The Canadian Manifesto 10: The Exploitation of Religion Has Many Victims

David Kuo was a foot soldier in the Evangelical army that stormed the White House for George W. Bush. He eventually came to realize that his role was purely political, and that the Bush administration had no intention of honouring their promises.

At a particularly bad time, when his spirits were at their lowest, Kuo was asked by a senior official what they could do to fix things.

"For starters", Kuo said, "you could stop calling us the f...ing faith-based group". They had been reduced to an annoyance and diminished through profanity.

Kuo, like many others, had been led into politics by people like Ralph Reed and Karl Rove, believing that he could make a difference.  His "faith-based" priority was to end abortion, but he also wanted to eradicate poverty, improve education and set higher moral standards for politicians.

Instead he spent his time polishing Bush's halo and fundraising for the Republicans.  So he resigned and wrote a book of his experiences; Tempting Faith: An inside Story of Political Seduction.

Kuo advises that Evangelicals need to take a time-out from political activism, and re-connect with their faith. 

I have seen what happens when well-meaning Christians are seduced into thinking deliverance can come from the Oval Office, a Supreme Court chamber, or the floor of the United States Congress. They are easily manipulated by politicians who use them for their votes, seduced by trinkets of power, and tempted to turn a mission field (politics) into a battlefield, leaving the impression Jesus' main goal was advancing a particular policy agenda. I know: I've seen it, I've done it, I've lived it, and I've learned from it. (1)

"Little Platoons" of Soldiers for Christ

“To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link in the series by which we proceed toward a love to our country and to mankind."  Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

One of Kuo's bosses and mentors was Chuck Colson, who rallied his troops under the battle cry:  "Storm the battlements for Christ!" 

Using Edmund Burke as inspiration, an army of political Evangelists would have to create "little platoons" that could be easily mobilized to bring down the enemy.

Of course, this meant different things to different people, and for David Kuo, an enemy he was inspired to destroy was poverty.  What he found instead was that he had been inducted into an army trained to attack the poor.  He referred to them as "little platoons against the welfare state".

Using terms not unlike those used by Harrisites (Mike Harris) and Harperites, he had allowed himself to be convinced that only "tough love" would heal the nation, and that the only way to get people off welfare was to make them work.  (2)

When Mike Harris first ran in Ontario, he promoted the same thing, prompting many on social assistance to vote for him, believing that he would help them find a job.  Instead they had their benefits slashed by 22% and were left to their own devises, looking for jobs that never existed, and would never exist.

More "tough love" was aimed at single mothers, especially those who had children out of wedlock.  "Welfare needed to stop paying people to have illegitimate children and needed to be a much tougher way of life". (2)  Spoken by someone who has never had to live as a single mom on the meagre welfare "hand out".  It doesn't get much tougher than that.

In Ontario under Harris, John Baird became so ruthless that it resulted in the death of a singe mom, who was trying desperately to claw her way out from under the welfare system.  His reaction:  Oops!

The "faith-based" crew saw the government undermining God, by providing services that ought to be left to the Church and their "little platoons".  Yet churches and poverty have co-existed for centuries, so clearly that strategy wasn't working.

Conservative activists love to quote Edmund Burke as inspiration, often citing:  "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".  However, that quote cannot be found in any of Burke's writings.  The closest attribution comes from Tolstoy's War and Peace.

An actual quote of Burke's, is the one they should be paying attention to:

"The interest of that portion of social arrangement is a trust in the hands of all those who compose it; and as none but bad men would justify it in abuse, none but traitors would barter it away for their own personal advantage.”

"Faith-based" Organized Crime

One area in which George Bush's "faith-based" group hoped to have an impact, was in the allocation of government grants.

Conservative Republicans were in the midst of derailing carefully laid plans. One thing they wanted was more Charitable Choice—that is, a broader range of religious charities eligible government grants ...  Now, with a conservative evangelical president in the Oval Office, with Republicans controlling the House and nearly the Senate, some conservatives thought it time to allow "real" faith-based groups to receive federal funding. In short, they wanted to allow groups that aimed to convert people [my emphasis] to a particular faith to be able to receive direct federal grants which was far beyond what Charitable Choice was actually intended to do.

