REAL Women, Promise Keepers and the Promotion of Violence

I Burned my Bra For This? REAL Women of Canada and the Men Behind Them

It is a massive masculine shadow,
in a hall or crowded room,
lifting something indistinct up into the resonating night.
ROBERT BLY, "FIFTY MALES SITTING TOGETHER"

Robert Bly is an American author and poet who became the inspiration for the Mytho-poetic men's movement.

Fearing that the women's movement was turning men into "yogurt-eaters", Bly was determined to instead create a cabal of "wild men", who would seek traditional roles for the male species, many based on, believe it or not, Grimm's Fairy Tales.

The tales that portray the powerful king, the handsome prince, the beautiful maiden, and of course the witch determined to destroy them all. (He must have some mother issues)

No "round shouldered" men need apply.

Author Susan Faludi attended one of his few retreats that were open to women and asked why everyone was told in advance to bring a large stone. Bly's spokesperson explained that they were to build a monument to Hermes, but didn't want to go into too much detail, with women present.

An Olympic god. Of course. Patron of shepherds and cowherds. In fact, the spokesman, Walter Bliss, had legally changed his name to Shepherd Bliss, and his profession from army officer to psychologist.

Bly made his appearance to the sound of conga drums, and with the stance of a Viking, reminded those in the audience that he is Norse.

We no longer have images of "real men," Bly says, as the men continue the drum beat. Stereotypical sissies have replaced macho men. "Woody Allen is just as bad—a negative John Wayne," he says, raising his voice to a nasal squeak in imitation. "Men used to make models for what a man is from the Iliad and the Odyssey and places like that."

On the all-male weekend, he promises, he will bring back these role models for male edification: "One of the things we do is go back to the very old stories, five thousand years ago, where the view of a man, what a man is, is more healthy."(1)

A former peace activist, and strong opponent to the Vietnam war, Bly needed a new cause and found it in male bonding.

By the early '80s, he was, he confessed, starting to feel less than manly. "I began to feel diminished," Bly writes, "by my lack of embodiment of the fruitful male—or the moist male." It wasn't his loss of early prominence, however, that he identified as the problem. It was his "missing contact with men" and his overexposure to strong and angry women, including his own mother. (told 'ya)

He feared that he and men like him had allied them­selves too closely with such women, and consequently taken "a female view" of their fathers and their own masculinity. He de­cided he'd made a mistake with his earlier recommendation: "If someone says to me now, 'There is something missing on your feminine side,' I say, `No, what is missing is the masculine,' " Bly told Whole Earth magazine in 1988. He worried that he was only "superficially" manly. Men had awakened their feminine princi­ple only to be consumed by it. They had gone "soft." (1)

So he began running all-male workshops to reintroduce men to "the deep masculine."

This led to wilderness weekend retreats where men dressed in tribal masks and wild-animal costumes, beat drums and rediscov­ered "the beast within." His success inspired scores of imitators, creating a "cottage industry" for the men's movement.

And one of those "imitators" was the Promise Keepers. A New Age Journal article noted that Promise Keepers combined the secular men’s movement (founded by New Age poet Robert Bly) with the political evangelicalism of Pat Robertson. And the Atlanta Journal-Constitution stated that: "Promise Keepers combines the Jesus Saves preaching of Billy Graham with the male-bonding message of Robert Bly.

Promise Keepers was brought to Canada by Conservative MP David Sweet. In 2004, when he ran, he posted on his website, the fact that he had been instrumental in creating the Northern chapter.

Women read that, reminded us of what PK stood for, and he lost the election.

In 2006, he got smarter, and removed all mention of the "wildmen" club, only saying that he ran a non-profit organization. He continues to represent Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough- Westdale.

Bly's teachings also fit well with the anti-feminist groups, like REAL Women of Canada, who promoted so-called "family values". Bly attacked not only domineering women, but single mothers.

In short, the Great Mother's authority has become too great. "Men's societies are disappearing, partly under pressure from women with hurt feelings," he writes. Too many women are "raising boys with no man in the house." The single mother's son has become "a nice boy who now not only pleases his mother but also the young woman he is living with."

To restore the nice boy's male identity, Bly proposes, he must quit taking cues from mother and "go down into the psyche and accept what's dark down there." As a key guide to the journey, Bly offers "The Story of Iron John," borrowed from a Grimm's Brothers' fairy tale. In the story, a hairy "wild man" is locked up in an iron cage near the royal castle; the key to the cage is under the queen's pillow. One day the young prince loses his prized "golden ball" when it rolls into an abandoned pond, and he can only relieve it by stealing the key from mother and freeing the wild man. The young man, in the words of Bly's sidekick Keith Thompson, has to take back the power he has given to his mother and get away from the force field of her bed. He must direct his energies away from pleasing Mommy." (1)

At Bly's all-male weekends, the "wildmen" build lairs with plastic chairs, grunting and groaning, and whatever other male sounds they can muster.

Journalist Jon Tevlin, attended a weekend of frolic and fun, run by Bly, at a Bible camp in Mound, Minnesota. On the first night, Tevlin reports that Shepherd Bliss, dropped to his knees.

"Some of you may want to temporarily leave the world of the two-leggeds, and 'Join me in the world of the four-leggeds," he said. One by one, we slid from our orange Naugahyde chairs onto an orange shag carpet ripped straight out of the 1960s. "You may find yourself behaving like these four-leggeds; you may be scratching the earth, getting in contact with the dirt and the world around you."

As he spoke, people began pawing at the ground. . . . "You may find yourself behaving like the most masculine of all animals—the ram," Shepherd said in a coaxing voice. . . . "You may find unfamiliar noises emerging from your throats!" . . . There were gurgles and bleats, a few wolf calls. . .. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw Shepherd coming toward me, head down, tufts of white hair ringing a bald spot. . . . Meanwhile, I felt a slight presence at my rear, and turned to see a man beginning to sniff my buttocks. "Woof!" he said. (1)

"Woof" indeed!

