Don't Blame Stephen Harper, Blame Edmund Burke

"If a sociology professor applies a day before a medical doctor, the professor's application gets processed first ... I mean, we don't really need a sociology professor. ".  Jason Kenney

Stephen Harper's recent refusal to call a public inquiry into missing and exploited Aboriginal women, should not come as a surprise to Canadians, given his background and the ideology of the Conservative Movement.

Modern Conservatives do not believe in sociological phenomenons, viewing them as too grey an area, in a world that is black and white, right and wrong, left and right.  Everything in between is simply minutiae, and therefore, not worthy of attention.

Jakeet Singh,  an assistant professor in the Department of Politics & Government at Illinois State University; addressed this issue in an excellent op-ed piece, published in the Toronto Star:  The ideological roots of Stephen Harper’s vendetta against sociology

Singh suggests that the roots of this belief system can be traced to Margaret Thatcher, and quotes her now infamous line "there is no such thing as society".

However, we have to go back a little further than that.

Conservative author and journalist, Yuval Levin, outlines the origins of this thought in his new book:  The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left

The inspiration for many modern political struggles, can be traced to the philosophies of Burke (1729-1797) and Paine (1737- 1809) and their views on revolutions.

The American Revolution may not have taken place, had it not been for Thomas Paine.  Initially, most colonists  viewed the anger over taxation without representation, as an issue for the wealthy elites, who simply didn't want to pay their share.

However, Paine's pamphlet Common Sense, stirred up a passion for liberty.

The pamphlet begins by establishing some principles for distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate rule: that government exists to secure the freedom and security of its equal citizens and that any government that fails to do so is not worthy of the name, regardless of its pedigree. (Levin p. 35)

It's rather ironic that the GOP and the new U.S. Tea Party, see themselves as a direct lineage of the founding fathers, when in fact, America was built on liberalism, in direct opposition to conservatism.

Edmund Burke did support the American Revolution, however,  but only because he was constantly seeking a balance, to avoid tyranny.  He saw the King's refusal to address the legitimate concerns of the colonists, as tyrannical, and suggested that if he continued in his stance, than they certainly had the right to self governance.

He did not, however, see this as a basic "human right", as Paine did, but simply as a solution to a problem.  Burke never dealt with metaphysical distinctions and had no time for anyone who did.

Because of that, he opposed the French Revolution and its philosophical Rights of Man.  An elitist, he believed that the masses were ill equipped to decide who should govern them, but that that task should be left to a chosen few.  Otherwise, decisions would be based on what citizens wanted or thought they wanted, and not on what they needed.

" What is the use of discussing a man's abstract right to food or to medicine? The question is upon the method of procuring and administering them. In that deliberation I shall always advise to call in the aid of the farmer and the physician, rather than the professor of metaphysics." — Edlund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790

In other words, "...  we don't really need a sociology professor. ".

I watched a documentary on Ronald Reagan, and his son told the interviewer that his dad could never really grasp the idea of abstract notions , like "the poor".  Harper is no different.

"These proposals included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of “child poverty” and for more business subsidies in the name of “cultural identity. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects.”  Stephen Harper,  The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997

There is no such thing as "child poverty", but if you see a child who looks hungry, simply feed it. There is no epidemic of murdered and missing aboriginal women, but if you know of someone who murdered them, call the cops. Again, simple solutions to complex problems.

The Starting Point- 1789

In a radio broadcast on April 1, 1933, Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, proclaimed it clearly : with the Nazi revolution "the year 1789 has been expunged from the records of history."  It was obvious to all why Goebbels compared 1933 to 1789.  Any contemporary, whether schooled in history or not, instinctively knew that the French Revolution was the measure of things in the modern world. "We want to eradicate the ideology of liberalism and replace it with a new sense of community"  (Foundational Pasts: The Holocaust as Historical Understanding, By Alon Confino, Cambridge University Press, 2011, ISBN 978-0-52173-632-9, p. 6)

The National Socialist Party of Germany, in 1933, saw a classic struggle between right and left.  They had a visceral hatred of communism and the liberalism that allowed communism to flourish.

And in the Edmund Burke tradition,  believed that only they knew what was good for the German people, and so dealt with those who tried to convince them otherwise.  This meant the expulsion of not only Jews (who they suggested were part of a communist plot to take over the world), but everyone with liberal ideas and "mystical" views of human rights.

They would create a new kind of socialism, in direct contrast to the Marxist or Paine idea of socialism; for the people, but not by the people, and certainly not for all the people.

The French Revolution has been seen as a defining moment in democracy, despite the fact that it failed, only giving power to the Bourgeoisie, and the eventual dictatorship of Napoleon; but it has inspired many revolutionary changes around the world.

The late 18th century public debates between two great thinkers, Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine, live on in the conflicting ideologies of today's conservatives and liberals.

The question is, what side of this new revolution do we want to be on?

The one where basic human rights are simply philosophical or one where those rights are achievable and necessary?

One where "poverty" is merely an "idea" or one where the visual, and yes sociological studies, are proof that "the poor" do exist, and society has an obligation to help them?

One where government should only address the needs of the top 1%, or one that addresses the needs of all citizens?

Edmund Burke or Thomas Paine?

Stephen Harper or anyone with a heart and soul?

Conservatives like to quote Edmund Burke:  "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” .  The only problem is that Burke never said that.  If you pick through things he actually said, you could perhaps create the sentiment, but not find the direct quote.

The closest researchers have come to citing the remark, might be to John Stuart Mills, who in an 1867 inaugural address at the University of St. Andrews, said:

"Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."

Mills was a liberal.

However, you can quote me on this ""The only thing necessary for Stephen Harper to continue his ruthless revolution, is for good Canadians to do nothing.”

As good Canadians we can all do something.  Vote him out.

Come On Joe Comartin. You're Better Than That

I like NDP MP Joe Comartin very much. Decent and hard working, I thought he'd make a great party leader when he challenged Jack Layton for the job in 2003.

But I take offense to a recent ad hoc jab at the Liberals. The story that four former Liberal leadership contenders, still owed money, is sad but not shocking. It's expensive to run a campaign and when there were so many hopefuls then, not as much money to go around.

This was especially difficult, since the Harper regime had just changed the rules limiting donations to $1,000, (eventually catching themselves in the trap).

But Comartin responded to the story by saying that he had little sympathy.

"The Liberals, unlike ourselves and the Conservatives, have not expanded their base for the smaller donations, the $100 to $200 or $300 ones," he said. "The candidates are part of the same problem, because they never developed that capacity to do that."

He argued the Liberals also have a history of extravagant spending. "The Liberals, as a party, as individuals, have this expectation of grandiose events and they spend a heck of a lot more on their campaign than even our winning candidates do in the NDP," he said. "I think there's a change of culture that's needed within that party."

"Unlike ourselves and the Conservatives"?

