afghanistan, his homeland was invaded and occupied. Many children worked with the French Resistance, fighting Nazi occupation. They were considered to be heroes. I'm not suggesting that Omar Khadr is a hero, but he's not a monster either. He was the victim of circumstance, and as a Canadian citizen, deserved the same rights afforded all Canadians.

Or at least that's the way it's supposed to work.

New Laws in Harperland

Traditionally, Canadian leaders had tried to be a moderating influence on the foreign policy of American presidents. But with Harper and Obama, the roles were reversed in some areas. One was Guantanamo. Aware that the prison's judicial standards, bordering on the medieval, were damaging the American reputation for human rights, Obama was bent on closing it down, as was the Republican candidate, John McCain. Harper differed. He had no such inclination. He gave the impression that it was fine with him.

Even to many Tories, Harper's stance on Omar Khadr was primitive. Khadr was fifteen when he killed a U.S. special forces soldier in the midst of a firelight in Afghanistan. From all appearances, the Canadian-born youth had been indoctrinated by his terrorist father and jihadists since he was nine. Accused of terrorist activities and spying, he had been incarcerated in a Guantanamo cell since 2002. He was the only citizen of a Western country to remain there; all other nations had demanded that their Gitmo detainees be returned to home soil, where they could face legitimate jurisprudence.

... In the case of Khadr, six former Canadian foreign affairs ministers, including John Manley and Joe Clark, wrote an open letter of appeal to Harper, but it was ignored. Canadian courts repeatedly ruled in favour of repatriating Khadr. Guantanamo, the courts ruled, represented a clear violation of Canada's international human rights obligations. The verdicts found that Khadr's Charter rights had been violated. Even the conservative National Post would headline an editorial "Bring Back Omar Khadr." (2)

So why was Harper ignoring even his loyal fans? According to Martin, Harper " put forward a political argument, saying that the government, not the judiciary, should be the final arbiter of foreign policy. In this instance, the Supreme Court, while declaring that Khadr's Charter rights had indeed been violated, refused to order his repatriation. It said it would be inappropriate to dictate the diplomatic steps necessary to address the breaches of those rights. On this issue, Harper won the case. In the conduct of foreign affairs, his powers were deemed pre-eminent. (2)

He wanted to make it clear that his voice and his voice alone, spoke for Canada.

No courts, experts or human rights advocates would have a say. In Harperland, only Harper matters.

Throughout, the Tories refused to give their reasons for not repatriating Khadr. Wesley Wark, an Ottawa professor and the past president of the Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence was appalled at the arrogant silence. "The Harper government's view that it does not have to explain its actions," he said, "is nothing short of breathtaking."

At the same time, the Harper government rebuffed requests by the Obama administration to help resettle dozens of Guantanamo detainees and close the prison. The recalcitrance was striking. It was a matter, in the case of Khadr, of supporting high standards of justice or not. Harper chose not.

A Matter of Opinion?

Facing renewed criticism, the pollsters are once again coming to his aid, creating the impression that Canadians agree with the anointed one.

I think the most ridiculous, is this one published in the Sun.

OTTAWA — In a showdown between terrorist Omar Khadr and serial killer Russell Williams, Canadians say Khadr is the bigger threat to the public. Ottawa’s Abacus Data asked Canadians which of the two men, whose trials have dominated headlines recently, is the greater threat to Canada’s public safety. About 34% of respondents chose Khadr, 24% chose Williams, and the rest chose neither man. (3)

OK. First of all, who is the biggest threat to the public, Khadr or Williams? Who dreamt up that ridiculous question? It's apples and oranges. Omar Khadr killed in battle, Russel Williams is a rapist and serial killer. It was obviously intended to create the impression that Khadr was dangerous.

So I read down a bit and saw that the poll was conducted by Abacus Data.

I know. I'd never heard of them either. But I have heard of their president David Colletto. Colletto is a colleague of Harper insider Tom Flanagan, both belonging to the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy. And yet the Sun doesn't mention that.

The headline should have read 'Harper pal conducts country's most idiotic poll.'

And the information that Canadians should be privy to before answering any poll concerning Khadr:

The civilian populations are the first victims of contemporary armed conflicts. Over the course of the past decade, wars will have cost the lives of two million children and mutilated six million children. Many of them have been victims of sexual violence. Twenty-three million children are refugees or victims of forced displacement, often separated from their families or orphans. Each year, 10,000 children are victims of antipersonnel mines. Worldwide, there are more than 250,000 child soldiers at the heart of modern wars.