How to Handle Your Women

As men are given instruction on how to find their "beast within", they are also told how to treat their women, and "wrest the power from their hands".

Inspiration came from objects they were asked to bring from home, including a .380-caliber automatic pistol. A rather odd trophy for what was called a "battle on the domestic front".

And what if women are not so enthused with their new butt sniffing menfolk?

Promise Keeper's Tony Evans says “I am not suggesting that you ask for your role back, I am urging you to take it back. There can be no compromise here.” .

Robert Bly is not so subtle.

At one seminar, with more than a thousand men in attendance, a man in the audience told Bly, "Robert, when we tell women our desires, they tell us we're wrong." To which Bly responded: "So, then you bust them in the mouth." (1)

People are not taking this movement seriously enough. Stephen Harper is tearing down the Status for Women, and reversing gains made over the past decades.

But the media look at all the women in his caucus, and determine that he is not a misogynist.

If we had to select one photo that would define this period in our history, the following would definitely be in the running.

A frightened Diane Finlay making an announcement, with Pierre Poilievre in a Gestapo style stance, watching on. Women in Harper's party are mere window dressing. They have no power.

When Jason Kenney rewrote the citizenship guide, he all but excluded any contributions made by women.

Historian Margaret Conrad said of the new guide, that it “represents a new kind of Canada, one that is less sympathetic with my personal sense of a progressive, forward-looking nation, but the new slant is no doubt in keeping with the sentiments of the current administration in Ottawa ... It's kind of like a throwback to the 1950s, ... It's a tough, manly country with military and sports heroes that are all men."

We are being written out, reduced to the "witches" in Grimms Fairy Tales.

Sources:

1. Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, By Susan Faludi, Crown publishing, 1991, ISBN: 0-385-42507-4, Pg. 304-312

"Godly Men" and Access Codes. What is David Sweet Up To?

Many of the threats from the Religious Right are visible and already on our radar. However, there are a great many more that don't get as much attention as they should, and one of those comes from a Harper backbencher, David Sweet, and his group the "Promise Keepers".

When Sweet first ran in the 2004 federal election, in the Ontario riding of Ancaster, Dundas, Flamborough, Westdale; he posted on his website the fact that he was the Canadian founder of the Promise Keepers. When the media and others did a little investigation and discovered what PK really was, they went public and Sweet lost the election.

Learning his lesson, by 2006, he had removed all mention of PK and his name was all but purged from their website. At issue then was an old quote where he had said something to the effect that there was a reason why Jesus only called men as his disciples, because apparently they are "natural influencers" while women are "natural followers". Whatever.

I had researched the group a bit then, but most of the information available was from their U.S. counterpart, and according to Sweet and his supporters, they were quite different. Fair enough. Besides for awhile it appeared that the movement was fizzling out. Membership was down and their budget was shrinking. What was so threatening about a bunch of cowboys, getting together for a bit of scratch and sniff?

However, I came across an article from last summer, and apparently they are back and stronger than ever. Their founder has re-emerged and they have expanded their ministry. And guess what their goal is now? According the the Los Angeles Times, they are Plotting the Exit Strategy, with the help of McCartney's new organization "The Road to Jerusalem."

For thousands of years, prophets have predicted the end of the world. Today, various religious groups, using the latest technology, are trying to hasten it. Their endgame is to speed the promised arrival of a messiah. For some Christians this means laying the groundwork for Armageddon.

With that goal in mind, mega-church pastors recently met in Inglewood to polish strategies for using global communications and aircraft to transport missionaries to fulfill the Great Commission: to make every person on Earth aware of Jesus' message. Doing so, they believe, will bring about the end, perhaps within two decades.

WHAT???!!!

I'm getting too old for this.

And they have already "re-created priestly robes of white linen, gem-studded breastplates, silver trumpets ...." What no balloons? This sounds more like a Jason Kenney bachelor party for one.

It would appear that the PK have now invited Messianic Jews to join their club because as McCartney claims: "The Bible says Jews will be brought to jealousy when they see Christians and Jewish believers together as one -- they'll want to be a part of that. That's going to signal Jesus' return." Even the 700 Club Promotes this movement.

With this new information, I thought I'd take another look into David Sweet and his fundamentalism again, and I have discovered a pattern with the PK, that is disturbing without the whole white robe, gold breastplate thing. (and Sweet is still involved, mentioned as a speaker at their events)

David Sweet and the Promise Keepers

In the 1998 Canadian Christianity magazine, they ran an article about Sweet: Calling Men to Walk Together.

PROMISE KEEPERS (PK) want to be catalysts in the renewal of men across the nation. David Sweet, the 41 year old president and first CEO of the movement in Canada, is adamant that we're living in a time when Holy Spirit-driven men's ministries are crucial.

Citing the decay in moral and political authority that's increasingly becoming evident, Sweet observed that in any age we err if we take a look at the fruit of the age and determine what our behavior should be.

"This is the first time . . . historically that we have decided that we'll march to a morality drum that is governed by the voice of the day rather than having any bearing on what we've lived by in history" ... we have developed a psychology in our culture that we can divorce politics and morality. That is impossible to do."

Sweet goes on to tell the story of how he was arrested at the age of 12 for stealing cars and spent four years behind bars. I can imagine at that age, that it would have been quite traumatic and I'm glad he gave up that career choice.

At the time, PK was on their 'Living a Legacy' tour, and Sweet was appearing with some pretty heavy hitters in the evangelical trade. David Ring has been on all of the main mega church shows including John Hagee's. The late Selwyn Hughes also on the circuit and had written, according to his bio, 50 books on Christianity. Lee A. Jenkins runs a corporate Bible industry, promoting a theory of personal wealth paving the way to salvation (I paraphrase).

