Are Members of the Religious Right Christians or Pagans?

I came across a piece from 1967, written three years after extremists began taking over the Republican Party, with the nomination of Barry Goldwater to run for president.  He took a trouncing but the movement was given a huge boost.

They had established the parameters of the New American Right.  Anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-liberal, anti-welfare state, anti-communist, pro-military, pro-guns, pro-"God".

The piece was in the forward of a book by John H. Redekop: The American Far Right (1968),  and was written by Mark O. Hatfield, a long serving Republican senator.  He died recently, one of the last of the moderate in his party.

Hatfield was a delegate at the 1964 Republican National Convention, and in his keynote speech, denounced the extremism he saw infiltrating the GOP.  His speech was met with an anticipated strong reaction, but he was more surprised by the amount of hate mail he received from people who called themselves Christians.

His story was not surprising.  In Canada, Brian Mulroney took a page from Ronald Reagan's hymnal, and courted Canada's Religious Right to help him get elected.  He then established a "God Squad" to deal with their pressing issues.  One member, Jake Epp, helped to draft a bill as Minister of Health, that would have given two year prison terms to any doctor performing an abortion, unless the mother's health was at risk.

His squadron became so inflamed at the concession, that Mulroney was forced to move Epp to another ministry.

Frank Schaeffer, son of Francis Schaeffer, whose book A Christian Manifesto is said to be the blueprint for the Religious Right/Moral Majority, left the movement himself and wrote a book Crazy for God, in which he exposed the racism and hypocrisy of these so-called "values voters".

He faced a similar firing squad, with letters and emails laced with so much profanity, that it frightened him.

More than four decades ago, Hatfield warned:

This type of political extremism feeds on fear and frustra­tion ... The political extremists have reacted to this frustration with determination to purify the American dream, to remold our in­stitutions and way of life according to their prescription for a perfect society. 

The Far Right has been successfully united by a well-designed, well-financed, and persistent campaign of fear. ...  And the continual fanning of this fear has created such a distortion in the perceptions of some adherents of the Far Right that they can no longer distinguish between fantasy and reality, or between cause and effect.

Well designed and well financed are definitely key, especially the well-financed part. And even then, the suggestion was that most of the money came from "oil tycoons". Hatfield continues:

If the Far Righters were to present a picture of the world, their medium would be block-printing. They could thus represent the world in sharp blacks and whites ... The validity of their judgments rests on the logic of "either/or" and they have little tolerance or even comprehension of a middle ground between these two extremes. They would deny that gray is often the color of the complex truth. "The logical fallacy of the excluded middle..." Far Right crusaders would deny that a man is Christian if he does not share their political beliefs. Their "either/or" philosophy extends into the realm of religion, and they counsel that you can accept either the welfare state or Christ — but not both.

David Kuo, a former member of George Bush's "Faith-based Group", spoke of the same kind of  'take no prisoners', 'no middle ground', philosophy.  He said that the group he eventually moved away from, believed that there should be no such thing as moderate Republicans or right-leaning Democrats.

Right vs left.  Conservatives vs liberals. You are with them or against them.  In his book Harperland, Lawrence Martin spoke of a visiting foreign leader who was quite taken aback by Stephen Harper's view of Liberals.  While the foreign leader often locked horns with his political opponents, he stated that Harper actually "hated" his.  He found that kind of open hatred unnerving.

Hatfield, however, spoke of something else, when it comes to movement conservatism and their religiosity.  They are not really Christian at all.  Instead of believing that God created man in his own image, they have created God in their image.  That of a "White, Protestant, anti-Communist American".   Now it's a White, Protestant or Orthodox Catholic or Jew, anti-Muslim American or Canadian.

This unholy marriage of religion and politics has produced a perverted Christianity based not on love but hate, not on charity but persecution. The Far Righters are definitely not practicing religious fundamentalism, as they claim, but are actually practicing a form of paganism. They worship at the idol of "country" and have substituted the gospel of anti-Communism for the gospel of Christ.  In almost all aspects, political extremism is a negative force on our society; it is a force that should be understood and its power properly respected.

I think he really hit the nail on the head. The religion that this group practices, is one of false gods. Guns, flags, right-wing politicians, money, Wall Street, bankers ....

