To Harper's Base. The RCMP Are Not Infallible

With people like John Snobelen, Michael Den Tandt, Monty Solberg and Tim Hudak, all coming out in defense of the police, this is something they might want to think about:

An internal RCMP report shows that 56 members of the force were formally disciplined during the 2008-2009 fiscal year for a range of code of conduct violations, including soliciting a prostitute, sexual assault, masturbating in a vehicle and impaired driving.

Four officers — all constables — were ordered to resign. Others received reprimands and forfeitures of pay for up to 10 days.

Another 231 members of the force were informally disciplined for less serious cases. They typically result in reprimands, transfers or some form of counselling.

One more reason why we need a full public inquiry into the G-20 violence, to help restore their good name.

Monte Solberg, The G-20 and What it Means to Wear a Uniform

Monte Solberg is upset. And why is Harper's former Reform MP upset? He's upset that we are upset over the senseless violence that occurred during the G-20 in Toronto, when police turned on citizens but were told to allow the vandals to run amok.

Scenes of burning police cars and property being destroyed were used to justify the 1.3 billion dollar price tag for security. These Reformers did not think it through however, because watching those images only begged the question: where is the security and what exactly did our $1.3 billion buy?

But Solberg also missed another very important point. The right to protest.

Monte Solberg's almost blanket condemnation of protesters at the G20 summit in Toronto is disappointing, short-sighted and shallow. ... He criticized the "allegedly peaceful protesters" for failing to "rein in the brick throwers" and for clapping and cheering when the violence started. He should know that police discourage members of the public from intervening. As for the clapping and cheering, how does he know they were not Black Bloc participants, who change in and out of costume in mid-protest?

Solberg goes on to say the "legitimately arrested" were the overwhelming majority, which flies in the face of news reports that most of those arrested were eventually released without charges. Then there was the condescending comment that the protesters "obviously aren't articulate enough to channel their angst into persuasive arguments." If that wasn't enough of a cheap shot, he added that it might be a challenge given their "exotic" ideas.

So I would like to ask Mr. Solberg what he defines as articulate and what constitutes an "exotic" idea.

In 2003 Solberg took part in protests against then prime minister Jean Chretien's decision not to go to Iraq. At one of these protests when confronted by anti-war protesters in Calgary (Jason Kenney also helped to organize this) "About two dozen antiwar protesters chanted "Stop Killing!" as the war supporters filed out and shouted "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!"

Apparently Canadian members of Parliament chanting "USA! USA!" is much more articulate than a plea to "stop killing". And we would hardly consider a plea to "kill" simply because George Bush told them so, to be "exotic".

And speaking of George Bush, our own Jim Flaherty and Stockwell Day spoke at a "Friends of Bush" rally in Niagara, in support of the 2003 US invasion. And despite the fact that most Canadians, "exotic" or otherwise, did not support Bush, Flaherty and Day were allowed to protest without riot police beating the crap out of them.

And lets not forget another rally sans riot squad, with their very articulate signs "Adam and Eve , not Adam and Steve". Stephen Harper himself spoke at that one.



And despite the fact that he lied to these people about ending same-sex marriage, he was even allowed to do that. After all, that was back in the day when Canada was still a democracy.

These people can take comfort in knowing that the only reason their beloved Steve did not go there, was because he was trying to fool Canadians into believing he was a moderate. His own homophobia is well documented.

And let's not forget the rally after Guy Giorno demanded that his employee Stephen Harper not include abortion in his maternal health initiative, telling him instead to play to his base. Many of these pro-life rallies include very "articulate" signs with images of aborted fetuses. It doesn't get much more "exotic" than that.

And then there's Jim Flaherty's friend Charles McVety, who led a protest at the G-20 demanding a stop to Iran's nuclear weapons, despite the fact that they have no nuclear weapons, while Israel has enough to blow up the whole damn universe. There's no secret that his group "Christians United For Israel" are lobbying for a preemptive strike by Israel so they can fulfil their "end times" prophesy.

I wonder how many of his crew got arrested?

Canadians protest for many reasons. It's how we get our point across to our government. Protests have accomplished a great many things including the right to protest. This is clearly a government that does not allow dissent.

And by the way, Mr. Solberg. When you march at a "pro-war" rally, you cannot also march at a "pro-life" rally. It's one of the many reasons why you have no credibility, which makes you a perfect columnist for the Sun, but a lousy spokesperson for anyone else.

A Few Updates

Canadians Demanding Full Public Inquiry in to G20 Violence now has almost 53,000 members. Please join and show your support.