Steve Masterson and Brian Warren are both involved with the Canadian PK group. Masterson is listed as the Director of Teaching, Training & Development. David Warren is an ex-CFL player turned pastor, who is also on the PK 'team'. You can hear him speak a bit here.

So far, so good. Nothing yet to make you want to hide under the bed. But let's take a closer look at these 'Godly' men and their ministry.

Chest Thumping and Cross Bearing

Journalist Matt Taibbi went undercover on a weekend retreat with John Hagee's Cornerstone Church, and wrote a very revealing piece: Jesus Made Me Puke. Now some people might think that he was being sacrilegious, but I understand why the need for levity. It's often a defense mechanism.

Anytime I investigate these groups, I eventually have the same reaction, especially if I watch the videos. There is something about them that can be overwhelming. Watch the video at the bottom of this posting, and I think you'll see what I mean. They kind of tap into a raw emotion, and I can understand how the vulnerable could become mesmerized. The fact that I have to put it at the bottom says a lot. I'm not prepared to watch it again, and it's not the worst I've viewed in the past few hours. There were many I would never share with anyone.

But what Mr. Taibbi describes is an indoctrination.

Here I have a confession to make. It's not something that's easy to explain, but here goes. After two days of nearly constant religious instruction, songs, worship and praise - two days that for me meant an unending regimen of forced and fake responses - a funny thing started to happen to my head. There is a transformational quality in these external demonstrations of faith and belief.

The more you shout out praising the Lord, singing along to those awful acoustic tunes, telling people how blessed you feel and so on, the more a sort of mechanical Christian skin starts to grow all over your real self. You may think you know the answer, but by my third day I began to notice how effortlessly my soft-spoken Matt-mannequin was going through his robotic motions of praise, and I was shocked. For a brief, fleeting moment I could see how under different circumstances it would be easy enough to bury your "sinful" self far under the skin of your outer Christian and to just travel through life this way.

And what makes it more compelling to the average sinner are the people delivering the message. They will tell you stories of their own wasted lives, and as you identify with their 'anguish', there's a familiarity that develops. He's trusted you with his secrets.

But in relation to the PK and their retreats and conferences, they take on a 'macho' element. Some of it was witnessed during that weekend when a former athlete was whipping up the crowd.

The grown macho man unashamedly breaking into boyish tears in public is one of the weirder features of the post-Promise Keeper Christian generation, and Fortenberry - himself a Promise Keeper, incidentally - had it down to a science. "You never came to my ballgames, Dad," he'd screech, his face wrinkling like a raisin with grief at the word "ballgames

So you can imagine a conference where all of the motivational speakers are athletes and military leaders. Tough, virile men; crying and hugging each other, and encouraging others to cry and hug and each other. To take charge of their households come hell or high water. They are the kings of their castles and they now must head home to subjugate their queens.

I used to think however, that all that unleashed testosterone might encourage some men to take by force what would not be conceded, but after studying this movement a bit, I think there is a different strategy. They "love" their wives into "submission".

Love Your Wife Sacrificially

I think it's time to Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. Ephesians

That term "love your wife sacrificially' is heard a lot at these meetings. Now I can't imagine ever being loved sacrificially. And of course it's always wives, never girlfriends, fiancees or significant others. There must be a husband. There must be a wife. And there must be a "sacrifice".

I've read several "testimonials" and articles on the PK site, describing how a man must define his relationship and win over his woman.

But first, according to one of their books that you can purchase for $ 24.95, you must "crack her access code". Sounds painful.

But only then will she "... grow in becoming who God designed her to be." And after cracking their "access code", it's pretty clear that God designed her to be; a baby making machine, subservient to her husband. She just had to be "loved" into submission.

Scared Straight

Another angle, or 'promise' is sexual purity. And that's where all these 'manly' men come in. When you peruse the 'sexual purity' part of the site, there is a bit on pornography, but most of it has to do with homosexuality. They have a cure. Unfortunately they don't have a clue.

They use a 'reduce an athlete or military leader' to a snivelling wreck and then show his tough side. Their little skits are always about an abusive father, believing that caused the 'poor' man to 'choose' this 'lifestyle'. Author, historian and political activist, Anton Chaitkin, wrote an expose on the "mind control" techniques used by the Promise Keepers.

He refers to them as a "cult" and after watching some of their videos, I agree. I think that's what Matt Taibbi was sensing when he stated that Jesus made him puke. You know that there is something happening, as you watch the robotic movements, flushed faces and glazed eyes. These people are no longer thinking for themselves.

And they believe they can use this power to convince their followers that they can now 'control' their wives and 'cure' homosexuals, or possibly be 'cured' themselves.

Chaitkin refers to them as a 'military ministry', and even 'religious terrorists'.

But what happens when this group of manly, muscular Christians, who feel they now have the power to subjugate women and cure homosexuals; start turning their attention toward "Plotting the End Times"?

Their messages are not terribly subtle. Play the video on the right of this page. It's pretty clear that they see a final struggle between Gentiles and Jews. And not just any Gentiles, but Gentiles moved to tears by the Bible.

They've already ordered their white linen robes and jewel studded breastplates.

So to borrow a phrase from Rick Mercer: If you find yourself in Ancaster, Dundas, Flamborough, Westdale, and you see David Sweet. First cross the road, make sure your access code has not been broken, then run like hell.

We really need to get this government out, because sadly Sweet may not be the craziest member of Harper's caucus. Oye!

David Sweet Must be Removed as Member of Parliament for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale

David Sweet is the Reform Conservative Member of Parliament for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale, and one of the ridings I will be going after next election.

As a card carrying member of the Religious Right, his views and actions are moving this country in the wrong direction.

Sweet won the election in 2008, by a margin of more than ten thousand votes; though vote splitting and apathy played a huge part. We have to make sure this doesn't happen next election

Interestingly though, he lost his bid in 2004 because he mentioned his involvement with the anti-women movement, the Promise Keepers. (He founded the Canadian chapter)

In 2006 and 2008, he dropped that information from his campaign, so I'm bringing it back to the surface.