Above is Rick Perry, a Republican presidential hopeful, raising his arm and arms for the Lord.  He epitomizes the new political evangelist, invoking cheers when he brags about how many people he had put to death when Governor of Texas, even beating out George Bush's record.

We have been giving them too much credit when we call them the Christian Right.  They are the Pagan Wrong.  Heathens who kiss their guns goodnight (honest.  Visit some of the websites) and carry signs that read "God hates fags".

We're not persecuting Christians when we expose the Religious Right, but instead are saving their integrity.
 
What I find amazing is that despite all the money that has been poured into movement conservatism, we are still a pretty progressive people.  Most Canadians and even most Americans, have accepted homosexuality, equal marriage and a woman's reproductive rights.  They oppose war, and do not believe that Islam is our biggest threat, despite what Stephen Harper and George Bush say.
 
And they don't believe that a woman's place is in the home, unless that's where she would like to be, or that a family is only defined by mother, father and children.
 
If there is a God, maybe she's on our side after all.
 
The movement has had a lot of political success, but only because many people vote Conservative or Republican, because of tradition; and the chronically wealthy support them because they like not having to pay their fair share of taxes.
 
Canada's Reformers only gained power when they bought out the rights to the PC Party.  Before that, Reform-Alliance was dying a slow death.  Their message was just not palpable to the majority of Canadians.
 
We need to see what Hatfield saw, that the movement is a threat to our peace and prosperity.

So Who's the Elitist Now?

Rhys Kesselman, Canada Research Chair in Public Finance and a professor at Simon Fraser University’s School of Public Policy, has an op-ed in the Globe and Mail discussing the Harper government's new tax policies, clearly designed to benefit the highest wage earners.

Neoconservatives love to talk about "lower taxes", but they don't really mean lower taxes for everyone. They have designer tax cuts, allowing claims for gym memberships. We can expect fitness centres to tout this tax break, locking more and more people into expensive contracts.

They design "family" tax benefits, to only target their version of the "family", no single parents allowed.

And while they move toward a zero tax for corporations, they raise taxes on workers with a payroll tax, and implement user fees. Most of these fees are again a transfer of funds from the public, to the private sector, who take over services once provided by the government for free.

Jim Flaherty has tapped into George Bush's favourite line of "tax relief", using a median figure, but when broken down, only the wealthiest citizens reap any real benefit.

The wonderful Linda McQuaig, again reminds us that this systematic transfer of wealth to the top, is hurting everyone. And yet to hear the neocons talk, those who are suffering the most, are the ones hurting the economy.

I watched Bill Maher this week, and one topic of conversation was Republican rhetoric, that not only defies logic, but also defies history.

Sarah Palin suggested that Paul Revere rode to the British camp and told them that they must uphold their second amendment right to bear arms, despite the fact that there was as of yet, no such amendment on the books, and indeed, no constitution.

Another Republican presidential candidate, Rick Santorum, suggested that U.S. soldiers fought in WWII so that Americans wouldn't be forced to have healthcare. Silly Obama. He should have known that before touting his socialist ideas.

But as Maher reminded his audience, they are the kind of people who would probably get elected, because despite the fact that what they spout is pure nonsense, they spout it with conviction, never changing their story.

The Conservatives just keep chanting "low taxes, low taxes, low taxes" and we believe them, even if logic and the increased difficulty of stretching our pay cheques, prove otherwise.

Another argument made by the neoconservatives, is that cutting taxes for the wealthiest, drives down the price of consumer goods (that's the "job creation" part - jobs in Third World countries).

And yes we can now buy cheap TVs and DVD players, but the cost of housing is on the rise and food through the roof. We can buy cheap crap but basic survival is getting very expensive.

The Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party was never a populist party, but perhaps the most top down party in the history of Canada. They tapped into the populism of social credit for support, but their platform was written by Stephen Harper, right from the National Citizens Coalition handbook (Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, McClelland & Stewart, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3).

It is a party run by and for the corporate sector.

But darn it all if they don't sound convincing when they pretend that they work for us.

When Stephen Harper "United the Right", He Solidified the Centre. Just Not For Himself.

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

How Stephen Harper became a "Tory" is the stuff of legend. Or more accurately, the stuff of fairy tales. He did have a brief stint with the PCs in the early 80's, but left the Party because they weren't right-wing enough.