Omar Khadr was a child soldier and since 1999, the UN Security Council has adopted six major resolutions aiming to fight the phenomenon of child soldiers

But in July of 2009, Embassy Magazine reported that:

With subtle strokes of the pen, it appears the Conservative government has been systematically changing the language employed by the foreign service and, as a result, bringing subtle but sweeping changes to traditional Canadian foreign policy ... Among the changes identified [is]replacing the phrase "child soldiers" with "children in armed conflict."

... Striking Out 'Child Soldiers', while it might appear to be one of the least controversial language changes cited—changing "child soldiers" to "children in armed conflict"—sources told Embassy this may be related to the case of Omar Khadr... at the political level there is a sense that children involved with terrorists groups are not child soldiers, and that's simply not the case under international law."

Mr. Neve [ Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada] raised concerns about possible ramifications for the issues around Mr. Khadr. He said there is a very particular, legal reason to recognize him as a child soldier and to weaken that language could suggest an intention to avoid the legal obligations that come with it. (4)

If international law contradicts the views of Stephen Harper, Stephen Harper just changes international law, with a simple stoke of the pen.

In Harperland only one person's opinion matters and even legally binding international agreements mean nothing. Harper has spoken. End of.

Welcome to the new realities in the country formerly known as Canada.

Welcome to Harperland.

Sources:

1. In the matter of Omar Khadr, shame on us, By Lawrence Martin, Globe and Mail, July 15, 2010

2. Harperland: The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 199-200

3. Khadr a bigger threat than Williams: poll, By Brian Lilley, Parliamentary Bureau, Toronto Sun, November 3, 2010

4. "Gender Equality", "Child Soldiers" and "Humanitarian Law" are Axed from Foreign Policy Language, By Michelle Collins, Embassy Magazine, July 29, 2009

The Politics of Exploitation: The Haiti Crisis Revisited

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

There is an interesting summary of Stephen Harper's response to the Haiti earthquake, in Lawrence Martin's book Harperland. He first describes how Harper was in trouble over the prorogation and how the resulting anger dominated the news.

The Haiti crisis then provided him an opportunity to change the channel and present himself as a take charge kind of guy.

A national day of protest as planned, belying the notion that Canadians were apathetic, that they didn't care about the functioning of their democracy. The momentum kept building, and then in an instant it was gone. A magnitude 7.3 earthquake struck near the capital of Haiti, sending tens of thousands to their deaths. It was one of the worst natural catastrophes in a century. Images from Port-au-Prince cast a pall over everything. Suddenly, arguments over the propriety of shutting down Parliament, or any other issue of public policy, seemed a trifling comparison.

The priority became a massive aid campaign, and the prime minister set about it in a blaze of activity. No one could accuse him of sitting idle now. Among the many fortunate breaks Harper had received in his career, the timing of this tragedy ranked high.

There was a month go before the Vancouver Olympics, and until the earthquake, he was destined to be on the defensive that entire month. The opposition parties had the wind in their sails, and the national protest day was promising to be a dramatic event. But Haiti totally consumed the airwaves for two weeks running, knocking prorogation and the planned protest to the back pages.

Harper hardly had the image of a great humanitarian or friend of & United Nations. But given the opportunity to change the political channel and lead a humanitarian effort, he did so with great aplomb, winning applause from all quarters. He dispatched the military in a timely fashion; made good use of his cabinet, most notably Peter MacKay and Lawrence Cannon; was more than generous with financial aid; played host to a quickly assembled international conference on the crisis, and shared the spotlight with a shaken Michaelle Jean, the Haitian-born governor general.

The epic catastrophe also allowed Harper to showcase the rebuilt armed forces. Canada's once sluggish and ill-equipped peacetime military was now well tuned and ready to respond to a crisis. When the 2004 tsunami struck, Canadian medics and engineers had to wait days to hitch a ride, as it was put, to get there. But this time, Canada's big new military aircraft were doing the job. (1)

Aside from the obvious, exploiting a crisis, there are many statements in the above that show either a deliberate attempt to gloss over the situation, or a misunderstanding based on the popular media reports of the day.