Since strategically the Liberals will be the best option to take out Sweet, I'm throwing my efforts into promoting their candidate. I'm not sure who that is yet, but you can visit the website here.

If you live in this riding, here's what you can do to help:

1. Join the Liberal Party. It's only about $10.00 and is a great way to show your support. They will keep you up to date with what's happening in the community and on the federal scene.

2. If you are able to find a bit of time, volunteer; perhaps with canvassing or some other promotions.

3. If you can afford it at all, donate a bit now and then. I'm set up to contribute a regular monthly donation, but it's whatever you feel comfortable with. Remember that the Conservatives have a lot of wealthy backers and it takes money to launch a campaign.

4. Join Catch 22 Harper Conservatives to learn more tips, and encourage others to join. They also have a website that is currently under construction. Sweet isn't one of their 22, but you will get some idea of how this works.

5. Join Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament. There are more than 30,000 links to stories with reasons to vote the Reform-Conservatives out. The better informed you are the more motivated you will be.

I'll keep this page updated as often as possible and will continue to provide more reasons why David Sweet and these destructive Reformers have got to go.

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

More Postings on David Sweet

David Sweet Should Not be Allowed to Vote on Women's Issues

David Sweet's Promise Keepers are Part of a Larger Political Movement

Pro-Sex Feminists and a Feminized Curriculum are to Blame for Everything

Maurice Vellacott at it Again Reminding us of What his Party Stands For

Roots of Reform, Stephen Harper and the Stepford Wives

Google This Trolls of Dean Del Mastro

When I read recently that Reformer MP Dean Del Mastro's staff google his name every day, looking for new posts on 'their boss', I thought I'd have a little fun.

I might actually start typing 'Dean Del Mastro' on every page and link it to a big 'BOO!' sign. It'll freak them out.

Mind you now that Del Mastro's 'boss' has given him a two month vacation, I'm sure his staff will be laid off until he has to go back to work, right? Ha ha ha ha. Yeah, right.

I came across an article that made me think of Dino, about an attempt by a Texas Senator to help end abortion ... or slow it down ... I don't know ... the guy's nuts.

Senator Dan Patrick is the perfect little Promise Keeper though.

Rolling Stone journalist, Matt Taibbi went undercover at Pastor John Hagee's ministry and discussed this new phenomenon.

"The grown macho man unashamedly breaking into boyish tears in public is one of the weirder features of the post-Promise Keeper Christian generation, and [Philip] Fortenberry -- himself a Promise Keeper, incidentally -- had it down to a science ... there is something very odd about modern Christian men -- although fiercely pro-military in their politics and prehistorically macho in their attitudes toward women's roles, on the level of day-to-day behavior they seem constantly ready to break out weeping like menopausal housewives... "

And of course at the top of the agenda for their 'macho attitudes toward women's roles', is their desire to end a woman's right to choose. They call themselves pro-lifers, but their pro-military attitudes suggest otherwise. They are just anti-abortion.

I can envision Dino's eyes lighting up as we speak. And poor little Cheryl Gallant is trying to get Dan Patrick on the line, but can't find the number for 'Idiots are Us'.

Dan Patrick and the Abortion Issue:

Just as you hear Del Mastro above, vow to continue fighting, so too does Dan Patrick, a 'macho' sportscaster and Senator from Texas. But rather than just spouting rhetoric, this clever senator has a plan. He wants women to sell him their babies. OK, not him personally, but the state of Texas.

Apparently, he drafted a proposal suggesting that Texas buy the babies from women who would have otherwise chosen to abort; for $ 500.00 a pop. Just when you thought you'd heard it all from these Religious Right Kooks, they always manage to come up with something dumber.

Of course, now that Harper is the official dictator of Canada, he won't have to buy them. He'll just close up the abortion clinics, and shackle all pregnant women, until the big day; then send them back to the kitchen where they belong.

Chris Kelly, blogger for the Huffington Post says it well:

Make Big $$$ By Selling Texas Your Baby
Huffington Post
Chris Kelly

Texas state senator Dan Patrick has a bold new plan to reduce abortions. It involves legalizing the slave trade, and putting it in the hands of big government, but hear him out.

Here's how it works: If you're a U.S. citizen, Texas resident, pregnant, and you want an abortion -- and you can prove you really want it -- you may be entitled to $500. All you have to do is carry the fetus to term and sell it to the state.

It's kind of like those ads where Art Linkletter says you can get a tax break for donating your car. Which raises an interesting question: Isn't he dead?

Anyway, five hundred dollars is (almost by definition) five hundred dollars. Which seems like pretty good money, compared to my shifts at Waffle House, and I'd make and sell fetuses to the State of Texas in a second... but there seems to be a lot of paperwork involved.

And what about my older kids? What'll Dan give me for them?

Dan Patrick (nee Dannie S. Goeb) is the author of S.B. 1567, a bill that was referred to the Texas Senate Health and Human Services Committee on Wednesday. It calls for the health department to "develop a program to encourage pregnant women to place their children for adoption rather than have an abortion... The program must include a $500 payment to each woman who is a resident of this state and a citizen of the United States who places a child for adoption rather than have an abortion."

And who could object to that? Sure, it sounds like social engineering. But at least there's money involved, so it's also creepy as shit. And the stuff about proving you're not Mexican gives it a nice nativist edge, too. Here's the problem: How do you make sure the pregnant woman you're screwing with isn't just in it for the money? Goeb is way ahead of you:

Sec. 50.002. APPLICATION FORM.

(b) The department may only distribute the application forms to abortion providers.

The only people who can get the money to have a baby are those who've proven -- by going to an abortion clinic -- that they don't want a baby. If you don't want to have a baby, you can get $500 to have a baby, but only if you don't want it. That's some catch, that Catch 22.

Another way to think about it is like the popular game show Deal or No Deal. Only with human lives.