Some views from a protest protesting the G-20 violence by the people hired to protect Canadian citizens: G20 Protesters to Toronto: We will not shut up, we will fight.

There is a law office that will be launching a class action suit. They are looking for videos and other evidence of Harper sanctioned abuse.

The Torontoist also has a lot of great photos and videos, including a comment from a Canadian soldier who knows what it means to don a uniform.

I did not put my life on the line and watch my best friends take their last breath to come home and watch the largest gathering of law enforcement this country has ever seen... cowed to the point of inaction as the city and its citizens endure the wanton destruction to their homes and business, only to have it answered by a heavy handed and indiscriminate hammer blow ..

... just as I would not stand for injustice within my own house... I will not stand for it in theirs. I have met countless officers who uphold our laws with dignity and professionalism. I would gladly give my life for anyone of them.What will not stand is when under the guise of 'security' police are given sweeping powers with no chance of reciprocity, the need to explain themselves or chance to defend against bullying tactics employed on a peaceful gathering of my country's citizens.

When you put that uniform on you are no longer John Smith of Toronto. You are a member of the Canadian Forces, just as you are a Royal Canadian Mounted Police Officer, or an Ontario Provincial Police Officer. A government employee who's mandate and training is to PROTECT the public. Not to protect themselves from threats within the public. It is their job as the civilian arm of our nations security to be the blue line between those that would see our way of life burnt to it's end and the Canadians who see more than a simple flag.Instead they formed a black wall and responded to WORDS with unrelenting, armed and often random VIOLENCE.

Something to think about Monte Solberg.

John Snobelen: Kraft Dinner? Really? How Could They Afford it?

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

Since our local newspaper has gone to Sun Media, I rarely read it, though maybe I should start. The blasts from the past would warm the cockles of your heart.

Well maybe not so much warm as inflame.

My husband says he still buys the paper so he can read the obituaries, but I jokingly tell him that the day his name appears in them, is the day I cancel the damn thing.

This past week we have been treated to some of the worst dregs of the neoconservative movement, all trying to justify the 1.3 billion dollar expenditure for security, while painting the peaceful protesters as thugs.

Their bringing up the burning cars and smashed windows, no longer has merit, after it was revealed that the police could have stopped it and rounded up the vandals easily, but were told to stand down.

Stephen Harper needed those images to play out on the jumbotron while lounging around fake lake. He used them to tell the crowd, who were convinced he was doofus for spending that much money on security, that this represented his reasons for the expenditure.

I'm sure the question on most of their minds while watching the mayhem, was "so where's the security?" I guess Steve didn't think it through.

But when my husband cut out a column by John Snobelen, I thought enough is enough. Given the calibre of Sun columnists these days I wasn't surprised (Michael Den Tandt claimed that the weekend was a success because no one was killed), but what surprised me was that Snobelen had the nerve to show his face in Ontario.

The last I heard of him he had been arrested.

But Since he Brought It Up

In his column, Snobelen remarks: "About 15 years ago I had the pleasure of presenting a rather large cheque to the good folks at York University. For the occasion various dignitaries had gathered in the main lobby of the campus. When I stepped to the podium to deliver some remarks — and the cheque — a giant protest banner was unfurled and students began throwing Kraft Dinner at me."

Now I realize that rubber bullets don't have the same impact as Kraft Dinner, but he should have been honoured. This was during the Mike Harris years. If you could afford Kraft Dinner you were really somebody, and it was not something that would have been tossed around willy nilly.

What he fails to mention in his column is why the students were so upset and not willing to accept his "peace offering". The cancellation of OAC and the dismantling of Ontario's education system through Bill 160.

Ontario has been the envy of most other provinces over the years, at least in terms of a few educational indicators. One of these areas has been its student retention rate. The number of students who have remained in school in Ontario has been consistently the highest or nearly the highest for the past couple of decades. It can be argued that this has in large part been a result of the existence of the Ontario Academic Credit (OAC) year ... On November 2, 1995, however, John Snobelen, Minister of Education, announced the cancellation of the OAC year in Ontario beginning in 1997 ... The province intends to compress its five high school years into four years. Snobelen said, "It means we're going to do some compression and have normal high school completed in four years". How is the reduction of the number of years of schooling likely to affect Ontario students? (1)

But since things were going so well before Mike Harris, the government had to find reasons to gut education, and Snobelen was actually caught on tape, suggesting that he could just "invent" some.