They also wanted numerous large federal grant programs converted to vouchers so that grant recipients could have access to plainly religious groups. Finally, they wanted to give religious groups receiving public funds an unfettered right to hire and fire people based not only on their professed religion but on whether they lived according to the "rules" of their religion ( no gay Catholics, pork-eating Orthodox Jews, bug-killing Jainists, leather-wearing Buddhists, or drinking Christian fundamentalists). They wove these objectives together into a single, highly partisan bill. It wasn't exactly the legislation-free bipartisanship that Brother John had hoped for. (3)

This was not charity, but proselytizing, and taxpayers were being asked to fund it, despite the fact that unless they adhered to the stringent requirements, they would see no benefits.  Only the corporate sector and the "God for the creation of personal wealth" elite few, would cash in.  A perfect example of this, is one I already provided, that is taking place in private (for-profit) corporate prisons.

Hundreds of millions of dollars to "save" instead of rehabilitate prisoners.*  Cha ching, cha ching.

Another priority for "faith-based" was a change in the tax laws that would make it more appealing to donate to charities.  That too got lost in the shuffle.

In my third day on the job, President Bush signed the tax cut that had been one of his top priorities .... There were cuts in capital gains taxes (p: from the sale of stocks and land). The inheritance tax was with the exemption slowly increasing to $3.5 million ($7 million for couples) .... But something was missing: the president's promised $6 billion per year in tax credits for groups helping the poor. Those tax credits had been the centerpiece of compassionate-conservative efforts for years and the centerpiece of the president's own compassion agenda during the campaign. The best estimates projected that the proposal would create more than 11.7 million new givers throughout the country, stimulate an additional $14.6 billion in charitable giving in the first year and more than $160 billion over ten years, and increase current giving levels by 11 percent.  Unfortunately, those charity tax credits weren't listed by the White House as must-haves, so the House skipped over them. (3)

Bush's changes only benefited the already wealthy, or soon to be wealthy, as couples could now inherit up to seven million dollars without paying a dime.  This hurt charities, because it meant that there would be no incentive to give some of it away, as a means to avoid paying tax.  The wealthy recipients could just keep it all, and usually did.

The National Council of Churches spoke out against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, that favoured the rich as a means to "balance the budget".  Their General Secretary Rev. Dr. Bob Edgarru, said that "There’s no budget surplus if there are still people living in poverty."

As millions of people – parents and children, the elderly, people with disabilities and the working poor – are driven to seek charity to meet their most basic needs, we are appalled that the focus of attention in this Congressional session is not on meeting their needs; rather, it is on tax cuts that will mostly benefit the affluent."  (4)

The tax cuts and changes to tax laws, actually hurt legitimate charities, because the corporate sector only found a new way to not only avoid paying taxes, but also to obtain government grants.  What I like to call "Faith-based organized crime".

And those "little platoons" were demobilized, only to be called to action again, when they were needed to fight another election.

So Again, What Does This Have to do With Us?

Kuo tells us that prominent Republican pollsters like Frank Luntz and John MacLaughlin, advised that issues should be framed in such a way as to appeal to "religious conservative voters".

Frank Luntz has worked with the Reform-Alliance-Conservative Party for many years, and was the one who told Stephen Harper to talk about hockey as much as possible, to sell himself as a man of the people. (5)

John McLaughlin is the ad man who handled campaigns for the National Citizens Coalition (where Harper was president) and according to his 2004 bio:

John McLaughlin has worked professionally as a strategic consultant and pollster for twenty years. During this time he has earned a reputation for helping to guide underdog Republicans and conservative challengers to victory. He has worked across America and internationally in hundreds of campaigns.  Within the past year, John McLaughlin has helped elect Iain Duncan Smith, the leader of the Conservative Party (United Kingdom); Stephen Harper, the leader of the Canadian Alliance Party (Canada); Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore; and a historic 30-seat Republican majority in the Virginia House of Delegates. (6)

Stephen Harper digested the "Bible according to Republican strategists", and has tapped into the vote-rich and cash-rich, Religious Right.

He has also tapped into the Bush Doctrine, not only when it comes to an aggressive foreign policy, but also in the creation of tax measures designed for the well-to-do.

However, there may be something else on the horizon, when it comes to corporate run and taxpayer funded charities.

Well known Reform-Alliance-Conservative insider, Gerry Chipeur, (also a Republican insider), wrote an op-ed piece for the National Post, soon after the Harper government announced that they would be taking their lead from George Bush's "cutting red tape" initiative (massive de-regulation), and resurrecting Mike Harris's "Red Tape Commission".