Of course that's not what this is really about. The $500 offer is just more paperwork to make terminating a pregnancy as unpleasant as humanly possible. Because otherwise it would be such a lark. Texas law already says the doctor has to tell his patient: The risks of infection, hemorrhage and future infertility, the risk of breast cancer; that counseling is available, that adoption services are available, and that the father can be legally compelled to pay child support.

Time he'd otherwise just waste asking about her symptoms.

He also has to tell her that Jesus sees everything and cries easily.

Yes, it sounds sort of onerous, but it's not as if privacy is a really important right. It's not like she's buying a gun. (I think the breast cancer link has been pretty thoroughly debunked, too, but what the hell. It's Senator Goeb, not Doctor Goeb.)

(Although he did run for office warning that illegal aliens spread "tuberculosis, malaria, polio and leprosy.") (Malaria can only be spread of mosquitoes. So not only do we need to build a wall; we could also use some screen windows.)

There will be some unintended consequences if the bill passes. There are about 77,000 abortions in Texas every year, and at $500 a pop, they'll run the taxpayers $40 million dollars to buy off. (A small price to pay, when you're doing the lord's work, by creating unwanted children.) Also, passing the law will require vacating another Texas law, the one about not buying and selling people. And, I guess, the emancipation proclamation. But that may turn out to have its upside and downside. That's for history to judge.

Now, Dannie Goeb is obviously just a hateful street corner crank, and he'll get his in hell, but if the law passes, there's a way it can actually help people: If you want to have a baby, move to Texas. Pretend you want to abort it, get $500, put it up for adoption, and then adopt it back.

More Postings on Dean Del Mastro:

1. The Dean Del Mastro Story: Tax Payer Abuse, Corruption & Scandal

2. Dean Del Mastro Might Want to Change the Record

Jason Kenney and the Conservatives Remove Women From Canadian History

Jason Kenney's new handbook for immigrants was released yesterday, and not that we should really be surprised, but it almost completely removed the notion that women made any contributions to this country.

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

She said she was surprised that the environment, given two pages in the previous guide, disappeared in the new document. The emphasis on the Queen and the Canadian Forces also struck her as unusual. “It's kind of like a throwback to the 1950s,” she said. “It's a tough, manly country with military and sports heroes that are all men. “It's a tougher Canada than the one the Liberals depicted.”

In its photos and illustrations, the new guide paints a picture of a multicultural country, but it offers very little discussion of the accomplishments of Canadian women, Prof. Conrad said. None of the great Canadian thinkers highlighted is a woman, and the only female athlete mentioned is Paralympic medal winner Chantal Petitclerc.

One of the reader comments at the end of the Globe and Mail piece was also disturbing. I suspect other macho types will feel validated with this booklet and I would imagine comments like this will be more common now. I'm used to hearing them, growing up in the '60's. I just hadn't heard them in awhile:

"Maybe Margaret Conrad needs to realize that it was men who built this country, and are still building it. Are you reading this, Maggie? You haven't contributed nearly enough. Shut yer trap."

Shut our traps? The new slogan for the Status of Women now that the word 'equality' was removed from their mandate. Left-Wing fringe groups. That's what we are now. Women have been marginalized with this new government. We weren't important in Canadian history and we aren't important now. REAL Women of Canada have won. The Promise Keepers have won. William Gairdner has won. And we let them because we have given up the fight.

Helena Guergis who's in charge of the Status for Women recently cited "the hypersexualization of girls as a root cause of dating violence." We shrugged. Welcome to the new Canada.

Maybe this generation of young women, after getting a taste of what it was like for us, will finally understand. Or not. It doesn't matter.

When Michael Ignatieff unveiled the Liberals Party's 3rd volume of the pink book, the media scoffed. Diane Francis wrote a scathing column, which I didn't have the stomach to read.

Ms Francis of course won the National Citizens Coalition Colin Brown medal of freedom. Now bear in mind freedom means freedom from government, or to be more specific; freedom from anything with 'Canadian' or 'public' in it's title. Ms Francis is the head of the Reform Conservatives PR firm, the National Post.

Do you see what we're up against?

There were three letters to the editor after this story was printed:

Those Mad Men of Ottawa, the Harper Conservatives, would like to take us back to the 1950s when men were tough, the Maple Leafs won games and everyone loved the Queen. I was a boy back then and do not recall anyone suggesting that a career in the army would be a fine choice.

Despite our new military vigour, it is hard to imagine that immigrants will flock to Canada to become soldiers in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. Given the general indifference to the recent royal tour, there is little chance there will be a renaissance of affection for the monarchy, as immigrants replace births as the main source of our population growth.

King Canute, who died on Nov. 12, 1035, was famous for proving to his fawning supporters that he was not all-powerful by showing that he could not turn back the tide. Centuries later, people in power still have not learned this lesson.

Jim Reynolds, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont.
............
Since when does any particular political party get to decide what is Canadian? Can we now expect our national culture to change every time a new party is elected? This would mean that, with every new election, those who supported the losing parties and their values would become un-Canadian.

A nation’s culture is the result of a decision made by the people. The Tories’ belief that they have the ability to determine the “real” Canada shows a profound lack of humility.

Sascha Maicher, Ottawa
............
Now that I’m nearing retirement age, I’m glad to learn it’s no longer necessary for new Canadians to understand the need to protect Canada’s environment. Has my life’s work paid off?

John Bennett, executive director, Sierra Club Canada Foundation, Ottawa

Maurice Vellacott and Steven Blaney Want to Remove Protection of Women and Children to Promote Promise Keepers Agenda

Conservative MPs Maurice Vellacott and Steven Blaney have drafted a bill under the guise of protecting the rights of fathers; Bill C-422, "Equal Shared Parenting".

However, anything drafted by Vellacott always has hidden meanings, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what his are.