Are the NDP going to pick up where they left off, spending all of their time bashing the Liberals while giving the Conservatives a free pass? If that's the way they want to play it, fine, but it's time for a little reality check.

The last election that shows expenses (2008), reveals that Joe Comartin spent more on his campaign than the Liberals and Conservatives combined. A total of $67,618.87. And he received 128 contributions for a total of $29,415, meaning an average donation of about $230, hardly chump change for the majority of Canadians.

Unfortunately money talks in politics.

And painting the Liberals as "elitist" is simply playing into the dumbing down of politics, and puts Comartin in the same playroom as Jason Kenney, who recently stated that the only Toronto area ridings that the Liberals held are " typically high social-economic status professionals in core urban areas ... a pretty narrow base."

Kenney also needs a reality check. Their own Toronto ridings were won by a combined total of just over 6,000 votes. Only vote splitting gave the Conservatives an advantage.

Both of these parties have to remember that they still have to be accountable to Canadians, and if the NDP want to stay on the good side of the 60% of us who didn't vote for a Harper majority, they'd better change their strategy.

This is a progressive country, despite our regressive government. We don't stomp on those who believed in themselves and thought they could do something for our country.

And you Joe Comartin should know that.

Will the Real Jack Layton Please Stand Up

I was furious this week with Mr. Layton when he said that he would now be going after Michael Ignatieff. We were hoping for a progressive revolution to unseat Harper, and this was the wrong way to go.

But then one of my readers sent me a link to an old article about Layton, and now I'm just furious. Layton isn't a progressive at all. He's an opportunist who will do what it takes for power, even being Kingmaker for Stephen Harper.

I should have known this, but missed it completely.

The RCMP election tampering was done at the hands of an NDPer. Why was she the one contacted? And it was an NDP MP who was responsible for the burying of the Auditor Generals report.

Right now I'm furious with myself because I voted NDP in 2006, believing that they stood for Canadian values. Apparently not. And the May 2006 article in Walrus Magazine, was written by an NDP insider, angry with Layton himself.

On election night, January 23, 2006, New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton stood before a buoyant victory party crowd in downtown Toronto and announced that Canadians had voted for change and that more New Democrats in Parliament would mean better lives for working families and seniors ...

But it was what Layton did not say that evening that was more interesting. He did not mention that the most ideologically right-wing prime minister in Canadian history was about to be sworn into office, and he did not mention that while the ndp’s 2006 election result was impressive, the party no longer held the same sway in Parliament.

Layton’s speech capped a campaign in which he had studiously avoided warning Canadians about any potential threat from Harper and the Conservatives. This odd fact was driven home to me a few days before election day when a newspaper reporter phoned to do an interview. Clearly frustrated, he told me he had been on the ndp campaign plane for three weeks and that despite repeated efforts, he couldn’t get Layton to say anything of significance about Harper, except a one-off shot at his proclivity for decentralization. The ndp leader was quick to attack Paul Martin and the Liberals, but all he would say about the front-running Conservatives was that they were “wrong on the issues.”

This fits in with what Elizabeth May wrote , that Jack Layton had a pact with Harper where they wouldn't attack each other.

She was angry with him because he took down Paul Martin on the same day that Kyoto was being ratified.

But if NDPers were shocked at Layton's actions during this campaign, they must really be shocked to learn that he tried to make Harper prime minister in 2004. A fact confirmed by both Mike Duffy and insider Tom Flanagan.

So while Layton is suggesting that Michael Ignatieff is just like Harper, it would appear that Layton and Harper have more in common. Both are pushing for a Conservative majority.

So let's see:

He is responsible for Harper being in power.

Campaigning against the carbon tax meant giving them a stronger mandate.

And he was ready to thrust Harper on us two years prior to his complete takeover of our country.

- And his actions stopped talks to avoid the spread of privatized healthcare.
- They stopped any action on climate change.
- They left a national childcare plan on the table
- And put an end to the Kelowna Accord, which was five years in the making.

I am still promoting strategic voting and if we put an end to Harper before he puts an end to us, it will be in spite of Jack Layton.

I've been telling people who say they don't necessarily like the Liberals, to hold their nose and vote for them if they have the best chance against a Conservative candidate.

Now I will have to tell them to hold their nose and vote NDP if they have the best chance.

But I will never forgive you for this Jack Layton. The last five years could have been avoided. Thank you very much.

The Suspension of Women's Rights. Are We Really Prepared for This?

In 2007, Donna L. Lillian, Assistant Professor of Discourse and Linguistics in the Department of English at East Carolina University, wrote a paper entitled: A thorn by any other name: sexist discourse as hate speech, which centered around the Reform Party, our neoconservative movement, and William D. Gairdner.

The relationship between Stephen Harper and Gairdner is long and deep.

Both are founding Reform Party members and also instrumental in the creation of The Northern Foundation: "... established in 1989, originally as a pro-South Africa group . . . [n favour of continued Apartheid]. Since its establishment, however, the foundation has developed into a broad coalition of right-wing groups and individuals across the country’ lists among the founding members of the Foundation both William Gairdner and Stephen Harper. (1)

Gairdner is also former chair of the National Citizens’ Coalition, where Stephen Harper spent three decades, eventually acting as both VP and President; and founding president of the Civitas Society, one of the policy arms of the Harper government.

And Gairdner gave the keynote address at the Reform Party's 1991 General Assembly: ‘delegates to the 1991 Saskatoon convention gave William Gairdner enormous applause, even more than Manning later received, for his vitriolic speech denouncing feminists, bilingualism, and multiculturalism, among other things’(1)

Murray Dobbin who was at the event noted "the frequent and extended applause and the cheers that greeted Gairdner’s denunciation of women and women’s rights." Gairdner has been identified as one the most influential core members of Reform and as their party mentor (1), and his book The Trouble with Canada, functioned as ‘the de facto manifesto for Preston Manning’s Reform Party’ (2).

The premise of Lillian's thesis was to analyze "Canadian neoconservative discourse as racist, sexist, and homophobic."

In arguing that at least some sexist discourse should be considered hate speech, I first demonstrate that the popular discourse of Canadian neoconservative author William D. Gairdner is sexist.... Sexism, the ideology and practice of relegating women to a lower rung on the social hierarchy than men simply by virtue of their femaleness, is an integral component of neoconservative thinking, and one way that such sexism is produced and reproduced is through language"

For example, women who choose roles other than that of full-time stay-at-home wife and mother and especially those who actively seek to create conditions in which women who choose other roles are not discriminated against are the women dubbed ‘radical feminists’ by Gairdner and they are purported to be the instruments of the breakdown of so-called traditional values in Canadian society.