Without mentioning that the sweat on his brow came from a backroom meeting with the Harperites, hammering out their plan of attack, he outlined ten ways that Harper could cut the public out of public policy.

Targeted was Health Canada, Agriculture Canada, the CRTC, The Canadian Wheat Board (already gone), Canada Border Services (being handed over to the Americans), Fisheries and Oceans, Parks Canada ....

But one mentioned by Chipeur was removing Revenue Canada's oversight from charitable organizations.  This no doubt comes from complaints by people like Faytene Grasseschi Kryskow, who was turned down for charitable status because prayer gatherings are not classed as charity.   Apparently there have been many quasi-religious groups with the same complaints.

What Chipeaur suggested was that only CIDA should be involved with charities.  We all know how that works, when Bev Oda altered a contract AFTER it was duly signed. 

However, I see this as being a major problem.  Without Revenue Canada being involved, how do we know what are legitimate charities and what aren't?  Corporations could set up their own charities, with the money going right back into the corporation.

They could also donate to AstroTurf groups, and receive a charitable donation, despite the fact that the AstroTurf group was created by them to promote their own interests.

The National Citizens Coalition could not only apply for charitable status, but receive CIDA grants for questionable activities.

And all of this could be funnelled to the Conservative Party.

The media and the Opposition have to stay on top on this before we end up a one party/one religion state.

And the public have to separate the legitimate charities and community churches, from the Religious Right money machine. Many Christians who got involved in the associated political activism, may not yet realize as  David Kuo did, that they are being used.

According to Lloyd Mackey, in The Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper, our PM was "saved" after being introduced to the writings of C.S. Lewis.  This claim is made by many in the New Right movement.  However, Kuo found a passage in a Lewis book, that frightened him, and helped to make him realize that what he was doing was sinful.

If the Tea Partiers could read, they might learn something here too.

The passage is from the Screwtape Letters, near the end when Screwtape advises his cousin:   

Let him begin by treating patriotism ... as a part of his religion. Then let him, under the influence of partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important part. Then quietly and gradually nurse him on to the stage at which the religion becomes merely a part of the "cause," in which Christianity is valued chiefly because of the excellent arguments it can produce ... Once he's made the world an end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes very little difference what kind of worldly end he is pursuing. (7)

Footnotes:

 *I was told recently that an old cell block at Collins Bay Pen/Frontenac Institute, that was destroyed during a riot years ago, is being renovated to possibly be used as a "repent or regret for profit" rehabilitation centre, to replace the Prison Farms.  I hope not.

Sources: 

1. Tempting Faith: An inside Story of Political Seduction, By David Kuo, Free Press, 2006, ISBN: 13: 978-0 7432-8712-8, p. xii

2. Kuo, 2006, p. 59

3. Kuo, 2006, p. 160-165

4.  "RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY FOR RESPONSIBLE TAX POLICY" IS LAUNCHED, National Council of Curches, April 5, 2001

5. American Strategist teaches Tories tips on keeping power, Canwest News Service, May 7, 2006

6. Catholic Citizen Announcement, February 10, 2004

7. Kuo, 2006, p.57

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.

A Harper Majority Means Canada Now a Haven for Haters

Now that the media can free themselves from the shackles of nonsense, and frame their stories around neoconservatism, welcoming Newt Gingrich, Anne Coulter and even the late Irving Kristol into our lives, we can start having serious discussions on what the success of this movement means to Canadians.

For starters it means that we will be free to show hatred toward anyone we decide we should hate. And for Harper's team they barely waited for the new to wear off their majority before heading in that direction.

This week the controversial Geert Wilders made an appearance at the taxpayer funded National Arts Centre. Billed as part of the "Tulip Festival", it was just another platform for this Dutch MP to spew his hatred against Islam. Neocons love him.

The radical International Free Press Society is a strong advocate for hate speech, and support people like Wilder and even our own helium sucking Ezra Levant. Levant returns the favour with a little Fox News North interview.

I can only handle about 2 minutes of Levant's nonsense but got as far as the "death threats" and the UK banning him from speaking. Gee, I can't imagine that happening anywhere, can you? And death threats? Shocking.