Perhaps the clearest evidence of the necessity of a crisis in education, in order to justify overhauling the system, was illustrated by the Ontario Minister of Education and Training. John Snobelen, caught on videotape explaining to the managerial level of the Ministry the need to "create a crisis" to justify the restructuring (some would say dismantling) of public education in Ontario, provided a grim reminder of the beneficiaries behind this scheme, and the subsequent duping of the public to justify it. (2)

They wanted to privatize our schools and Snobelen was willing to "create a crisis" to justify it. Royal Canadian Air Farce fired their famous chicken cannon at his image on November 22, 1996, but he only remembers the Kraft Dinner.

John Snobelen: The Epitome of a Neoconservative Cabinet Minister

Some people wonder why Stephen Harper appointed Gary Goodyear as science minister. A man who doesn't believe in science. Or Gail Shea to Fisheries when she wouldn't know one fish from another. Or Helena Guergis to any cabinet position when she was ... well ... Helena Guergis.

It's neoconservatism 101. You don't want a minister who will identify with stakeholders. Their only job is to tear down so the government can sell off.

John Snobelen was a perfect example of this. The man was a high school dropout who only went as far as grade eleven. This made him perfect to "act" as Minister of Education, or as he referred to himself; the Minster of Edjamacation.

Brooke Jeffrey explains:

His [Mike Harris] theory was unique, but understandable if one considers his neoconservative perspective. Normally, ministers function as spokespersons for the "constituencies" they represent through their Departments. The minister's role, around the cabinet table, is to put forward legislation benefiting these client groups, or to express concerns about the proposals of other departments which might have adverse implications for their constituencies.

.... But Mike Harris has a different view of government, and so naturally his view of the role of ministers is also at odds with tradition. ... If they were to have any hope of implementing their ambitious and radical agenda, no minister could be allowed to be captured by client groups ... The premier's view of the cabinet's role helps to explain John Snobelen, a man with a grade eleven education, ending up in the driver's seat at the Ministry of Education and Training. (3)

See how neoconservatism works? The dumber the individual is, the bigger their portfolio. I mean look at this guy. Or this guy. Back to Snobelen:

The self-made millionaire with the grade eleven education, whose fortune came from a waste-transport business, was evidently a fan of business-management theories and jargon. Seen musing on video with departmental officials about the need to "invent a crisis" in education, Snobelen did himself irreparable damage shortly after taking office, damage which no amount of explanation about the context could remedy. Certainly not the minister's own explanation that to invent a crisis was "not just an act of courage, there's some skill involved." Likewise his use of the term "tool kit" to describe his department's proposed $400 million in reforms produced much hilarity, but little action.

His alternatively unctuous and aggressive manner also did little to repair his image. His failure to deliver on the promised reforms, and unwillingness to communicate with stakeholders, were a major source of frustration. One Ottawa trustee, infuriated by the uncertainty, actually bought a ticket to a Tory fundraiser in order to confront the premier on the issue. Ted Best told reporters, "I've been a trustee for 23 years and I've never, never seen such a lack of communication. I don't know if it's arrogance on Snobelen's part or ineptness, but they're losing credibility fast."

The minister's subsequent battles with the teachers over Bill 160 —the government's plan to centralize control of education at Queen's Park and drastically reduce both the number of teachers and overall expenses — became legendary. By the end of his tenure, the two sides were barely speaking. (4)

But at the end of the day, it was not his incompetence or mean streak that was his undoing.

In late 2002, it was reported that Snobelen was spending most of his time at a private cattle ranch in Oklahoma while still drawing a Member of Provincial Parliament's (MPP) salary. Faced with criticism, he returned to the legislature for most of the 2003 session and resigned his seat on March 17. (Wikipedia)

From the Ontario Legislature:

"Premier, you are spending more time on the fence on this issue than John Snobelen spends on a horse. At least John Snobelen has the benefit of a saddle. It must be very painful for you, sir, to spend all that time on the fence."

"Mr Premier, I'm trying to imagine taxpayers in Orangeville or Parry Sound or Pembroke reading the papers today and faced with this situation, particularly from a Conservative government led by Ernie Eves, late of the Common Sense Revolution, which was all about taxpayer responsibility and accountability and citizens' responsibility. We've got a situation, apparently, where a Conservative member of the Legislature, who is being paid $82,757 a year, wants to spend his time in a foreign country while accepting $82,000 of public money from the people of Ontario. If Mr Snobelen wants to be in Oklahoma, the people in Orangeville, Parry Sound and Pembroke would say, "Let him resign and go to Oklahoma." But you, as the leader of his party and leader of the government, surely must do one of two things: ask for and accept his resignation, or demand a work plan from our friend the member from Mississauga West which would justify the people of Ontario paying $82,757 for his salary." (5)

Can't wait to see who Sun Media gets to spin the G20 debacle next. Hope it's Al Palladini, another Harris cabinet minister with a grade eleven education. He was the minister of transportation who when it was announced that the sky traffic helicopter was being cancelled, suggested that it was not up to the government to worry about traffic or stranded motorists. That job should be done by civilians with cell phones.