Gairdner classifies as feminist a wide range of women including those who advocate publicly funded day care for children, abortion rights, ready access to contraceptives, sex education in schools, affirmative action for women, equal pay for work of equal value, marriage and adoption rights for gay and lesbian couples, as well as those who resist patriarchy in any other way. The only women whom he does not label feminists are women who support his patriarchal vision in which a woman marries young, bears and raises several children, and occupies herself doing unpaid domestic and volunteer work. Of course, if such a woman were to use her time volunteering for a group promoting any of the causes he disagrees with, then she, too, might be labeled a feminist according to Gairdner’s use of the term.

Now we might say that the Reform Party was established more than 20 years ago, so the party [now called The Conservative Party of Canada] may not hold the same views today. However, in the five years that Stephen Harper has held power, the evidence is overwhelming, that he is carrying out the mandate of Gairdner, Reform, the NCC and the NF, when it comes to women's rights and their intended role in society.

In March of 2009:

Representatives of women’s groups and labour unions gathered at the United Nations yesterday, to announce that they will be filing a complaint against the Harper government with the UN Commission on the Status of Women. The complaint condemns the Canadian government for rushing controversial pay equity legislation through Parliament, which will make it extremely difficult for women in the federal public sector to demand equal pay for work of equal value. —Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), “Women launch complaint against Harper government for destroying the right to pay equity,” news release, March 6, 2009 (3)

Can you imagine, after all of our strides, though still with a long way to go, Canadian women were forced to lobby the United Nations for the return of rights we had already fought so hard to acquire?

In June of 2010, Gerald Caplan asked:

"Are you old-fashioned? Do you still believe in gender equality? Do you intend to promote gender equality? Do you believe a woman should be able to have an abortion if she chooses to?"

And in his discussion he reminds us that the attack on these fundamental things is no idle threat.

It's already happened to a large number of groups supporting women's equality. International Planned Parenthood has heard nothing for a year about renewed funding. Match International, the only international development organization devoted specifically to women's equality, has been cut off. CIDA has cut funds to projects in Pakistan and Kenya that were explicitly dedicated to gender equality. In fact, hard as it is it believe, CIDA staff have told NGOs to remove the words "gender equality" from their proposal if they want a chance at funding.

And more recently, Harper's Family tax plan excludes single parents.

In his book, Rogue in Power, Christian Nadeau also discusses the erosion of womens rights under Harper.

Back in September 2006, the government announced major reforms in the operation of Status of Women Canada. This federal body's budget was cut by about 40 per cent, and nearly all its regional offices were closed, supposedly as a rationalization measure. At the same time, Bev Oda, the minister in charge, made drastic cuts in the financial assistance provided for researching women's social struggles. Thus, many human rights organizations were left bereft of financial means.

Women's groups continue to be among the primary targets of budgetary restraints imposed by the government on civil society organizations. Some examples of groups that have experienced recent cuts include the New Brunswick coalition for pay equity, Quebec's Conseil d'intervention pour Faeces des femmes au travail (a council that advocates on behalf of women in the workplace), the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation, Action travail des femmes du Quebec (a nonprofit group that works to help women access jobs), the Reseau des tables regionales de groupes de femmes du Quebec (a network of regional roundtables made up of Quebec women's groups), and the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women. All these organizations expressed indignation at these unjustified cuts, but their statements were scarcely acknowledged by Rona Ambrose, the new Minister of State for the Status of Women, who seemed to have other fish to fry.

In the area of pay equity, the Harper government has also shown what it is capable of, especially in relation to public service employees. In 2009, the House of Commons gave third reading to the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act, contained in Bill C-10, the Budget Implementation Act. The text of the law, a door-stopper more than five hundred pages long, obstructs women's right to demand wage equality with men for work of equal value. It takes away the right to submit pay equity complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Finance Minister Flaherty stated that he wanted to end a system of "double pay equity" and said the collective bargaining framework was adequate for dealing with this issue. In other words, employers were relieved of a responsibility ... Briefly stated, without declaring that it is openly antifeminist, the Harper government has done plenty to block the movement for equality in relations between men and women. Without institutional' guarantees for this social struggle, it is easy for Harper to state his commitment towards women while contradicting it on a daily basis in his policies. (4)

Are we as citizens ready to reverse the movement by about 50 years? Will we have to march again?

And remember that under Harper, protesters are not welcome, as those at the G-20 and Save the Prison Farms campaign, learned. Riot police appear to be on constant standby. In Kingston those abused and arrested ranged from a 14-year-old girl to an 88-year-old woman. The message is clear. If you go against this government you will be dealt with.

Are we really prepared for this?

Sources:

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

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

3. HARPER PLANS TO WIN MAJORITY USING WOMEN VOTERS: A Brief Chronological Account of the Erosion of Women’s Rights Under the Tories, By Rolf Auer, March 28, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words, he would like to legislate morality.

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

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

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

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

And perhaps more importantly women will have those children.

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

This is social engineering.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

How Bad is it When an Australian Newspaper Bemoans the Loss of Our Democracy?

An Australian Newspaper is running a piece on Canada under the headline: Canada watches its democracy erode

We're not even watching, we've just turned our heads and refuse to see what is right in front of us.

Edmund Burke noted that all that was necessary for evil to triumph was for good men to do nothing. Canadians are certainly good and worthy folks, but they suffer an excess of civil obedience, politeness and lack of civic rage that could be harnessed to combat political atrophy. At a time when Arabs risk life and limb for political freedoms, Canadians seem largely apathetic about the erosion of their democracy. The centralisation of power in the hands of the prime minister and political staffers - with the resulting diminution of the role and status of cabinet, parliaments and parliamentarians - is common to Anglo-Saxon democracies in Australia, Britain, Canada and the US, but the extent to which constitutional conventions, parliamentary etiquette and civil institutions of good governance have been worn away in Canada is cause for concern.

A minister told parliament she did not know who had altered a document that cut funding to a foreign aid group. Later, she admitted to ordering the changes, but did not know who had carried out the order. Lying to parliament, a cardinal sin of Westminster-style democracy, has become a political tactic. Following rulings by Speaker Peter Milliken, for the first time in Canadian history, the government and a minister have been found to be in contempt of parliament for withholding information and misleading the house.

The Integrity Commissioner was so inept that she failed to uphold a single one of more than 200 whistle-blowing complaints. Forced out of office by the ensuing public outcry, she was awarded a $C500,000 severance package on condition that neither she nor the government talk about it. That is, a public servant paid by the taxpayer was financially gagged by yet more taxpayer money to stop taxpayers finding out what was going on.

When a foreign service officer blew the whistle on the Canadian military handing over detainees to Afghan security forces, in likely violation of international humanitarian law, the government tried to destroy him and refused to give documents to a parliamentary inquiry. The Speaker reminded the government parliament controlled cabinet, not the other way round. After the last elections, when the opposition parties were close to agreement on a coalition majority government, rather than face the house in a vote of confidence, Harper talked the governor-general into shuttering parliament for a month until he shored up his own support.