But as Warren Kinsella reminds us: "Wilders isn’t really the issue, here. A more salient issue, for Canadians, is the kind of government we can, and should, expect for the next four years".

It's gonna' be a rough ride.

Conservative James Moore Says People With Autism are a Special Interest Group

Boy, I thought Kingston's Alicia Gordon was ignorant when she suggested that farmers have no marketable skills, but I think James Moore may have won the award of ignorance, for his remark on autism:

Conservative candidate James Moore was asked at Riverside Secondary All Candidates Meeting in the BC riding of Port Moody–Westwood–Port Coquitlam whether he would support legislation to amend the Canada Health Act to include autism treatment (ABA/IBI) under Medicare.

His reply, as reported at Medicare for Autism NOW, demonstrated Mr. Moore's fundamental ignorance of autism disorders: "No, autism is not a disability and The Canada Health Act is not for Special interest Groups."

A special interest group? That's the problem with a party that only deals with the wealthy. They have no idea of how most Canadians live.

Think twice, vote once. We have a real chance to get rid of this government.

I'm Beginning to Think that James Moore is Nothing But a Windbag

Does this man say anything that isn't a lie?

From iPod taxes to Cadman to assistants who become ballot box bandits.

He's quite a piece of work.
To appeal to women he claims to support their right to choose, but guess what girls.

Another bloody lie.

The best he can do is shut up. The only honest thing.

And yes this is fair game, given how far back the Cons have gone to put "quotes" in their ads.

James Moore and the Conservative iPod Tax is Hitting Canadians in the Pocketbook

According to Canadian law: "An advertisement will contravene the law if it contains a representation that is either false or misleading."

What if the copy is literally true? "Even though each statement in an ad may be literally true, an offence can still arise if the "general impression" conveyed by the ad is misleading."

So how are the Conservatives getting away with deliberately lying in their ads?

Case in Point - suggesting that Michael Ignatieff voted in favour of a $75.00 iPodtax. James Moore even set up an entire website dedicated to the notion. This despite the fact that it is absolutely untrue. A LIE.

Has anyone ever challenged these ads based on false advertising? They have many like that, where they just make stuff up and hope it sticks.

Today Michael Geist says: There’s no Liberal iPod tax, but here’s the Tory one

A closer examination of the issue reveals that not only have the Liberals rejected a new levy on iPods, but the Conservatives’ copyright bill would have likely led to a doubling of the current levy on blank CDs.

So who can launch a truth in advertising investigation into Conservative ads that are not only misleading but absolutely untrue? Can citizens or do we need a lawyer?

Conservative MP James Moore Registered a Site Aimed at Lying to the Canadian People

Not the first time that James Moore has gone to such great lengths to lie to the Canadian people.

During the Cadman controversy when the Conservative party tried to bribe a dying man, with a life insurance policy for his vote, Moore said of the tape with Harper admitting that he knew of the illegal activity: MP James Moore told reporters yesterday that the party hired two audio specialists to analyze the September 2005 tape and they found it had been altered. "The (Tom) Zytaruk tape is completely discredited," Moore said.

Then when the FBI forensics team determined that Moore's statement was false, he apologized ... wait, no he hasn't apologized yet, but it's coming. I can feel it.

However, Moore wasn't through with us yet. He has registered a domain name ipodtax.ca

If you go to the site, there is a video with another whopper. The Ipod tax is a complete fallacy. A vision of someones imagination. Maybe they had a few too many?

Who knows?

But don't worry. James Moore will apologize for lying and just making stuff up. Soon ... someday ... maybe.

Harper's Reformers Continue to Trash Canadian Culture

Westerners, but especially Albertans, founded the Reform/Alliance to get 'in' to Canada. The rest of the country has responded by telling us in no uncertain terms that we do not share their 'Canadian values.' Fine. Let us build a society on Alberta values." Stephen Harper

That Stephen Harper and his Reformers have no respect for Canadian culture or identity, is an understatement. They instead have a projected image of Canadian culture and Canadian values, from Texans because of the oil boom, and from watching far too much American television.

Fortunately, Harper's quote above does not include the majority of Albertans, who have always been known for a progressive spirit, but it does reflect the feelings of his party and supporters.

It's kind of a cowboy mentality. Law and order, guns, war and manly sports. And that is the image they are trying to project for our country.