However, I suppose Martin is only tackling the story from the political perspective, and he's right. It was a gift. Just not for the victims of the quake, who received very little.

He Dispatched the Military in a Timely Fashion

Aside from my knee jerk reaction to the statement, "Among the many fortunate breaks Harper had received in his career, the timing of this tragedy ranked high", which was to resort to language I couldn't use here, let's break down this great humanitarian effort.

He did indeed show off our hardware and the planes took off with great thrust and enthusiasm. The people in Haiti needn't worry. Help was on it's way.

Harper's dispatch of troops matched a similar response from the United States. The military must first restore order we were told. But before saving lives?

It seems that the military was given landing preference over medical supplies and health personnel.

A Doctors Without Borders/Médecins SanscFrontières (MSF) cargo plane carrying 12 tons of medical equipment, including drugs, surgical supplies and two dialysis machines, was turned away three times from Port-au-Prince airport since Sunday night despite repeated assurances of its ability to land there. This 12-ton cargo was part of the contents of an earlier plane carrying a total of 40 tons of supplies that was blocked from landing on Sunday morning. Since January 14, MSF has had five planes diverted from the original destination of Port-au-Prince to the Dominican Republic. These planes carried a total of 85 tons of medical and relief supplies. (2)

And the Navy ships that Harper dispatched with "great aplomb"? According to the Chronicle Herald:

OTTAWA — When HMCS Athabaskan and HMCS Halifax were ordered to sail on a humanitarian mission to Haiti on Jan. 13, they worked through the night, passing boxes hand to hand, loading stores aboard the ships — everything they would need for the humanitarian mission. But sailors didn’t take aboard much in the way of relief aid — food packages, medical supplies or shelters — for distribution to Haitians.

In the House of Commons on Thursday, during his response to the speech from the throne, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said otherwise. "Ships of the Atlantic fleet were immediately ordered to Haiti from Halifax, loaded with relief supplies," he said as he recapped the government’s efforts to help Haiti recover from the earthquake.

... During the voyage, some sailors wondered if the ships might have been better off staying in port a little longer — say 12 hours — to take on more relief supplies, food aid and medical equipment before sailing for Haiti. (3)

They could have used a little less "aplomb" and a few more necessities. And they could have done it with just 12 more hours.

And we also learn that 10 months after the crisis, only 35% of the promised money (matching Canadian citizen's donations) has been delivered by our government.

The Canadian International Development Agency says only $65.15 million has been paid out so far. The $65 million that has been delivered has been to large agencies only, among them ones identified by many observers as the least able to deliver timely aid directly to victims. (4)

1.3 million Haitians are still living in tent cities and a cholera epidemic is threatening more lives.

So pardon me if I don't get all warm and fuzzy over our country's response to this crisis. These people have been exploited for years, which is why they were so poor in the first place. And sadly, our prime minister saw an opportunity to exploit them some more for his own political career.

And he wonders why we lost the UN Security bid.

This is who we are now, and life in Harperland is just peachy keen.

Continuation:

The Haiti Crisis Revisited: Canada's Military Response

The Haiti Crisis Revisited: Why is Haiti so Poor?

The Haiti Crisis Revisited: It Was All a "Commie" Plot

Sources:

1. Harperland:The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 241-242

2. Doctors Without Borders Plane with Lifesaving Medical Supplies Diverted Again from Landing in Haiti Patients in Dire Need of Emergency Care Dying from Delays in Arrival of Medical Supplies, January 19, 2010

3. The Halifax Chronicle Herald, March 12, 2010

4. Aid doesn't help Haiti much if it never gets there, By pogge, Peace, Order and Good Government, November 5, 2010

The Politics of Sucking Up: Handling the Quebec Question

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

"Look. I've got to suck up to Quebec, so just shut up and let me get on with it." Stephen Harper (1)

When Stephen Harper announced that he would be giving Quebec a "distinct society" status, many of his supporters were shocked, including his minister of Inter-governmental affairs, Michael Chong, who was not consulted on the plan. He resigned his position as a result.

This was a complete 180 for a party that had always taken a strong stand against Quebec nationalism.