When the time came to choose a new governor-general, Harper opted for someone who had carefully drawn up terms of an inquiry commission to exclude the potentially most damaging aspects of a scandal involving a former conservative prime minister. Four conservatives have been charged with exceeding campaign spending limits in the 2006 election that put Harper into power. A minister used public office and material to pursue party-political goals of courting ethnic vote banks for the conservatives.

Having come into office on campaign promises of greater transparency and accountability, Harper has silenced civil servants and diplomats, cynically published guidelines on how to disrupt hostile parliamentary committees, and suppressed research that contradicts ideologically-driven policy, for example data that show crime rates to be falling. Judges who rule against the pet causes of the government's ideological base are not immune to attacks from cabinet ministers. Civil society groups that criticise any government policy or ideology risk loss of funding and hostile takeovers by boards stacked with pro-government ciphers.

If they know all this in Australia, what is wrong with Canadians?

We should be ashamed.

Harper Running Scared is Back in His Bubble

The first few days out, Stephen Harper tried something different. He took questions from the media.

But they had him in knots, so he's back to campaigning in a bubble with human props.

4 questions a day for those travelling with him (why bother?), 1 for the local media, salute and turn right. Rinse and repeat.

No wonder Canadians are starting to warm to Michael Ignatieff. He'll talk to anyone, even hecklers. How refreshing.

The Real Reason Fantino's Liberal Opponent Jumped Ship

The sign can be purchased at Unseatharper.ca They have lots of cool stuff.

The news today was that Fantino's former rival in Vaughn had jumped ship and joined the neocons. But as it turned out he was dumped by the Liberals and for good reason.

Prior to entering politics, Genco had been the head of Downsview Park, a federal agency set up to develop federal land in the middle of Toronto. The federal information commissioner is investigating several refusals to release Genco’s expenses and other files related to his time as head of the agency.

They can have him. Has anyone been keeping track of all the undesirables working for Harper's candidates? Not to mention the two candidates out in B.C. who had declared bankruptcy before running so were disqualified. They've got This guy:

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is distancing himself from another tainted political organizer who found a home in a local candidate’s campaign. Giulio Maturi, who was a top official in the campaign of disgraced former Montreal mayoral candidate Benoit Labonté in 2009, was listed as late as Wednesday afternoon as the campaign manager for a Montreal Conservative candidate.

And this guy:
Conservative campaigners are flying in from all over the country. Money is gushing northward from safe ridings in Calgary.

For two years, the unelected Ryan Hastman has been handing out Government of Canada cheques all over the city. He's has been working full-time since June 2009 to undo the great humiliation, the ugly aberration, the icky fluke, the disaster, the horror, the slime, the evil. The Conservatives must win back Edmonton-Strathcona. So why was Sebastien Togneri, a disgraced senior official, working for Hastman?

I think Warren Kinsella says it best.

Harper Finally Accepts Ignatieff's Challenge for a Debate. Sort of.

A few days ago Michael Ignatieff challenged Stephen Harper to a debate, and Harper has finally accepted. Sort of.

It's odd that this item implies that Harper is laying down the gauntlet, but I think it's Sun News. They're paid to lie.

Harper challenges Ignatieff to debate showdown

What I did find interesting was his comment:

"We could also have a debate between Mr. Ignatieff and myself, since, after all, the real choice in this election is a choice between a Conservative government or an Ignatieff-led government that all of these other parties will support.

How is it a bad thing if a prime minister has the "support" of other parties? Isn't that how Parliament is supposed to function?

Canadians Can no Longer Afford the Corporate Welfare State

Stephen Harper's spending is out of control. We can no longer afford to prop up the Corporate Welfare Stare. It's that simple.

This is so typical of neoconservatism. Ronald Reagan created the most homeless people in U.S. history but his own government spending ballooned out of control.

Stephen Harper is determined to repeat the mistakes of his Republican counterparts.

It's time for him to go.

Ralph Goodale Rocks and I Loved the Don Cherry Reference

Ralph Goodale spoke passionately yesterday, about Harper's latest trading off of our sovereignty. The press gallery sure took notice.

His particular concern this day was the government’s late admission of negotiations with the United States toward reimagining the 49th parallel.

“We need to ask,” Mr. Goodale asked, “what is the Prime Minister prepared to bargain away? For example, with respect to the admissibility of visitors, immigrants and refugees, will Canada apply its own standards, which many Canadians believe are better than American standards, or will a Republican Tea Party congress make the rules?”

For sure, if we owe the Americans anything in these discussions, it is surely for the endless number of cartoonish villains they have supplied for the sake of our fear and ridicule these many years. For the sake of Michele Bachmann alone we should perhaps consider sending them Don Cherry and a few cartons of Cold-FX.

Can you imagine Michelle Bachmann and Don Cherry in a debate?

Eureka! I have an idea. Maybe I'll spoof one.

The Corporate Welfare State vs the Social Welfare State

The corporate welfare state is not a new phenomenon, despite the notoriety it has achieved only recently. Unlike its counter­part, the social welfare state, its gestation period has been largely unobserved by interpreters of social events. And while social welfare legislation has been subjected to the most crit­ical scrutiny as to its costs, benefits and consequences, the attention of Canadians has been deflected from any examina­tion of the other face of the mixed economy, Canadian-style: the corporate welfare state. (1)

In the above cartoon from former NDP leader David Lewis's book, The Corporate Welfare Bums, we see a mouse hole for 'small tax breaks' and a trap set to take what little they have, while the vulture of the 'corporate welfare bums' stands behind the government official to steal any morsel they can. "For Pete's sake don't waste your time on the crum [sic] eaters"

The large pie that the corporate welfare bums are feasting on, DREE, stood for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, a government agency that was supposed to promote business, but instead for the most part, just propped up businesses. And often those already doing very well.

What's interesting, is that those words were written in 1972, and for 40 years the corporate welfare state has been allowed to expand, with very little notice.

The nature of the corporate welfare state has been obscured by the traditional moralizing of big business about the virtues of free enterprise. While they publicly denounce increased government expenditure, particularly in the form of social welfare, these champions of free enterprise actively lobby the government for incentive grants, research grants and tax concessions, and all manner of assistance at the individual taxpayer's expense. And because they have drawn a sympathetic response from Liberal and Conservative governments, which subscribe to the myth of "business confidence," their appetite for welfare continues to increase.

The traditional use of the term "mixed economy" acknowledges the co-existence of private and public enterprise within one society. In Canada, the mixed economy has advanced beyond the co-existence of the public and private spheres: it has reached the stage where private business is increasingly being supported by the public purse.

As a result, Canadian businesses, whatever their public pronouncements on the matter, not only acquiesce to government involvement in the economy but have come to depend upon it. Their "welfare cheques," in the form of grants and tax concessions, have become an integral aspect of their operation. The corporate welfare state did not emerge overnight. We may be inclined to regard the establishment of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion (DREE) in 1969 as the birth-date of business government, simply because the handouts to business during the past four years have dwarfed all previous programs. (1)

Now almost 40 years later, people are starting to take notice. When Stephen Harper called Canada 'a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term', he left out the word 'corporate'. Intentionally, no doubt, since he was then heading up the corporate funded National Citizens Coalition.