The fact is, that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was not really right-wing at all, at least not in heart and soul. They were just right of centre. And they were 100% Canadian. And in many ways, historically, they were not unlike the Liberal Party in terms of policy.*

That doesn't mean that there weren't fierce rivalries. They were like two football teams (I don't want to use hockey because Harper has done that to death) who battle each other for the prize, but at the end of the day, both teams are in the same league, and committed to the game.

And while they both went after the same prize, the team that won it, honoured it. Showed it off and protected it for the next winner, whether it be themselves or their opponents.

They didn't win it, then smash it, to make sure that no one else could have it. That's how I see the Reformers, whether calling themselves Social Credit, Reform, Alliance or Conservative. They are the party that wants to smash the trophy and terminate the league.

Uniting the Right Was Not About Vote-Splitting

The common belief was that the PCs and Reform-Alliance joined forces to avoid splitting the vote. Sounds good but completely false. That's the way it was sold when David Frum arranged a meeting between Jean Charest then head of the PCs, and Preston Manning, then head of Reform.

In terms of bridging the differences between the parties of Preston Manning and Jean Charest, the conference made little headway ... the chasm in terms of the egos and pride of the leaders; the different attitudes that the parties have towards populist initiatives; Reform's origins in western alienation, Social Credit, and religious fundamentalism; and the fact that Reform emerged in part as an angry protest against the policies of a Progressive Conservative government made a rapprochement unlikely. (1)

A later report by Laurence Putnam confirmed the divide.

The first misconception about the Reform movement is that it is a conservative party. The Reform party has all the characteristics of a Western populist party and very few marks of a conservative party. (2)

And as to the myth of avoiding vote-splitting. In the West, many of those who voted PC did not go to Reform. Most of Reform's gain was at the expense of the NDP, another party that started out as a Western protest movement. But many also went to the Liberals.

Since the 2000 election, unity activists in both the PC and Canadian Alliance parties have preached that the PC party lost a major part of its family when the Reform Party rose to prominence, however, this is not exactly true. The PC Party did not experience a mutiny, but rather with the decline of the PC Party in Western Canada, an opportunity was extended for a new crew, the Reform movement, to come to power. In fact, many members of the Reform Party elected in 1993 had never been Conservatives at all. Preston Manning had been a member of the federal Social Credit Party prior to incepting the Reform Party. MPs Diane blonczy, Deborah Grey and Val Meredith were never members of the PC Party ... As these members were not Tories throughout the 1980's and early 1990's when the Tories were at their most successful peak since Sir John A. Macdonald ... (2)

Promoters of unity between the PC and Canadian Alliance parties had argued that if there were either only a PC or CA candidate in your average Ontario riding, they would have beat the Liberals in 2000. But what about Etobicoke North? In 2000, no PC candidate ran in Etobicoke North, but a Canadian Alliance candidate did, and yet they gained only 3.9%, and the majority of the PC votes migrated to the Liberal candidate. This despite the fact that provincially, the identical riding was held by PC M.P.P. John Hastings.

This riding is one example that proves 1+1 doesn't necessarily equal 2 when it comes to defeating a Liberal incumbent in Ontario ridings. Another interesting Ontario result was found in the riding of Markham, where Jim Jones was elected as a Progressive Conservative in 1997. Mr. Jones crossed to the Alliance in the summer of 2000, but lost re-election just months later. Why was Mr. Jones electable to the people of Markham, Ontario, as a Tory, but unelectable as a Canadian Alliance M.P.? (2)

It's because the majority of the Canadian electorate are moderates. The same people who voted for Brian Mulroney later voted for Jean Chretien, illustrating that votes between the Liberals and the PC Party were always liquid, while votes cast for ideologically-driven parties, like Reform/Alliance and NDP**, came from a "base".

The Reform movement only became palpable to Canadians when they shed their wolf's clothing and started calling themselves "Conservative", or worse yet "Tories", cashing in on a century and a half tradition. And for awhile, they were able to fool some of the people some of the time. But unfortunately for them, as their policies became increasingly un-Canadian, their level of support has drifted back to their "base".