The Reform party is very much a modern manifestation of the Republican movement in Western Canada; the U.S. Republicans started in the western United States. The Reform Party is very resistant to the agenda and the demands of the secessionists, and on a very deep philosophical level. (1997 speech to the
Council for National Policy) Stephen Harper (2)

When Stephen Harper suggested that the Reform party was against giving into Quebec on a "very deep philosophical level", he meant it. It was very deeply ingrained.

Preston Manning was a fan of Abraham Lincoln and in many ways saw himself as the man who would unite the country by getting tough with Quebec. He even hinted that violence may be necessary and often worked parts of Lincoln's 'A House Divided' speech into his own.

The Reform Party would represent English Canada with an Anglo hierarchy. French would be "allowed" in Parliament and the courts, but not mandatory anywhere. (3)

So it's interesting from Lawrence Martin's Harperland, that Stephen Harper was only interested in Quebec for his own political gain. A superficial gesture just for show.

But then he blew it when he went ballistic during the 2008 coalition "crisis", painting the entire province with a separatist brush. And his rhetoric further inflamed the West against La Belle Province. His remarks about the unsuitability of the Bloc Québécois involvement in the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition were characterized by professor C.E.S. Franks of Queen's University, Kingston, as "inflammatory and tendentious rhetoric' . (Globe & Mail, March 2009).

I remember comments at the end of online articles, often becoming so visceral, the editors would have to close down the comments section. One man suggested that "the boys from Alberta" need to come down and teach those you know what a lesson. It was horrible.

Dennis Pilon, a political scientist at the University of Victoria, stated that : "I do not mean to be an alarmist in suggesting that we may be heading for violence. But the actions of this prime minister are coming dangerously close to inciting mob rule." (4)

I don't think Stephen Harper or the Reform Party really understood Quebec grievances or their French-Canadian culture. He was often dismissive. When on Fox News in 2003 telling Canadians that Chretien was wrong not to go to Iraq, he suggested that "Only in Quebec, with its "pacifist tradition," are most people opposed to the war. Outside of Quebec, I believe very strongly the silent majority of Canadians is strongly supportive."

Quebec may have a "pacifist" tradition but they are not unlike most Canadians in that regard.

And then when speaking to the American Council for National Policy he brought up the Meech Lake Accord and the demands made by the province.

The establishment came down with a constitutional package which they put to a national referendum. The package included distinct society status for Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a whole bunch of other things.

I guess it also means he doesn't understand the rest of us either, because most Canadians would not be "horrified" by universal Medicare, feminist rights and "a whole bunch of other things" (aka: gay rights).

But now that we know he was only "sucking up" to Quebec, and "had to get on with it", then it's all OK. Wink. Wink.

Sources:

1. Harperland:The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 82

2. Full text of Stephen Harper's 1997 speech, Canadian Press, December 14, 2005

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

4. Losing Confidence: Power, Politics and Crisis in Canadians Democracy, By Elizabeth May, McClelland & Stewart, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-7710-5760-1, Pg. 226

Another Canadian Author Stands up To Harper and Wins

There is a disturbing pattern with the Harper government whenever anyone challenges them. They put them in their cross hairs and then go on the attack. It usually works.

Then along came Margaret Atwood.

She stood up to the bullies and won. Score one for the good guys.

Now we have another brave soul refusing to be victimized. One of Canada's best authors and journalists Lawrence Martin was subjected to the usual nonsense after the release of his book Harperland.

He was called a Liberal hack, but Martin is no Liberal, nor is he a hack.

The Prime Minister's Office is, predictably, dismissing Lawrence Martin's fascinating new book -- Harperland: The Politics of Control -- as the work of a Liberal sympathizer.

This ignores Martin's crusading pursuit of past Liberal misdeeds, from Shawinigate to the sponsorship scandal, but, also, the intriguing fact that most of the author's sources are former intimates of Stephen Harper's. And they're speaking on the record.

"Former" is the operative word, of course. No one who wants to keep their job, or pursue a career in the capital, can afford to be openly critical of this wary, self-protective prime minister. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews illustrated the approved technique recently, when asked about federal funding for hockey arenas: "Whatever the leader said, I stand by what the leader said."

And when Kory Teneycke denied telling Martin that Harper was going to go see the Queen if the Governor General refused his request to prorogue, he simply denied it.

He forgot that Lawrence Martin is smarter than the whole lot of them.

He produced a tape. Hee, hee.