David Lewis's campaign against the corporate welfare state, reduced the Trudeau government to a minority in 1972, but more importantly, because the NDP then held the balance of power in the House, they were able to move the Liberals to the left.

In a bit of irony, the National Citizens Coalition, was incorporated in 1975 on the advice of Ernest Manning, father of Reform Party leader Preston Manning, in response to what he saw as a left-wing conspiracy. Prior to that, the NCC mostly just took out ads in newspapers against social programs, especially medicare.

The connections between the National Citizens Coalition and the Reform party go back a long way. Their political agendas are virtually identical: deficit reduction, restriction of immigration, ending universal social programs, lowering taxes for corporations and high-income earners, and ending national medicare.

..."At the same time, Ernest Manning and his son were launching Ernest's book, Political Realignment, calling for a social conservative party. According to Norm Ovenden of the Edmonton Journal, Ernest was one of the 'moving forces behind the creation of the NCC ..." (2)

The corporate welfare bums were fighting back, and they had the money to do it.

Another bit of irony, is that Lewis's campaign had the support of a grassroots movement, called the Committee for an Independent Canada, led by Canadian treasure, Pierre Berton.

But this wasn't the first time that Berton caught the attention of the Western based Reform movement. In 1963, the Anglican Congress sought out this prolific writer, to create a book on Christianity in Canada. 'It was inspired by Vatican II, a modernizing of the Catholic faith, they wanted to also change focus, and become a "listening" church, "hearing" things the world around them was saying.' (3)

The book was met with outrage by Ted Byfield, one of the founders of the Reform Party, planting the seed for the Canadian Religious Right. Byfield was also involved with the Civitas Society, a right-wing group that directs much of the Harper government's policies, especially in foreign affairs.

And if you're not too dizzy, there is one more irony. Jason Kenney is also a founding member of the Civitas Society, but more importantly an active opponent to Vatican II and the modernizing of the Catholic Church. Though not born when it was implemented, he attended St. Ignatius, a Catholic high school in San Francisco, which was started to oppose Vatican II.

So we have come full circle. But we are now armed with the truth.

The social welfare state was good for Canadians, and while the corporate welfare bums are suggesting that it was that, that caused so much deficit and debt, the fact is, it was them.

And now that the corporate welfare bums have a leader in Stephen Harper, we see that they have created a record deficit and debt, which is being blamed on 'the economy'. But the mess that the economy is in, was because of gambles taken by the corporate welfare bums.

And yet they suffered no setbacks, because they stood outside the mouse hole with a vacuum cleaner and sucked out anything they could reach. We are the only ones feeling the effects of their poor judgement.

Mad Yet?

I'm glad that this is now being brought to the forefront, as we face, hopefully, another election.

Michael Ignatieff dominated the first Question Period of the year, hammering the Prime Minister over his government’s response to the crisis in Egypt and accusing him of giving tax breaks to rich corporations while ignoring Canadian families.

“They don’t see their priorities reflected in the priorities of the government,” the Liberal Leader charged Monday afternoon. “When will the government start listening to those families where the elastic is [pulled] tight and start doing something for them instead of corporations that don’t need the help.”

And remember, a recent poll showed that 90% of Canadians are opposed to more corporate tax cuts. 90%. And yet the Harper government is still going through with them, further proof that they are simply not listening to us.

It's time to return the favour.

Sources:

1. Louder Voices: The Corporate Welfare Bums, By David Lewis, James Lewis & Samuel, 1972, ISBN: 0-88862-031-4, Pg. 1-2

2. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By: Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, Pg. 95

3. The Comfortable Pew Revisited, By Michael Creal, Catholic New Times, January 16, 2005

Gail Shea and When a Fisheries Minister is Not a Fisheries Minister

In a normal situation, when cabinet ministers are chosen, the selection is based on who has the right education and experience, to best carry out their mandate.

Therefore, you might expect that someone chosen to head up fisheries and oceans, would at least have a scientific background, so that they can speak the language and understand the concerns of stakeholders.

But Gail Shea has none of these qualifications nor does she appear to have much interest. Her primary function is to attend trade shows and entertain lobbyists, who have been working to tear down Canadian safeguards to protect our waterways and marine life.

In 2008, she ordered the slaughter of 560 Narwhal whales who had been trapped in the ice around Baffin Island. The American humane society had hired Inuit to keep the blowholes open, while they arranged to have an icebreaker rescue the whales.

But before they could do that, Shea instead ordered that they all be shot. These are not the actions of someone who takes her job of protecting these sea mammals seriously. It was one of the worst acts of brutality in the history of our country, and she offered no apologies. Instead she launched a personal attack on the sea captain who tried in vain to rescue them, attempting to have him fired.

"A government that refuses to abide by democratic principles and closes the door of Parliament rather than to submit to the rule of the majority is hardly in a position to demand my resignation. The Canadian government has no power or authority over us and we have no cause to respect any demands from the Canadian government, especially the ridiculous Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Gail Shea remains Minister only because the honourable members of Parliament have been denied the floor from which to fire her," said Captain Paul Watson.

Shea is also promoting the shrimp farming industry, which erodes coastlines and is damaging to the eco system. And instead of addressing the concerns of marine biologists troubled by the devastating results of salmon farming, she was in Norway schmoozing with the people who are causing the destruction.

And under her watch mining companies are being allowed to dump toxic waste into our lakes and rivers.

So I found it rather interesting, that she is now in Summerside, apparently on the campaign trail, touting the accomplishments of her government and selling the notion of giving corporations more tax cuts. She should be doing her job as a public servant.

Canada is a beautiful country, and we have always taken pride in our shorelines, clean water and wildlife. When salmon become infected, they are not only unfit for human consumption, but also for other animals in the food chain, like the grizzly.

And when waterways become toxic, complete eco systems are destroyed.

Shea defends her actions by suggesting that she is protecting and creating jobs. But shrimp and salmon farming is mostly seasonal work, often performed by migrant workers. And green jobs could be created without harming the environment, but protecting it.

If Shea wants to work for multinationals, she should do so. But not when she's on our payroll.

Conditions are Dire. It's Time For a Progressive Revolution

"The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us." - Theodore Roosevelt

In an attempt to restore Canada's progressive nature, Canadians have to continually tap into the movements and leaders who helped to steer us in the right direction. And while up until five years ago, we felt that we were an independent and sovereign nation, our future now lies in the hands of Republican strategists and Tea Party sponsors, who are all part of the neoconservative movement.

