Michael Ignatieff and the Man from Shawinigan

I have to be honest, I never voted for Jean Chretien or Paul Martin. I guess as a long time PC supporter, I still held onto the old prejudices, somehow believing that they were the enemy.

But since then I have come to respect Mr. Chretien as a statesman, and recognize his contribution to our country.

I've also realized that things are not always as they seem, and as Joe Clark once said about Stephen Harper, and the PC's fall from grace; that for those who didn't want to stick it out and rebuild the party, the "alternative was frightening".

And we are now learning just how "frightening" the alternative really is.

I called my blog Pushed to the Left and Loving it, because when I felt that there was no longer a party in the centre, only an extreme right-wing neoconservative option, and I lost my home; I discovered that the other side of the fence wasn't so bad after all.

For decades the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives battled for that coveted centre position because that's where most Canadians hang out. But once elected they worked toward consensus building.

But neoconservatism is the exact opposite. They don't want to build a consensus, they just want everyone to get out of their way.

Stephen Harper's former campaign manager, Tom Flanagan, once suggested that their biggest challenge was convincing Canadians that they were moving to the centre, when they were not. Harper even managed to fool us for awhile, but his latest actions in regards to the G-20, the 16 billion dollar military jet contract, closing the prison farms, Fox News North, the census debacle and his "white's only" hiring options, have blown his cover.

He's still the same right-wing extremist that defined him in his Reform Party days.

So despite all the rumours, Michael Ignatieff's visit with Mr. Chretien was a hit. I knew it would be. Both man are intelligent and genuinely care about this country.

My journey to the place where I now promote Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party, was not an easy one. I inherited the gift (curse?) of skepticism from my dad, who always reminded me to question everything, to arrive at my own truth.

The best example of this was in high school, when we were given an assignment to write a political essay, choosing from democracy, monarchy, communism, etc.

I chose communism because I thought it would be easy, given the headlines in the middle of a the Cold War. But when I completed my first draft, my dad handed it back and said that it was not an essay based on anything other than rhetoric, and to be fair I had to at least learn what communism really was. (he was certainly not a sympathiser, but a life long Liberal)

So every day I headed to the library and asked for the Communist Manifesto. It was not allowed to be out on the shelves at the time, and I felt like an adolescent boy asking the druggist for condoms.

But I worked my way through it, and while I decided that I preferred democracy, I reached that decision based on fact. My paper was more balanced, showing the pros and cons, rather than just falling back on the popular opinion of the day, that everything was a "commie plot".

Michael Ignatieff is no communist either, but also drew his own conclusions about political and social structure.

From his Massey lecture series ( The Rights Revolution, 2000, Anansi, Pg. 19-20):

"... some civil inequalities between men and women, between gays and straights, between Quebecois and English Canadians, have been addressed by rights talk. But what about inequalities between rich and poor? One of the strange features of rights talk has been that it makes visible some inequalities — sexual and linguistic inequalities, for example — while obscuring others — such as those based on class and income. I'm no Marxist, but I am astonished that social and economic inequality, the focus of so much socialist passion when I was a student, has simply disappeared from the political agenda in Canada and most other capitalist societies.

This disappearance has something to do with rights talk. It can capture civil and political inequalities, but it can't capture more basic economic inequalities, such as the ways in which the economy rewards owners and investors at the expense of workers. The economic system may not infringe anybody's individual rights, but the whole machine ends up reproducing enduring types of social inequality. Rights talk not only fails to capture this kind of inequality, but also diverts the attention of the political system from it"

So in the past thirty years, we've talked about women, aboriginals, gays, and lesbians. But what about the workers? What about the way their union rights have been eroded? What about the economic insecurity of our poorest fellow citizens? Why can't our politics address this? It can't be because everyone has shared the fruits of our recent economic boom. It can't be because the poor don't exist. It must be because they have become invisible.

He wrote that in 2000, without a political agenda, and it was after reading the Rights Revolution that I realized that we share common ground. I'm no Marxist either, but I know that our current system isn't working and neoconservatism is only making it worse.

The gap between rich and poor is growing and unfortunately our most vulnerable citizens are still "invisible".

I am not anti-corporation and recognize that we need a healthy business structure if there is any hope for success. But I don't believe they should be pandered to in the way that this government is pandering to them. Massive corporate tax cuts, while they are telling the rest of us that we have to suck up the recession, caused by the greed of the corporate sector in the first place.