Using the Promise Keepers "oh, we just want men to take responsibility in the family" smokescreen, the intent of this bill is to LEGISLATE men's rights against the rights of women and protection of children. The next step will have to do with an unborn fetus, where the man will have the final say over whether or not a woman decides to have an abortion.

Supposedly Vellacott is a preacher, but he obviously has never read the Bible, or he would know that the 'good book' makes it very clear, that only a woman can decide whether or not to have a child.

And of course keeping promises to the Promise Keepers, by removing a judge's discretion when it comes to the best interest of the mother and children, is also a bonus.

So we have an alleged crook and a confirmed liar writing up a piece of anti-feminist legislation. Rich. And of course we have all the Religious Right groups pouncing on it like Stephen Harper on a photo-op. This can't be good.

Maurice Vellacott's Private Bill C-422 is bad news for mothers and children

People concerned with women's and children's rights would do well to warn their MP of a private Bill designed by advocates of what they call a « presumptive equal parenting » upon divorce.
Bill C-422, fashioned by Conservative MPs Maurice Vellacott and Steven Blaney - with the support of Liberal MP Raymonde Folco, is a new version of Motion M-483, which died on the agenda during a previous session.

It is aimed at what the proponents are calling an "overall bias" favouring women in divorce and child custody law. (No mention is made of the available statistics as to whom actually does the parenting before separation and whom commits to doing it after it.) This private bill is really about enthroning male entitlement, ending child support and imposing paternal authority.

Ignoring the reality of domestic violence - the main reason for divorce today - and criteria such as parental skills and demonstrated commitment, features NOT equally shared in most divorcing couples*, this law "would make it mandatory for two parents who are divorcing to discuss with either a mediator or a judge how they would divide the time with the children," said Folco to a Laval newspaper, adding that "equal parenting means that 50 per cent of the time a child would be with one parent and 50 per cent with the other."

The lobby behind this one-size-fits-all fathers' rights bill is the "Canadian Equal Parenting Council," and includes the obnoxious Fathers for Justice organization of Batmen and Spidermen-garbed media darlings.

"Men in Canada need to quite literally start protecting themselves from the flawed family law system," an anonymous spokesman from Fathers for Justice said in a statement supportive of Bill C-422.

The Canadian Equal Parenting Council claims support from Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, quoting a 2002 book where he called unspecified shared parenting legislative changes sensible and overdue (they always misrepresent Mr. Ignatieff's views by not giving both sides of his argument, which he always provides. An asset when teaching at schools like Harvard and Oxford, but not good for attack ad fodder) .

As for the Bloc Québécois, F4J accuses it of favouring women. It rants, on its website: It's time for Mr. Duceppe to step away from the dark side and stand behind equal parenting.

*In The Canadian Family in Crisis (2003), John Frederick Conway wrote : « ...the anti-feminist men's movement has won some victories but they have not been total... it failed to win the imposition of compulsory joint custody... joint custody must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and situations of marriage breakdown that include domestic violence, addictions to drugs and/or alcohol, and psychological abuse ought not to involve joint custody, co-parenting provisions. » This caveat gets short shrift in C-422.


Bill C-422 "Equal Shared Parenting" - controversy
Friday, July 24, 2009

Maurice Vellacott's Private Members' Bill C-422 is stirring up a storm of controversy. Although a private members' bill it is apparently related to Conservative party campaign pledges to social conservative groups. Other groups question the meaning of "equal" in the bill.

Stockwell Day Says Shoot 'em if You've Got 'em

No I'm not so naive as to believe that merely making guns illegal will prevent gun crime. However, by having to register guns and take gun safety courses, it helps to make us realize that gun ownership is a privilege not a right.

I do believe, however, that no civilian should ever be allowed to own a handgun. You don't hunt with them or use them to to scare off pesky varmints. If you need to feel cold steel in your hands to make you feel powerful, embrace a lamp post.

The Reform/Alliance/Conservative party have always been almost militantly pro-gun, and yet almost militantly Christian zealots.

Obviously it's a different form of Christianity than the one I grew up with. For them it's like the Promise Keeper mentality: Pro-gun, pro-war, pro-intolerance and pro-hate. They strive to see a gun in every hand, a gay in every prison and a woman in every kitchen, and Stockwell Day has become one of their strongest allies.

No handgun ban, Stockwell Day says
Toronto Star
Tonda MacCharles
January 30, 2008

OTTAWA–Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day is flatly rejecting calls for a ban on handguns, saying the Conservatives government's support for more police on the streets, and tougher laws as yet unpassed, are already putting a dent in gun crime.

Day said yesterday his government's approach – including "increased (police) boots on the street" and a plan to kill the long-gun registry – has already significantly cut the number of victims of gun crimes "notwithstanding some very tragic incidents in Toronto."


Actually gun crimes had showed a significant decrease by 2005, before 'his government' came to power, but seems to be on the rise once again. In Vancouver, since January (2009) alone, there have been 45 shootings in the region, 17 of them fatal.

Conservatives reject ban on handguns
But Ontario attorney general calls on Ottawa to relent following shooting death of boy, 11
The Conservatives have long been in the holster of the gun lobby Michael Bryant , Ontario attorney general
Toronto Star
Jul 24, 2007
Richard Brennan
OTTAWA BUREAU

Despite renewed calls for a national ban in the wake of the shooting death of 11-year-old Ephraim Brown in Toronto on the weekend, the Tory government is not swayed.

"Effectively, there is already a ban on handguns in Canada. They are already extremely tightly controlled and are only available to those requiring them for employment purposes (such as police and armoured car guards), legitimate target shooters, and approved collectors," said a spokesperson for Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day.

In addition to rejecting a handgun ban, the Conservative government wants to scrap the long-gun registry, saying it does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. This policy is popular in many parts of the country where gun ownership is seen as a right.

"The Conservatives have long been in the holster of the gun lobby," Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant told the Toronto Star after he and Toronto Mayor David Miller called for a ban on handguns.