Stephen Harper and his Corporate Party of Canada, has given us their Religious Right, who now set our moral code. He's adopted their foreign policy, meaning that we will continually be at war and must love Israel more than our own country. And he has given us their toxic politics, making a mockery of democracy, and turning Canadians away from the polls in droves.

But it's important to remember why and how the Progressive Movement began more than a century ago, so I am looking to both sides of the border for inspiration. And a good example of a progressive thinker is President Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican no less, back in the day when the Party had values.

Roosevelt was from an extremely wealthy family and had graduated from Harvard. Yet he was hardly what anyone would call an "elitist", though in today's political climate, I'm sure attack ads might suggest otherwise. But he was president at a time when the American people believed that the intelligent and well educated were the best choice to lead the county.

Teddy Roosevelt was the creator of the "Square Deal", feeling that all Americans were entitled to share in the best that the country had to offer (Oh, no. A Socialist!)

And his agenda was based on three fundamental ideas: the conservation of natural resources, taking control of corporations, and enacting consumer protection. And to do this he sought the help of middle class citizens, to break down the plutocracy.

The neoconservative movement instead has sought the assistance of the most vulnerable citizens, convincing them that they have their best interests at heart.

We need to follow Roosevelt's lead and tap into the middle for direction. In Canada, for the 50 years or so when policy was drafted to benefit the average citizen, those citizens forced things to the table that were to the betterment of everyone. And as a result, the middle class swelled, thanks to things like universal healthcare, labour unions and public education.

Now our middle class are becoming the working poor, and the Corporate Party is poised to destroy both healthcare and education, in favour of profits for what they call the "private sector", which is code for multi-national corporations.

And the only ones benefiting from Harper policy, are our wealthiest citizens, who instead of paying their share, demand that they contribute less and less to the health of our nation.

Murray Dobbin has an excellent piece in the Tyee this week: The CEO and the New Feudalism, where he reveals that income disparity is now so out of control, that the average CEO earns the same amount as the average worker, by 2:30 pm on January 3.

It is the modern equivalent of the power and arrogance of the robber barons of the 1920s. The CEOs' virtual control of the public policy process, which allows for this obscene level of inequality, delivers another message: democracy, whose essence is equality, will not be allowed to mess with the natural order of things.

And yet Harper is planning a tax payer funded tour, to convince Canadians that we should create more inequality, by giving the wealthy even more of our money. Where does it end?

But you know, we can complain about Stephen Harper. We can complain about prison expansion at a time when our crime rate is at it's lowest. And we can complain about the loss of our media. But the real question is, what are we going to do about it?

"Criticism is necessary and useful; it is often indispensable; but it can never take the place of action, or be even a poor substitute for it. The function of the mere critic is of very subordinate usefulness. It is the doer of deeds who actually counts in the battle for life, and not the man who looks on and says how the fight ought to be fought ..." - Theodore Roosevelt

Will Don Cherry be Running for the Neocons in Kingston?

The Neoconservative candidate in Kingston, Brian Abrams, stepped down recently and his replacement has yet to be announced.

However, rumours are flying that Don Cherry will be running on the neocon ticket in his hometown, which suddenly makes everything he's been doing so far make sense.

Supporting Rob Ford's throwing public servants out of work and attacking immigrants.

Visiting Afghanistan, knowing that Kingston is a military town.

I don't know whether to feel nauseous or just cry. For 40 years we have been represented by the best of the Tories and Liberals in Flora MacDonald and Peter Milliken.

Now we will have the only politician with a lower IQ than Sarah Palin. But his name recognition will probably get him elected, and the neocons will tout him around to all the ridings, signing autographs, burping and butt scratching their way to victory.

Our once beautiful country is being handed over to idiots.

How Don Cherry Turned Me Into a Communist

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Do you think I got their attention?

When our kids were younger, we went to Toronto for a few days over the Christmas holidays, and had tickets to a Maple Leaf game, when they were still playing at the Gardens.

We decided to drop in earlier in the day to see if the team was practicing (yes they do practice) and as it happened there was a charity skate-a-thon taking place, with several NHL stars, including Bobby Orr.

They were just setting up tables for autographs and as Don Cherry walked by to take his place, my daughter blurted out, "Don Cherry, Don Cherry. Your brother [ Dick Cherry] is my principal".

Cherry stopped in his tracks. "Yeah? Are you guys from Kingston?"

When we told him that we were, he immediately gave us the red carpet treatment, even introducing us to the rest of the stars at the table, including Bobby Orr, like we were his friends. We've never forgotten that.

But Cherry's recent nonsense over "left-wing Pinkos", has blurred that fond memory, though Cherry is only a symptom of what is wrong in this country, not the cause.

Divisive politics have created enemies, when there were none before. Everything has become a left-right issue, instead of a Canadian issue. And Don Cherry fed into that divide at a time when he could have used his celebrity, to help those who turned his often ignorant musings, into a successful career.

The opposition to the new Toronto mayor, Rob Ford, is that he will be throwing thousands of public servants out of work, at a time when unemployment is high. And he is doing this not to save money, because privatization schemes always end up costing more, but so he can make another small sector of the population even richer than they already are.

In the meantime, those public servants, will now be given the opportunity to do the same job for less money, to the benefit of the corporate elite.

And this "hero of the little guy" Cherry, is supporting that. And he is engaging in divisiveness to do it. Our own Glen Beck.

But I think that Cherry may have done us a favour, because he has provided a rallying cry. We can become an Army of "Pinkos".

And I don't mean an army of Communists, as my heading implies, because the term Pinko was never really about Communism, but the ignorance surrounding it. The misplaced fear and hatred that accepted an unprecedented buildup of military weapons, and suspension of civil liberties, while ignoring the needs of a nation's citizens.

No, my Army of Pinkos will take on the neoconservative movement.

We will fight against tax cuts for the wealthy and for social programs.

We will fight against more prisons and for social justice.

We will fight against corporate welfare and for corporate responsibility.

Against billions spent on climate change denial and for real action to fight climate change.

Against the closing of the Prison Farms and for rehabilitation that has worked in the past.

Against the purchase of more military hardware and for an end to this conflict.

Against the suspension of Nortel's disability pensions and for an end to corporations getting all the breaks.

Against the need for so many foodbanks and for real action to end poverty.

And I'm just getting started.

So thank you Don Cherry. I am again inspired by you. Your face will appear on my flag and your words will resonate with my soldiers.

An Army of Pinkos, whose arsenal will be our feet, our keyboards and our votes.

Ballyhoo my pink heroes. We have a job to do.

Canadian Artist Robert Bateman Condemns the Destruction Imposed by the Neoconservatives

Robert Bateman the well know naturalist and artist, wrote a piece in 2003, that was shared on the CAPP board yesterday.

I wish I'd seen it before, because it expresses my views. I too was a Conservative, but hate that the neoconservatives have taken over the historic party of Sir John A. MacDonald.