When will they realize that is not who we are?

Take Jason Kenney's new citizenship handbook. Historian Margaret Conrad said of the new guide, that it “represents a new kind of Canada, one that is less sympathetic with my personal sense of a progressive, forward-looking nation, but the new slant is no doubt in keeping with the sentiments of the current administration in Ottawa.”

Sentiments of the current administration indeed. But hardly reflective of the sentiments of the majority of Canadians.

The emphasis on the Queen and the Canadian Forces also struck her as unusual. “It's kind of like a throwback to the 1950s,” she said. “It's a tough, manly country with military and sports heroes that are all men. “It's a tougher Canada than the one the Liberals depicted.”

The latest attack on our culture comes from that horrendous looking Canadian pavilion at the Vancouver Olympics. The contract for the facility was given to an American firm, and it ran more than a million dollars over budget. But look at it. Other than the name Canada above the door, what possible design reflects who we are? It looks like a bus terminal.

Yet Dean Del Mastro, justified using an American firm by saying "It will celebrate everything that Canada has to offer. Everything from our heritage and our culture, from First Nations to settlers, everything that this country is all about." What?

Of course even the interior did not celebrate 'everything that Canada has to offer'.

Though Heritage Minister James Moore defends the design, visitors see it a little differently.

But even as Moore trumpeted the successes of Canada's controversial tent, he didn't disagree there are likely to be those who might leave its clutches feeling less than satisfied. That was the case on Monday, as some of those trickling out were scratching their heads and questioning why there was not more substantive information in the exhibit about Canada's culture or history.

"I didn't find it was that interesting," said Marie Klein of Seattle as she emerged from an exit."I would have thought there would have been more displays about Canada," she added. "I give it about a five on a scale of one to 10," said Roy Kendall of Victoria, adding he would have expected a lot more for the money that was spent.

These guys just don't get us and they never will.

James Moore Lied About Cadman Tapes

When the story broke about the Tories trying to buy independent MP Chuck Cadman's vote with a million dollar insurance policy, the PMO's office was working overtime trying to find a way to spin the story, and if possible, blame it on the opposition.

As the the government's point man on the Cadman file, Jay Moore was everywhere, telling anyone who'd listen that the tape had been doctored. As stories like this go, it took on a life of it's own, until it eventually became an outright accusation, that it was the Liberal Party that had tampered with evidence.

Of course this was sheer nonsense, but it didn't stop them from launching a libel suit against the Liberal Party of Canada, and in fact defame them in the public arena.

You'll notice in the Toronto Star photo the image of James Moore against a backdrop reading 'Incomplete ... Fabricated Soundbite ... Doctored a number of times'. Don't know what backdrop he used when the forensics lab found that it wasn't doctored, though this reminds me of the way the Tories are now 'doctoring' old tapes of Michael Ignatieff in their attack ads.

Cadman tape 'doctored,' Tories say
Harper seeking court order to block further use by Liberals
Jun 05, 2008 04:30 AM
Tonda MacCharles Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA–The Conservative party says a tape of Stephen Harper's conversation with a B.C. author about "financial considerations" offered a dying MP was "doctored" and it is seeking a court order to block the Liberals from further use or reference to it.

MP James Moore told reporters yesterday that the party hired two audio specialists to analyze the September 2005 tape and they found it had been altered. (later forensics lab found that none of the conversation had been altered. Stephen Harper would have known that))

"The (Tom) Zytaruk tape is completely discredited," Moore said.

The tape has been at the centre of politically explosive allegations, made by Cadman's widow, Dona, and other family members, that the Tories offered B.C. independent MP Chuck Cadman a $1 million life insurance policy in exchange for his support on a key vote in Parliament in May 2005 that could have brought down the minority government of Paul Martin.

Tory officials have denied the $1 million offer and Harper has sued the Liberals for libel for suggesting he and his party attempted to bribe Cadman for his vote.

He is now seeking a court order to prevent further use of it by the Liberals.

In the widely circulated recording, Harper tells Zytaruk, the author of a book on Cadman, that an offer was made to the dying independent MP "to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election."

The Prime Minister has said repeatedly since then that Cadman, a former Reform and Tory MP, was only offered the chance to return to the Conservative party, and financial help in his re-election bid.