Bryant called on Ottawa to heed the outcry that something be done to curb illegal guns, including cracking down on smuggling at the border and restricting even more who can own handguns.

"We've got 215,000 (registered) handguns in Ontario alone and each one of them is a target for theft," Bryant said. "I say `no gun, no funeral,'" he added, referring to the deaths that have plagued Toronto in recent years.

The federal government maintains that handguns, which have had to be registered in Canada since 1934, are effectively banned now because of the severe restrictions.

But NDP justice critic Peggy Nash (Parkdale-High Park) said her party supports an outright ban because "nobody needs a handgun in the city in Toronto." However, she said, "I don't think we can trust this Prime Minister to deal effectively with getting guns off our streets."

Dave Tomlinson, president of Canada's National Firearms Association, said a handgun ban would not reduce gun crime since many of the illegally owned guns are being smuggled in from other countries, including the United States.

"Taking the guns away from the people who (legally own them) is going to have absolutely no effect on the people who are carrying illegal guns," Tomlinson said.

Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory said a prohibition on handguns isn't needed. "Handguns are already effectively banned in Ontario," he said, adding Ottawa needs to beef up border crossings with more explosive-sniffing dogs to clamp down on smugglers bringing in firearms.

However, Tory distanced himself from Harper, saying he supported a gun registry and urged against scrapping it, calling the database "a sensible proposition."

The federal Conservatives have lamented that the Liberal-dominated Senate has held up two justice bills that would impose mandatory minimum penalties for individuals using restricted or prohibited firearms, including handguns, to commit serious crimes, or for any serious firearms crime that is gang- or organized crime-related.

"We stick with approaches that are tried and true and result in a reduction of gun crime," Day said in June when rejecting the idea of an outright ban.

Federal Liberal justice critic Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine) said the Conservatives should first live up to their election promise to increase funding to municipalities so they can hire more police.

"It's much too early to be talking about a handgun ban. First we should be ensuring the (long gun) firearm registry is maintained and enforced, not abolished ... and, secondly, proper resources should be given to our law enforcement so that they can actually enforce existing legislation," Jennings said.

The Tory bill to abolish the long-gun registry was introduced in June 2006, but is a long way from being passed. The gun registry was set up in 1995 by the Liberal government, making it mandatory for all owners of firearms to obtain and file certificates with the federal government.

The registry was supposed to cost $2 million, but costs ballooned to about $1 billion. Even so, the majority of Canadians say they support the initiative and the system is used approximately 5,000 times a day by police across the country, according to the Canadian Police Association and figures compiled by the government's firearms centre.

Vic Toews anti-Gay Muster Bluster and Filubuster

There is an old proverb that states: 'Where there is no vision, the people perish', and I believe that a lot of the problems with the Conservative Party today, is the result of a lack of vision. They allow ideology to cloud their judgement, and fight tooth and nail to halt natural progress.

Perhaps one of their hardest fought battles has been over same-sex or equal marriage. They claim it to be a moral issue, but given the militant reactions of the Religious Right, it's something much deeper.

Promise Keepers, one of the faith based groups that prop up the Tories, make it very clear about their views, on this issue and abortion.

Their founder Bill McCarthy, states: "Homosexuals are a group of people that don't reproduce. Yet they want to be compared to groups that do reproduce." This is homophobia based on demography, since it would appear that the white race is being bred out. Of course the fact that we have been killing each other for centuries, is probably the biggest factor, but you'd never get them to admit to that.

Many gay couples are raising children, and not just those they adopt. Through artificial insemination, a lesbian is able to become a mother and surrogates often provide gay male couples with paternal biological offspring.

Also a number of heterosexual couples are opting not to have children at all, so is their marriage less valid?

All members of the old Reform Party who currently sit in the Tory caucus, object to equal marriage, but in 2005, Vic Toews took it to a different level.

You might wonder why this is pertinent today, but after watching some of the attack ads against Michael Ignatieff, based on old lectures and books he has written, I think it's a good time to remind Canadians of the nefarious past of our current Prime Minster and his team.

When Stephen Harper's 1997 speech to a an American neo-conservative group surfaced, in which he regaled against Canadians; his spokesperson claimed that he said those things as a private citizen, and no longer feels that way. Obviously a double standard here, because when Michael Ignatieff wrote and lectured on a variety of subjects now being cherry picked by the Conservatives, he too was a private citizen.

But in not so distant history, and while members of the government, the Reform-Conservatives exploited their position to try to halt this important piece of legislation. It didn't work, but not for lack of trying.

FILIBUSTER BY VIC TOEWS AT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Latest on Conservative Leadership’s OBSTRUCTION OF BILL C-38

The Conservative leadership has done everything in their power to delay passage of the government’s equal marriage bill, Bill C-38. Following their defeat on April 12 on the vote on Stephen Harper’s amendment, they shed any pretense of allowing Parliament to act.

Now at the Legislative Committee, Conservative Justice Critic Vic Toews is openly filibustering in a desperate, last-ditch attempt to run out the clock.

Here is a history of the Conservative leadership’s obstruction:

SECOND READING DEBATE- When the second reading debate began on February 16, 2005, Stephen Harper moved an amendment to the Prime Minister’s motion, which called for the House to decline to read the Bill a second time. This procedural delay tactic is known as a “Hoist”.

- Conservative leadership advised the other parties they were content to follow the usual procedure and have the vote on second reading take place on the same day as the vote on Mr. Harper’s amendment. This was borne out by the fact that during debate Conservative MPs spoke to the Bill itself, not the amendment.

- On March 22, after 47 MPs had spoken, the Conservative leadership advised the other parties that the Conservative leadership was insisting on an additional debate after the vote on the amendment. They said that 10 – 12 Conservative MPs would speak in the additional debate.

- Conservative leadership agreed debate was to end on April 4 or 5. On April 4, Conservative MP Steven Fletcher moved a Motion for Concurrence which consumed 3 hours that had been allocated for debate on C-38.