At that time "car phones" were rare and very expensive. Naturally the legislature howled, and as one suggested the minister should "take a long ride up to Wawa in his limo and let him try to phone in and tell us how he's doing." (6) "Can you hear me now?"

Just keep lobbin' 'em in boys. Just keep lobbin' 'em in. You are making my job so easy. I don't have to expose the pitfalls of neoconservatism. They are exposing themselves.

Eeeeek! Great. Just got that image and now I'm blind.

Sources:

1. SCHOOL RETENTION AND THE CANCELLATION OF OAC'S, By Noel P. Hurley, Faculty of Education, University of Windsor, Winter 1996

2. The CCPA Education Project: Learning About the Commercialization of Education, by Erika Shaker, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, July 8, 1998

3. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, By Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 175

4. Jeffrey, 1999, Pg. 182

5. The Ontario Legislature, Hansard, October 23, 2002

6. Jeffrey, 1999, Pg. 179

Monte Solberg Should Have Kept Quiet. He Only Made Keddy's Comments Worse.

Reform Conservative MP Gerald Keddy got into trouble this week after referring to the unemployed and homeless as "no-good bastards". He made a weak apology and the whole thing, like everything else, was being swept under the rug.

But then former Reform MP Monte Solberg, who now fancies himself a journalist, had to weigh in on the subject. He used to be the (un) employment minister and believes himself to be an expert.

However, all he managed to do was remind us of the ideology of the Reformers, who believe that if you are down on your luck, it's your own fault. And he even insulted the people of Prince Edward Island in the process: “When I was minister of immigration I was stunned by the fact that even though the unemployment rate was over 10 per cent in Prince Edward Island, fish plants there had to bring in Russian workers because they couldn't find local workers,” he writes. “It seems EI paid enough that, in a very narrow sense, it was completely rational that unemployed Islanders would refuse to do those very tough and dirty jobs.”

But as one reader noted: "It's not that EI pays too much. It's that the work pays bad, is of short duration, and not where most of the unemployed are. Would you move your family from their home of xxx years just to work a job hours away for crap pay for three months? And, um, RECESSION! This just shows why people like Solberg can't handle these portfolios. Too wrapped up in ideology and ignorance."

It's often not that they won't do the job, but can't afford to do the job. Maybe that's what the government should be looking at. If there are positions a distance from where unemployment has hit the hardest, then subsidize the workers. Issue funds to pay for their gas and top up the salary to a livable wage. It's not feasible for people with families to travel a great distance for minimum wage.

Solberg only managed to make a bad situation worse.

Solberg defends Keddy’s 'no-good bastards' remark
Bill Curry
Novemebr 27, 2009

Two years ago, Monte Solberg was the Conservative minister in charge of Canada’s unemployment programs. Now, he’s an occasional columnist for the Sun Media newspaper chain.

Today he comes to the defense of his former colleague, Gerald Keddy, who apologized this week for referring to people in Halifax who choose the streets over available jobs as “no-good bastards.”

The Halifax Chronicle Herald’s Ottawa-based reporter, Stephen Maher, who wrote the original story, now reports that NDP leader Jack Layton is visiting Halifax homeless shelters today in a bid to capitalize on the controversy.

But Mr. Solberg said Mr. Keddy is being treated unfairly. He said the media interviewed disabled street people for their reaction, when Mr. Keddy’s comments were directed at people who are able to work.

“When I was minister of immigration I was stunned by the fact that even though the unemployment rate was over 10 per cent in Prince Edward Island, fish plants there had to bring in Russian workers because they couldn't find local workers,” he writes. “It seems EI paid enough that, in a very narrow sense, it was completely rational that unemployed Islanders would refuse to do those very tough and dirty jobs.”

Mr. Solberg writes that the EI program is so poorly designed that it discourages people from working. (what a horrible thing to say)

“Keddy may have rudely misrepresented the parentage of those who refuse to take jobs on Christmas tree farms, but if you believe it is wrong to cause unemployment and to take money you're not entitled to then Gerald Keddy is absolutely justified in his anger.”

Back to - The Gerald Keddy Story: An Insensitive Moron