In a sworn affidavit made public yesterday, Harper, who was Opposition leader at the time of the interview, says: "The financial matters that I spoke about during my interview with Mr. Zytaruk only related to normal nomination and election campaign expenses that would be incurred by any candidate."

Harper said the party "was prepared to assist Chuck Cadman in securing his nomination and to ensure, financially and otherwise, that he was able to conduct a successful election campaign as a Conservative party candidate."

"When I was interviewed by Mr. Zytaruk, this was my understanding of the purpose of the meeting that (campaign director) Tom Flanagan and (political operations director) Doug Finley had with Chuck Cadman that took place on May 19, 2005.

"Somebody has doctored this audiotape by deleting parts of that interview," Harper states in the affidavit. (Found not to be true. Nothing doctored)

Conservatives have not said who they think might have doctored the tape. They have not sued the author, Zytaruk, or his publisher.

Zytaruk, whose Cadman biography, Like a Rock, quotes Harper, denies editing the tape he provided to the Conservatives or to media. Harper and his legal team say the truth of the entire conversation lies in the clicks and gaps on a copy of the original tape.

The Conservatives ratcheted up the rhetoric yesterday by calling a news conference to highlight expert audio analyses they commissioned for the libel suit.

The Liberals said they will not cease using the Prime Minister's own words, but leader Stéphane Dion said that if an injunction were issued after the scheduled Sept. 16 hearing, they "will respect the law."

Zytaruk provided Harper's lawyer with what he says was a complete and unedited copy of the entire conversation that he recorded, and yesterday he stuck to that claim.

In Surrey, B.C., yesterday, Zytaruk said the entire tape was given to the Conservatives and he said he has no reason to have doctored the recording.

"I would have to have rocks in my head to do that," said Zytaruk. "Why would I do that? I'm not the politician here."

But Harper says their entire conversation was five to 10 minutes long. The tape runs only two minutes, 47 seconds.

At the news conference, Moore (Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam) cited American sound engineer Tom Owen, of Owl Investigations. Owen has been used by authorities to analyze the authenticity of Osama bin Laden tapes.

"I have concluded with scientific certainty that this (Zytaruk) tape has been edited and doctored to misrepresent the event as it actually occurred," Owen states.

Owen notes an edit after a Zytaruk question: "I mean, there was an insurance policy for a million dollars for Dona" [CLICK/edit] and "Do you know anything about that?" Harper answers: "I don't know the details. I know there were discussions."

The result is it appears Harper was admitting there was such an offer to begin with, which Harper flatly denies in his affidavit.

Harper's spokesperson, Dimitri Soudas, said in an email "the edits change what the PM told Zytaruk during that interview."

"When the PM says he does not know the details, he is not answering a question about the insurance policy for Dona."

Liberals deny doctoring Cadman tape in lawsuit defence
Juliet O'Neill ,
Canwest News Service
July 04, 2008

OTTAWA - The Liberals say any suggestions in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's lawsuit that they are involved in doctoring a tape recording in the Chuck Cadman affair are "outrageous, scandalous, politically motivated" and completely without foundation.

The federal Liberal party's statement of defence, submitted to court Friday, responds to Harper's latest legal claim for $1 million in damages for "misappropriation of personality" and for an injunction to stop the Liberals from using an "incomplete and doctored" tape of Harper talking to Cadman biographer Tom Zytaruk. (ha, ha, ha ... 'misappropriation of personality'??? Harper has a personality????)

Emphasizing that Zytaruk stands by the tape as unaltered and unedited, the Liberals assert that Harper's latest claim is "fundamentally incompatible with the right to freedom of political expression" and is an attempt by the governing Conservative party to silence the official opposition on a matter of significant public interest.

If the tape recording has caused any damage to the prime minister, the Liberals argue, Harper contributed to it himself by refusing to explain his own words on the tape and by refusing to explain what he alleges is missing from the tape of a conversation he had with Zytaruk on Sept. 9, 2005.

In the tape, widely broadcast by the media and cited by Liberals as evidence that the prime minister knew of an alleged attempt to bribe Cadman, Harper is heard saying that an offer to Cadman "was only to replace financial considerations he might lose during an election.

"The Liberals questioned the government for months about allegations by Cadman's widow, daughter and son-in-law that the MP told them before he died of cancer that two unidentified (now identified as Doug Finlay and Tom Flanagan) Conservative officials offered him a $1-million insurance policy in exchange for his vote in the House of Commons in May, 2005, a vote that could have brought down the Liberal government of Paul Martin.