Below are a few excerpts (1) from his Globe and Mail column, now available on his website:

I am a conservative. This is why I deeply resent the neo-conservatives who are not conservatives at all. They are the opposite: radicals who are destroying cherished institutions and wreaking havoc on our human heritage as well as our natural heritage.

I do not consider destroyers to be conservative. So many cherished institutions have been built with great care and dedication through the decades by well-trained people with good hearts. These are being smashed and weakened in great haste by politicians and ideologues who do not even understand what they destroy. Creation is long and difficult; destruction is quick.

Now we are faced with the foolish idea that a corporation should be regarded legally as "a person." In reality, a corporation is simply a pile of money to which a number of persons have sold their moral allegiance.

The slogan of most of these entities is "make too cheap and sell too high." With few exceptions, there is little obligation among such corporate "persons" to ideas of public place or public good. In "In the Presence of Fear, Three Essays For a Changed World", his excellent book written after 9/11, Wendell Berry observes, "Corporations make the assumption that stable and preserving relationships

Among people, places and things do not matter and are of no worth." And "that there is no conflict between self-interest and public service." This seems to be the
philosophy of the neo-conservatives.

Sources:

1. I am a Conservative, By: Robert Bateman, Globe and Mail, December 13, 2003

Transparency Without Accountability. Reading Between the Lines

We need an unconstrained, unrestricted, full-fledged, unspoiled market economy, and we need it now ... We want to achieve the transition from a state-dominated economy to an economy based on the private sector, private initiative and private entrepreneurship . .. We are increasingly convinced that our country, or any other, is less unique than is often claimed ... The basic economic laws are valid across continents, economic systems, as well as ideological beliefs . . . The 'third way' [between central planning and the market economy] is the fastest way to the Third World. Vaclav Klaus, Czechoslovakian Minister of Finance, 1991 (1)

This two decades old quote was found in the introduction to the book Unfinished Business, written by former New Zealand finance minister Roger Douglas.

So what does a former Czechoslovakian Minister of Finance, and a former New Zealand Minister of Finance, have to do with us? Everything.

Rogernomics and Canada's Neoconservative Movement

Roger Douglas was the minister of finance in New Zealand from 1984 to 1989. Though elected with the left-wing Labour Party, he would take NZ sharply to the right, before the tables were cleared at his victory dinner. This was not by accident, as he would later advise the eager Canadian neocons:

"... beware the risks of candid disclosure before a fickle electorate, strike quickly once in power, define a total agenda, establish the essential control agencies, move simultaneously on a variety of policy fronts, embed the reforms as deeply as possible in legal and market channels so as to prevent early reversal, keep your nerve when faced with popular or electoral resistance and allow the programme to do its work." (2)

His policies were really not that new. Borrowed form Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan , they were just about dismantling a country's social safety net and paving the way for multi-nationals. And like Britain and the United States, under their neoconservative leaders; it was the ordinary citizens who suffered.

Saskatchewan political economist, Dr. John Warnock, travelled to New Zealand to study the effects of what New Zealanders dubbed 'Rogernomics.' The figures tell a story of devastation - a word used by New Zealand's own agricultural minister to describe the state of agriculture in four years after the 'reforms': A 40 per cent drop in farm income; a 50 per cent drop in the value of farm land; a policy of paying 3,000 farmers incentives of $ 45,000 to leave and the suggestion that another 15,000 (out of 79,000) should follow them.

Unemployment, which had been at 4 per cent before Douglas's reforms, jumped to over 12 per cent in just over a year and is still increasing.

"Douglas completely eliminated regional development grants and subsidies to rural services. Says Warnock, 'They had things like subsidized petroleum - regardless of where you were the price was the same - subsidized train service, bus service, airport service. They privatized all these things and the prices immediately skyrocketed.' A massive de-population of the countryside resulted, and approximately 40,000 New Zealanders per year have since left the country for Australia to find work since 'restructuring' took effect. (3)

But a handful of people got filthy rich, and isn't that all that really matters?

I picked up Unfinished Business at the library yesterday, because apparently it was the book that led Ralph Klein (Alberta Premier 1992-2006) and Mike Harris (Ontario Premier 1995-2002) through their years of slash and burn. I can't speak for Alberta, but in Ontario those years were horrendous.

More importantly, though; Roger Douglas also mentored Preston Manning and Stephen Harper, first speaking at the Reform Party's 1991 assembly, two years before his book was published.

He spoke of a ten point plan, which included messages, like "implement reforms by quantum leaps. Moving step by step lets invested interests mobilize. Speed is essential. It is impossible to move too fast. Once your momentum starts, never let it stop. Don't blink or wobble." (4)

Have you seen Stephen Harper "blink or wobble"? And another important thing to think about is that when Ralph Klein invited Douglas to speak to his caucus, a man by the name of Stockwell Day was in attendance. Our new unblinking head of the treasury. And when Douglas spoke to Mike Harris's crew, it included Jim Flaherty, Tony Clement, John Baird and Peter Van Loan.

Vaclav Klaus and Those Threatening 'isms'

Like Douglas, Klaus; now the President of Czechoslovakia, pursued a slash and burn agenda. He has been dubbed the Czechoslovakian Margaret Thatcher, and his policies called 'gangster capitalism", but it never stopped him or even slowed him down.

He gave a lecture a while back, where he warned his audience not to get trapped by 'isms'. His list included " ... feminism, environmentalism, socialism, multiculturalism, humanrightism and NGOism " (Jason Kenney got the vapours) (5)

He is also a staunch climate change denier and vetoed the Anti-Discrimination Law passed by parliament in 2008, that would have included protection for homsexuals, saying it was a dangerous threat to personal freedoms. (Jason Kenney swooned)

A Light Headed Jason Kenney Enters

So I mentioned that I picked up the book Unfinished Business, in an attempt to try and figure out what the Harper's government's agenda was, but was surprised to find that the first page would lead right to current headlines.

Not based on the dismantling of our social safety net, but the recent actions of our anti-multicultural, anti-immigration minister, Jason Kenney.

Earlier this month, Embassy Magazine ran a story: Federal Court asked to rule on Kenney's refugee claims: A Toronto-based lawyer is alleging the immigration minister might have interfered in the IRB's decision making.

Last June, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney publicly questioned the legitimacy of refugee claims made by Roma coming from the Czech Republic, saying they faced no real risk of state persecution.

The month prior to Kenney's announcement about Roma refugees, Stephen Harper visited Czechoslovakia, where the subject was discussed.

Harper also discussed with Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek the soaring number of Romas, or Gypsies, entering Canada and claiming political asylum since late 2007, when Canada lifted visa requirements on Czech visitors. More than 80 Czech asylum-seekers have had their claims accepted, reflecting widespread concerns about discrimination and far-right violence directed against the community.

But Topolanek said the Roma are going to Canada for economic reasons rather than fleeing persecution, and blamed Canada's "soft" refugee determination process. Harper, meanwhile, indicated that Canada will bring back the visa rule if the situation isn't resolved.