The rights of the workers must be considered. A neocon vision is low wages and a free market. But what they fail to consider is that the reason businesses are doing well is because of good union jobs, that create buying power. If everyone is making minimum wage, who will be left to purchase anything other than essentials?

We need someone with a vision that encompasses all citizens, and I really believe that Michael Ignatieff is that person. And I also believe that he has the best team, that he will not silence and keep chained.

And I know in my heart that my skeptical dad would have voted for him, and that's good enough for me.

Michael Ignatieff Has Nothing to Worry About. It's Deja Vu All Over Again

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

In June of 2005, Bourque News, the source for all political gossip, reported that there were some behind the scenes machinations to remove Stephen Harper as leader of the Reform-Conservative party and have him replaced by Ontario MPP, Jim Flaherty.

Bourque has learned that longtime Ontario Cabinet Minister and two-time provincial leadership contender Jim Flaherty may well be positioning himself for an early opportunity to unseat Stephen Harper, the disappointing Conservative Party incumbent, increasingly seen as a lame duck leader who’s political capital may well have expired .... Sources tell Bourque that failed retail heiress Nicky Eaton hosted a swish gathering at her country estate in Caledon for Flaherty’s intimates to discuss a bid for Harper’s job.

Present and accounted for included Tony Clement, recently disclosed as a recipient of Liberal CabMin Belinda Stronach’s largess, the surprisingly ambitious Mulroney Senator appointee Consiglio DiNino, and our old friend Tom Long, the Gaspesian Undertaker and defrocked Tory “strategist”. It is also understood that close supporters Deputy Conservative Leader Peter MacKay, New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord, and former CA leader Stockwell Day may also be quietly testing the leadership waters. (1)

The Globe and Mail was reporting:

Political knives are out for Stephen Harper as his federal Conservatives sink deeper in the polls, and the sharpest weapons are being brandished by members of his own party. “There is a lot of discontent with the turn of things. People are saying it’s time to replace the leader,” said one key Conservative organizer in Toronto who, like many others, asked not to be named because it could hurt his status in the party.

... a recent poll puts the Conservatives eight percentage points behind the Liberals and suggests that six in 10 Canadians have a negative view of Mr. Harper, he can be unseated only if he decides to step aside. ... behind the scenes, party members from coast to coast are pointing fingers and asking why opinion surveys have the Tories battling for third place nationally when the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship scandal should still be tarring the Liberals with the stigma of corruption.

Dissatisfaction with Mr. Harper’s leadership “started expanding with the Belinda [Stronach] defection and then it continued to expand when we didn’t get our [confidence] vote passed [on May 19] and a lot of people in the party are tired of waiting,” said one organizer, who also asked to remain anonymous. “This guy was supposed to be the answer, and, instead of being 20 points up in the polls which should be happening with the way things are in the Liberal Party, he’s eight points down in the polls. Like, what the hell?”(2)

And with Senator Eaton now lambasting Harper's attack on freedom of the press, maybe Michael Ignatieff's job is safer than Stephen Harper's. I mean Senator Eaton is the same Nicky Eaton who was parading Jim Flaherty around as a replacement for Harper.

And the Religious Right in Canada love Flaherty. Charles McVety has been a long time supporter, since Flaherty is a declared anti-abortion and just weeks before his "coming out" party, he spoke at a rally against same-sex marriage.

Pro-family leaders including Campaign Life Coalition President Jim Hughes, Dr. Charles McVety of Defend Marriage Canada, Jim Duffy of Witness, Jewish leader Joseph Benami made brief remarks ... Ontario Member of Provincial Parliament Jim Flaherty and Saskatchewan Federal Member of Parliament Maurice Vellacott also addressed the crowd. (3)

And so far he's given them everything they wanted: an end to a national day care plan, funding for religious schools, censorship. What more could they ask for? (A lot more, trust me, and he will be just as good as Harper at giving in to their demands)

No, Michael Ignatieff has nothing to worry about. The press may be questioning his future, just as they did Harper's in 2005, and his poll numbers are currently stronger. Harper had his party at 23% and his own rating was just 14%.