They have no hope of drawing votes from the NDP, except perhaps in the West, but they are also losing the votes of moderates ... aka: ordinary Canadians.

So now they have a problem. Instead of eliminating what they thought was their own competition, they have eliminated all competition for the centre, and all of the "liquid" votes are now flowing away from them.

They are a right-wing fringe party. Nothing more. They came, we saw, they scared the hell out of us, and now they must leave.

This brings us to Michael Ignatieff. I see him as the perfect leader to unite the centre. And if I wasn't convinced before, a column by the widow of the late PC president Dalton Camp, has me sold. Ignatieff is not "a bleeding heart Liberal" but will lead a party that will be fiscally responsible but socially aware.

His family has a long history in this country, and come from all political stripes. His G-Grandfather, George Munro Grant helped Sir John A. and Confederation, and later promoted his railway. His uncle George Parkin Grant was also a Conservative, and author of the popular Lament for a Nation, as reaction to the defeat of John Diefenbaker. His fear was that we would become too Americanized and too beholden to corporations, and while this book was reactionary, he would later suggest that he felt that Pierre Trudeau was on the right track. (3)

Michael's father George Ignatieff was a foreign secretary under Diefenbaker, Diplomat under Pearson, and even served as acting president of the United Nations General Assembly***. He was also a peace activist, who fought hard against nuclear weapons, earning him a reputation as a "Peacemonger." (4)

Another uncle was Vincent Massey.

And though Michael Ignatieff's political views are his own, they have been nurtured in the true Canadian tradition.

So while Johannes Wheeldon may ask "Can Iggy Find His Centre?" He didn't have to. He was already there. And as Wendy Camp says: "He has come home to us." And whispering in his ear, will be family voices from the past, making sure that he doesn't screw up what they helped to build.

Footnotes:

*Stephen Harper referred to the PCs or "Red Tories" as "Pink Liberals".

**The NDP has since become more moderate and appealing, though some of their early followers feel that they had to sell out to do so. I like them and remember the greats like Tommy Douglas and Ed Broadbent, and the leader Jack Layton used to be.

***Stephen Harper and the Reformers never trusted the United Nations.

Sources:

1. The Winds of Right-wing Change in Canadian Journalism, By David Taras (University of Calgary), Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 21, No 4, 1996

2. An Analysis On The Differences Between the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada & The Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance, by Laurence Putnam As prepared for the Fraser Institute, December 2002

3. Lament For a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism, By George P. Grant, McClelland & Stewart, 1970 edition with new introduction by author.

4. The Making of a Peacemonger: The Memoirs of George Ignatieff, By Sonja Sinclair, University of Toronto Press, ISBN: 0-8020-2556-0

Why Do the Poor Have a Deep Emotional Attachment to a Party That Serves the Interests of the Rich?

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

In January of this year, the BBC published an interesting article: Why do people vote against their own interests? It was a light bulb moment, and defines to a tee the basis of neoconservativism, as represented by the Republicans in the U.S. and the Reform-Conservatives in Canada.

They are both clearly parties representing the interests of their country's wealthiest citizens, yet most of their "base" support comes from the fringes and those who stand to lose the most if neoconservatism wins.

Last year, in a series of "town-hall meetings" across the country, Americans got the chance to debate President Obama's proposed healthcare reforms. What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence ... But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.

Why is that? Political scientist Dr David Runciman is quoted as saying:

If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them. They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best.

The Reform Party built an entire movement based on that theory. "So you don't trust politicians. Neither do we" they cried.

And across the border, when Republican Newt Gingrich watched those TV spots and read those ads he was inspired.

Indeed, Canadians became exporters of neo-con innovation in the 1990s. 'I would say Margaret Thatcher and Mr. [Preston] Manning are the two non-Americans we learned most from'', said U.S. Republican House Speaker, Newt Gingrich in 1995.'I know him [Preston Manning] because I watched all of his commercials. We developed our platform from watching his campaign.' (1)

And using the techniques and talking points honed by Manning and the Reformers (Stephen Harper was chief policy advisor at the time), Gingrich's team created their "Contract with America".