- On April 5, Conservative MP Bob Mills moved another Motion for concurrence which consumed 3 hours that had been allocated for debate on Bill C-38. As a result, the C-38 debate did not end as had been agreed. It finally ended on April 6, after the government allocated more time for it.

- Also on April 5, the Conservative leadership told the other parties the Conservatives planned to have up to 20 MPs speak on the additional debate.- On April 11, the Hill Times reported “Tories poised to filibuster” Bill C-38.

- On April 12, following the vote that defeated Mr. Harper’s amendment, Conservative Justice Critic Vic Toews told reporters that the Conservatives would insist on as full a debate as possible before the second reading vote, and would introduce further motions and take additional measures to delay the vote. Earlier in the day, Conservative leadership had made clear to the other parties their intention was to do everything in their power to obstruct and delay Bill C-38. The total number of MPs who spoke during the second debate was 98, including 49 Conservatives.

- Conservative MPs used motions for concurrence over and over again during the second round of debate on C-38. As a result, the second reading vote did not take place until May 4. Once again, the equal marriage bill easily passed this vote.- During the second debate, 45 Conservative MPs opposed to the Bill spoke, including 21 who had already spoken during the first debate. The total number of MPs who spoke during the second debate was 62.

LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

- The Legislative Committee on Bill C-38 met on May 5. Since second reading means approval in principle, the purpose of the Legislative Committee is to hear from technical witnesses on how best to implement equal marriage.

- A Subcommittee was created to decide such things are which witnesses the Committee will hear from. The Subcommittee includes a representative of each party. The Subcommittee agreed to a balanced list of 41 groups and individuals.

- Witness hearings began on May 11, and four hearings were scheduled for the week of May 16.

- On May 16, when the Committee was asked to formally approve this list, Conservative Justice Critic Vic Toews objected. He demanded that 15 additional witnesses, all opposed, be added. He began his filibuster, which forced the Committee to cancel witness hearings on May 17 and 18.

- On May 17, Mr. Toews presented his list of additional witnesses, which had grown from 15 to 20. The Committee was willing to add these witnesses provided a timeframe could be established for the Committee’s work. Mr. Toews said he could not respond immediately as he needed direction from his House Leader.

- On May 18, Mr. Toews increased his demand to 22 additional witnesses and refused to establish a timeframe for the Committee’s work. He threatened to hold up the Committee’s work until he got his way. When the Committee did not accept his demands, his filibuster continued in earnest. He stopped it only long enough to hear from 4 groups opposed to equal marriage.

- The Committee is scheduled to meet on Monday, May 30 at 3:30 pm in room 237C of Centre Block. No witnesses are scheduled. It is unclear whether Mr. Toews will continue his filibuster, now that the Conservatives say they are willing to let Parliament get back to work.

All for nothing.

David Sweet's Promise Keepers are Part of a Larger Political Movement

The man in the video above (love the Young Turks) is discussing the founder and leader of a religious organization called Focus on the Family, James Dobson. Many of Harper's Reformers belong to this organization, including Maurice Vellacott, Rob Anders and David Sweet.

Sweet is also the Canadian founder of the Promise Keepers, an offshoot of Focus on the Family.

Dobson is a prominent member of the American Religious Right and the Council for National Policy, with ties to both Stephen Harper and George Bush.

In 2005, Dobson spent thousands of dollars promoting Stephen Harper's run for the prime minister's job, by helping him make same-sex marriage a hot button issue, to lure in the Canadian Religious Right.

My point is that this is a very powerful political movement, that gets a free ride because they cry religious prosecution as soon as you criticize their actions.

I am no longer giving them a free ride.

In fact, since they have become so political, they should lose all tax breaks, since they are clearly raking in a lot of profits, and using those profits to get their candidates elected.

More on the Promise Keepers:

Since it began seven years ago as the brainchild of a college football coach named Bill McCartney, Promise Keepers has become the largest and most controversial men’s movement in the United States. Its leaders say its phenomenal growth - from a handful of men in 1990 to 2.6 million by early this year, with a separate branch in Canada - demonstrates a yearning among men for spiritual values. Its critics reply that Promise Keepers is something more sinister: a nostalgic throwback to the days of unchallenged male supremacy, or even another bid by the religious right to impose a fundamentalist agenda on American life.

" ... It is a message that inspires hundreds of thousands of men at the same time that it unsettles some mainstream clergy and drives feminist groups to distraction. The U.S. National Organization of Women says that Promise Keepers’ real message is "women taking a backseat."

A coalition of liberal clergy called Equal Partners in Faith condemns it as "divisive and potentially dangerous." And a New York City-based group called the Center for Democracy Studies warns that Promise Keepers is nothing less than the "third wave" of the religious right - after Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority and Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition. Alfred Ross, the centre’s executive director, points to close ties between Promise Keepers and such luminaries of the American religious right as Robertson and James Dobson of Focus on the Family as proof that McCartney’s movement is no spontaneous eruption.

DeMoss, its main spokesman, was an adviser to Pat Buchanan’s right-wing presidential campaign. "Promise Keepers is steeped in political ideology," argues Ross.

There is no question that McCartney’s fundamentalist message reinforces the conservative, so-called family values that are so dear to the religious right. In 1992, he campaigned in favor of an anti-gay-rights law in Colorado, at one point describing homosexuality as "an abomination against Almighty God."

But the main reason for the men-only rule goes to the heart of Promise Keepers’ most controversial belief: that men must reclaim leadership of their families, and wives should submit to their husbands.

McCartney says that is not debatable - the Bible says the man is head of the family, and that is that. Some of his associates have interpreted this in ways that ring alarm bells among many women. Tony Evans, a frequent Promise Keeper speaker, wrote in the movement’s book Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper that men should sit down with their wives, "and say something like this: 'Honey, I’ve made a terrible mistake. I’ve given you my role. I gave up leading this family. Now I must reclaim that role.' "