Sources:

1. Flaherty Plotting to Overthrow Harper? Bourque Newswatch, June 13, 2005

2. Stephen Harper: On His Way Out?, Globe and Mail, June 14, 2005

3. Faiths Unite vs Same-Sex, Canada, com, June 24, 2005

Conservative Senator Speaks Out Against Harper's Muzzling of the Press

As the news story this week of the media fighting back against Harper's stifling of the press, they could find support for their cause from within the hallowed halls of Harper's domain.

Senator Nicole Eaton, heiress of the Eaton department stores and a patronage senate appointment, had released a statement that supported the press and their right to information.

I am alarmed by the erosion of this most essential right;alarmed because freedom of speech is an inextricable part of our Canadian identity. If we lose that freedom, we lose a part of our Canadian-ness. Freedom of expression in all of its many forms – including freedom of speech, the press, the arts, and religious and cultural expression – has always been one of Canada’s most important national qualities.

It is a golden thread, woven through our great historic moments and all of our great public controversies, and it has guided us to peaceful resolutions of our disagreements and helped us reach our highest aspirations. And, in our increasingly multicultural, pluralistic society, it ensures that everyone in Canada can find their voice, and have their say.

She even brought up William Aberhart, the first leader of Harper's party, so she's definitely on top of this.

Aberhart’s election came in the face of nearly universal opposition by the newspapers of the day. By 1937, he was so frustrated that he introduced the Accurate News and Information Act, that required every newspaper in the province to run a rebuttal or a “correction or amplification” when ordered to do so by the government.

Eaton is a strong supporter of Jim Flaherty, so will we see friction in the ranks, now that she is speaking out against Harper's unprecedented control of information? Could be. I mean she even brought up Joseph Howe, an eminent defender of freedom of the press in Canada.

In 1835 – nearly 200 years ago, and a generation before Canada was born as our own country – Joseph Howe was put on trial for seditious libel, because the newspaper he published had embarrassed local Halifax politicians by exposing their corruption. Howe knew that his own freedom was at stake – if he lost, he could have been imprisoned. But he also knew that much more was on trial that day: the right of citizens to scrutinize and criticize their government was in
question.

Here’s what he said to the jury about what would happen politically if he were convicted: “Were you to condemn me, these [politicians] would say there is no truth in those charges, there is nothing wrong, and matters would continue in the old beaten track. If you acquit me, as I trust you will, they must form themselves into a court of inquiry for self-reformation ; they must drive out from among them those men who bring disgrace on their ranks, and mischief on the community in which they reside…”

...Howe’s case would set a precedent for Nova Scotia, and the rest of Canada, for centuries to come. Had the jury chosen to side with the Halifax elites – the politicians and other polite company who had been offended and embarrassed by him – corruption would have flourished, and democratic criticism would have withered. Howe’s passionate defence of freedom worked. The jury defied the judge’s instructions and acquitted Howe. And that great triumph set him on course to one day become Nova Scotia’s premier.

But let me quote one more passage from Howe’s speech. “Let not the sons of the Rebels look across the border to the sons of the Loyalists, and reproach them that their press is not free.”

That's exactly what happened when Time magazine in 2006 "look[ed] across the border .... and reproach[ed] them that their press is not free.” This is brilliant.

And what senator Eaton had to say about hiding corruption is exactly the point that the Canadian media is trying to make.

Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the flow of information out of Ottawa has slowed to a trickle. Cabinet ministers and civil servants are muzzled. Access to Information requests are stalled and stymied by political interference. Genuine transparency is replaced by slick propaganda and spin designed to manipulate public opinion. The result is a citizenry with limited insight into the workings of their government and a diminished ability to hold it accountable. As journalists, we fear this will mean more government waste, more misuse of taxpayer dollars, more scandals Canadians won't know about until it's too late.

It's been four years since Harper muzzled his cabinet ministers and forced reporters to put their names on a list during rare press conferences in hopes of being selected to ask the prime minster a question. It's not uncommon for reporters to be blackballed, barred from posing questions on behalf of Canadians. More recently, information control has reached new heights. Access to public events is now restricted.

Our press will be thrilled knowing that they have such high profile support from within the ranks. Thank you Senator Eaton for going over your boss's head in attempt to save Canada's tradition of freedom of the press. Not sure that Harper will be thanking you though.