It is thus not difficult to understand why the Republicans, in the run-up to the mid-term elections of last November [1994], made such a point of dissociating themselves from Washington and identifying instead with popular sentiment on such issues. The dividends of defining Washington as the source of false values are seen in the results of the elections, which gave the Republicans control of both the House and the Senate. (2)

It's ironic that so many people accuse Stephen Harper of being a Republican (including myself), but the Democrats in the U.S. should be calling the Republicans 'Reformers', and accusing them of copying Stephen Harper.

Proud to be a Racist and a Redneck

Vancouver - On his small square patch of Canada, surrounded by a nine-foot fence of English laurel, Reform Man is railing against the Frenchmen who run the bloody government, and dropping remarks about Chinese drivers.

"I admire a lot of those other cultures, but in their own country," said Sid Blanchett, a diesel engine mechanic. Mr Blanchett lives in north Vancouver, a hotly contested riding in the 2 June election. There are two signs outside his fence: one for the Reform Party, and another that says "No More Prime Ministers from Quebec". He's proud to be a racist and a redneck, he said, if that means defending his own culture, religion, and traditions.

Covering Reform can be like waking up in a Monty Python sketch, as one Vancouver journalist said this week. Old-fashioned caricatures pop up and say the most extraordinary things. Members belt out Oh Canada at party meetings, and while they drop clangers about blacks, gays, or Sikhs, the race they really detest is the French. (3)

Preston Manning and the Reform Party played on those prejudices:

Having a clear critical dynamic, focused on the corrupt Ottawa establishment, was of the first importance to Reform's recent success. In this, as in so many other ways, this party has a similar focus to the United States Republican Party in its present mood ... Part of its appeal is to anti-Quebecois sentiment "let Quebec either secede", Reform says in effect, "or, preferably, stay in Canada but without any of the special privileges it seeks." Outside Quebec this message is extremely popular. It might be noted that Reform did not bother to run candidates in Quebec.

Preston Manning is a smart guy and I have no doubt that he is not racist. But in the same way that his father's Social Credit party fed off anti-Semitism, Preston knew how to feed off people's insecurities. And when his MPs were quoted making racist remarks, he'd simply say that the Reform Party does not condone Racism, but rarely did anything else.

This explains his handling of the Jan Brown/Jim Silye incident.

The cases of Jan Brown and Jim Silye were typical. Among the most progressive and cosmopolitan of the Reform MPs, they also became known for their ability to shine in Question Period. Both were urban moderates and excellent communicators who developed positive relationships with the media and, in the case of Brown, a degree of national name recognition. Both were often unhappy with the "racist redneck" element in their caucus, and endured much criticism from other caucus members for their continuing attempts to broaden the base of Reform policies.

[Then] when [Reform MP] Art Hanger announced he was going on a "fact-finding mission" to Singapore to explore the use of caning and other forms of corporal punishment in the penal system, most Canadians were astonished and amused. Brown and Silye were humiliated, and said so publicly. "I don't want to be campaigning for caning and whipping," said Silye, a millionaire Calgary businessman and former Stampeders star. Brown, another Calgary MP and a corporate consultant with two degrees, agreed with Silye and suggested Reform would lose mainstream voters if it did not shake its extremist image. For their comments the two were raked over the coals at a lengthy caucus meeting in which one MP after another took the floor to lambaste the two, accusing them of betrayal ... (4)

And:

Barely two months later, during debate on the government's proposed amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act protecting homosexuals from discrimination*, the Reform caucus erupted again. When B.C. MP Bob Ringma** told reporters he would move gay or visible-minority employees to the back of the shop if they were costing him business, colleagues such as Dave Chatters, Leon Benoit and Myron Thompson agreed. In fact, Thompson went further, saying "If they were costing me business, I would remove them." Asked for her comments, Jan Brown replied, "I'm so saddened by this..." (4)

In response, Manning did reprimand Ringma, but also suspended Jan Brown. Instead she quit.

We might wonder at the logic behind this, but it goes back to the party's basic philosophy of "us against them". The Jan Browns did not fit into this, but the Rob Ringmas did. They were the people who kept the party faithfuls motivated to call themselves The Reform Man and display a sign on their lawn touting the party line "No More Prime Ministers from Quebec".

This Brings us Back To Why the Most Disadvantaged Oppose Those Wanting to Raise Them Up

Thomas Frank, the author of the best-selling book What's The Matter with Kansas ... believes that the voters' preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument has allowed the Republican Party to blind them to their own real interests.