Cadman, an Independent MP, allegedly refused the offer, which came to light in Zytaruk's biography earlier this year.

Cadman's wife, Dona, has since said she believed Harper when he looked her in the eyes and said he knew nothing of an insurance policy offer. And Harper and his spokesmen have repeatedly said the only offer to Cadman was for financial and other assistance to run for the Conservatives in an election if the government was defeated.

Although they have cited the tape in a fundraising appeal to supporters, the Liberals deny they have any proprietary interest in the tape, a factor considered in some "misappropriation of personality" cases.

Harper's claim is on top of a $2.5-million libel suit he launched in May, accusing the Liberals of "reckless indifference to the truth... maliciously repeating false, heinous, excessive, extreme and totally unreasonable allegations," based on a partial tape recording and an unproofed excerpt from an unpublished version of Zytaruk's book.

Harper's new claim does not directly accuse the Liberals of editing or doctoring the tape, but repeatedly says "someone" did so and accuses the Liberals of exploiting the tape to portray the prime minister "in a false light for political gain and partisan purposes."

The extra $1-million claim was filed as an amendment to the libel suit June 5, a day after B.C. Conservative MP James Moore, the government's point man on the Cadman file, held a news conference to explain expert analysis that Zytaruk's tape is incomplete and doctored.

Harper's claim said the Liberal party was "informed that the edited and doctored audiotape was incomplete, edited and not credible but consistently ignore this fact."The defendants have used the edited and doctored audiotape to wrongly usurp the plaintiff of his right to control his own image and to portray the plaintiff in a false light," it said. The Liberal defence asks the court to dismiss Harper's claims with costs.

Harper dropped the lawsuit after it was proven that the tape had not been doctored, but still refuses to address the issue.

More Postings on the Cadman Affair:

1. Tories Break the Law in Cadman Affair

God Save the Queen's Silver. The Conservatives are Having a Lawn Sale

Everything must go. Low, low prices. No reasonable (or even unreasonable) offer refused. You like silver, we've got silver. Got a hankering to own a leaky nuclear reactor? We've got that too.

Buildings, farm land and even politicians. Everything is for sale. So get here early before all the good stuff is gone.

(This message has been brought to you by the Conservative Party of Canada)

Feds trying to recover royal silver

The federal government is changing its procedures after heritage silver and china items from Rideau Hall and Buckingham Palace were sold off for a fraction of their worth, Heritage Minister James Moore said yesterday.

Speaking on his way out of question period, Moore said he wants to make sure it doesn't happen again.

"We're going to change the process so that museums in the country will have the ability to have first right of refusal for these kinds of items so that this kind of thing doesn't happen in the future." (How can they refuse silver that doesn't belong to us)

Officials have been ordered to contact the buyers and recover the items that had sold.

Moore's comments come after Sun Media revealed that sterling silver tea pots, silver-plated cocktail sets and china cups from the governor general's residence were sold off two weeks ago for a fraction of their value on the Crown Assets Distribution website, which is usually used to offload surplus filing cabinets and old computers.

Included in the sale were three ornate sterling silver flower baskets that former Rideau Hall employees say were on loan from Buckingham Palace.

While experts say their link to the royals could make the baskets worth as much as $10,000 each, the government sold all three for $532.

Yesterday, after several days of silence, the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General said it has managed to recover the majority of the items sold, including the three silver baskets.

However, officials wouldn't say how and when they were retrieved or how much was paid to get them back. Nor would they say what has yet to be recovered.

News that the government had sold off silver baskets on loan from Buckingham Palace prompted reactions ranging from anger to scorn.

Senator Serge Joyal , who has tabled a motion condemning the sale and calling for a change in the way Canada's official residences are managed, said selling off silver that was so visibly linked to the British royal family makes Canada look "like a banana republic."

NDP heritage critic Charlie Angus called on Rideau Hall to "come clean" and tell Canadians what happened.

"These were valuable cultural artifacts that were loaned to the Canadian people and then sold off at a fire sale."

Liberal MP Martha Hall Findlay used the silver sale to question the government's plans to sell off other assets.

"Selling royal family assets that we don't even own, at barely 5% of what they are they are worth, is not an auspicious start."