Hmmmm. "Canada will bring back the visa rule ..." Not Kenney's idea after all.

But are these claims really "bogus"? Not according to Canwest European Correspondent Peter O'Neil.

A ghastly arson attack that has left a two-year-old girl fighting for her life contradicts Canadian and Czech government assertions that an exodus of Roma refugee claimants to Canada is driven by economics, rather than fear of persecution, say members of the Roma community here.

... They say they face a constant threat of neo-Nazi attacks and hateful demonstrations, where marchers head into Roma communities and call them "parasites," organized by increasingly sophisticated organizations such as the far-right Workers' Party.

"We are afraid for our lives," said Martin Duna, 31 ... "We are worried that Hitler is coming back." ... Duna's reference to Hitler, who sent Roma, as well as Jews and homosexuals, to extermination camps during the Second World War, isn't as extreme as it may sound ... Czech municipal politicians have won nationwide public praise for evicting Roma from apartments to live in metal containers in city outskirts; and human-rights groups have reported involuntary sterilizations of Roma women from the late 1960s to as recently as late last year.

Growing neo-Nazi violence, as well as discrimination and even segregation in areas such as health, housing, education, criminal justice and employment, have been reported in numerous publications issued by the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the U.S. State Department and Amnesty International.

These claims don't sound "bogus" to me. It seems more like Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney, are just protecting one of their own.

But their actions could have very devastating effects. It will be almost impossible for Roma to obtain Visas, but since all Czech citizens will now fall under that rule, there could be increased violence as they blame the "victims" for the problem.

Don't you just love neoconservatism, where their goddess Margaret Thatcher once said: "There is no such thing as society."

Footnotes:

1. Unfinished Business, By: Roger Douglas, Random House, 1993, ISBN: 1869411994, Pg. 1

2. "The New Zealand Experiment: A Canadian Perspective", By Peter Clancy, Electronic Journal of Radical Organizational Theory, June 1996.

3. Preston Manning and the Reform Party. By: Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 113-114

4. Preston Manning: The New Canada, By: Preston Manning, MacMillan Canada,ISBN: 0-7715-9150-0, pg. 276

5. Czech President Warns Against “Europeanism”, The Brussels Journal: the Voice of Conservatism (oops, another ism) in Europe, Paul Belien August 8, 2005

If You Are What You Eat, Harper Better Lay Off the Turkey

Neoconservatiam scores another victory, as the Harper government once again puts Canada and Canadians last.

In an attempt to bankrupt our nation and bust unions in the process, Canada Post will be replacing their fleet of vans, and instead of providing, or at least securing Canadian jobs; those vans will be made in Turkey.

Yes, Turkey.

CAW is furious, as we all should be.

WINDSOR, Ont. — Canada Post is replacing its aging leet of mostly urban light delivery vehicles with Ford Transit Connects made in Turkey, not the Windsor-made Chrysler minivan.

The decision was a final blow to an unsuccessful obbying effort by the Canadian Auto Workers and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers urging the post office to adopt a "buy Canadian" policy and to select the Chrysler minivan.

CAW Local 444 president Rick Laporte, who represents workers at the Windsor minivan plant, said he is outraged ... "It's mind-boggling to me that they would spend money on foreign manufactured goods when this country is struggling with its economy, and we're losing manufacturing jobs at an alarming rate."

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA?

Why I Believe we Can Prevent Dead People From Rising

I'm trying to put all of my work together on the neoconservative movement, it's origins and where we could be headed.

The Libertarian ideas stem in part from the 19th century politician/philosopher/economist Frederic Bastiat, who believed in individual freedoms, especially in the market place.

The Montreal Economic Institute, former home of Reform-Conservative MP Maxime Bernier, base many of their theories on Bastiat, where there is no nation, only individuals, who are actually diminished to the role of 'consumer'.

Margaret Thatcher, who was also a neo-con free marketeer, once said "there is no such thing as society".

Notions like sovereignty, democracy and nationalism, are direct threats to neoconservatism.

However, as much as it would appear that these theories have gained ground, I also believe that, or at least hope that, they might be about to self destruct. And I don't see this happening necessarily because of the efforts of my generation, but because of the views of our youth.

Many in the media dismissed Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament, as just a bunch of college kids, who would soon get bored and move on to something else.

However, a survey done of the group, revealed that more than half of us are over 40, settled and politically active. And 87% of us vote.

But it is not the over 40 who influence the direction we are going. The founder of the group, Christopher White is a university student in his 20's, and has very clear ideas about what a democracy should like.

In fact, reading university papers and comments from the 'pups', I've discovered that they are more politically engaged than we think. They may feel disenfranchised by the status quo on Parliament Hill, but they are very concerned with issues like global warming, social justice and government waste.

Their views are not reflective of the views of our current government.

Stephen Harper always polls better when he pretends to be Liberal, but if anyone assumes that he is moving to the centre politically; they couldn't be more wrong. In fact he's right on track. According to economists Eugene Lang and Philip DeMont:

A new conventional wisdom has emerged. The Harper government has been labelled moderate, centrist – even "liberal." This characterization is due entirely to the large fiscal deficits that have emerged on the Harper watch – $56 billion next year alone – deficits the government admits with a shrug will extend for several years.

No self-respecting conservative government could tolerate such profligacy, or so goes the critique. The Harperites have lost their way, abandoned their guiding philosophy, sold out to those soft-headed, big government political parties for which deficits are regarded as a normal part of governing.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Harper government has, in fact, remained very true to its ideology. But that ideology is not "conservative." Rather, it is "neoconservative," and this makes a big difference on the question of deficits and fiscal policy. For neoconservatives – the denomination that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s – balanced budgets are not a first-order priority.

...So don't be fooled. There is nothing "liberal" about the Harper government's fiscal and economic policy. They remain true to their ideological roots, and can walk proudly in the footsteps of trailblazers like Ronald Reagan.

There was an excellent article in the Varsity newspaper, that while the author still doesn't understand the difference between conservatism and neoconservativism, he does reveal the priorities of his generation. In discussing Flaherty's 'plans':

There’s a real logic to this kind of policy—it’s predicated on a particular notion of “growth” which it assumes happens from the top down and not from the bottom up. The only problem is that “growth,” of this kind usually relegates its benefits to a select few, while doing nothing to combat deficits or fund social programs to help those who really suffer during a recession.

The article then goes into the anthem flap to deflect attention, the detainee issue and prorogation. They are definitely paying attention, and viewing Canadian politics based on a shared vision of their parent's view of Canada; not Reform ideology.

Dead economists like Frederic Bastiat and Friedrich Hayek, can stay buried.

I think we're going to be alright.

************


Related Stories

Maxime Bernier and the Unimportance of Nationalism

Pay Attention. We Are Being Sold Off by the Ideology of Dead People