The Republicans have learnt how to stoke up resentment against the patronising liberal elite, all those do-gooders who assume they know what poor people ought to be thinking. Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. [my emphasis] The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest.

Watch the following video and listen to how many times the Fox News personality uses terms like "elites in the media and academia", "academic circles" in a piece suggesting that Obama is a socialist.

And in condescending language, make any notions of offering a hand up, as a socialist plot. "These people believe that folks are poor because other people are rich." "Wealth redistribution" "drawing emotion from guilt, jealousy and envy" (all sins). So if God and the Republicans want to ignore the poor, it's only for their own good.

This guy even goes so far as to say that history has buried more bodies from the envy of socialism than the greed of capitalism, which of course is completely false, but they are playing to their "base". The people who should be demanding better from their government as equal citizens, instead are being led to believe that they should not be demanding anything at all.

"Glen Beck and the American people". They are on an even plane. Forget that Glen Beck works for a multi-national corporation, and earns 50 million dollars a year. He is still one of them. And those socialist academics, who are advocating for the lowest levels of society, are "elites". They don't belong to the club. It's "Glen Beck and the American people". Wink, wink.

At the Reform Party's opening assembly, many people left, especially seniors; when they realized what their policies, wrapped in a veil of ambiguity, really meant. An end to subsidies for farmers. An end to public health care. An end to unemployment insurance, Canada Pension and Old Age Security. (5) Those who stayed never really thought it through.

It was "us against them". They spoke their language. And if they felt any tinge of doubt, the Rob Ringmas would come out to remind them.

And while the Reformers preached that everyone was responsible for their own destinies, it enabled them to promote policies that hindered those destinies. The end of things like public health care and public education.

At the 1991 Reform Party Assembly, a guest speaker was William Gairdner, author of the book The Trouble with Canada, which journalist Murray Dobbin stated ".. helped lay the groundwork for Reform Party policy." (6) Reform Party policy which was then being drafted by Stephen Harper.

The Reformers gathered in Saskatoon saved perhaps the loudest cheers, whistles, and applause for Gairdner's last shot: 'And my favourite proposal, by the way, is returning choice to education by privatizing every school in the country'.(6)

Of course making all schools private, would ensure that the disadvantaged remained disadvantaged, and the country's wealthy would remain at the top, while "the poorest citizens continued to serve the interests of its richest."

Gotta' love neoconservatism, which has been dubbed "the revolt of the rich", who use the poor and disadvantaged as their foot soldiers. Brilliant. Wrong. But still brilliant.

Sources:

1. Slumming it at the Rodeo: The Cultural Roots of Canada's Right-Wing Revolution, Gordon Laird, 1998, Douglas & McIntyre, ISBN: 1-55054 627-9, Pref. xiv-xv

2. Policy from the People: Recent Developments in the USA and Canada, By Philip Ayres, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of The Samuel Griffith Society, April 2, 1995

3. Racists, rednecks and the reform of Canada: With a poll imminent, reactionaries are out in force, By Tim Cornwell, May 26, 1997

4. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, By Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 318-319

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

6. Dobbin, 1992, Pg. 165-166

So Conservatives Find Canadians Annoying. Good to Know

So according to Jane Taber and one of her "sources", we are a big yawn.

“They don’t bother us. It’s just that they are annoying,”a "senior Conservative official" told Taber about the public uproar in reaction to the scrapping of the compulsory long-form census.

“On that long census ... when we put that through cabinet ages ago that to me was a good news story,” one senior Conservative official told The Globe and Mail. The vociferous reaction that resulted is now considered an “irritant” in the senior Tory ranks.

Just an irritant. Really people. We should try not to be so annoying to this government. Remember they have riot police just waiting to smash civilians. You could be next.

I thought they just hated Canadians. I didn't realize that we actually bored them.

And speaking of boring, the Globe really has to do something about Jane Taber. Poor girl is so bored she's quoting invisible people to prop up her "scoops".

Late breaking news: "The PM is going on a photo-op says a high-ranking Conservative official". Or according to Scott Feschuk:

It was, for the Prime Minister, “a good summer.” This isn’t a quote from a senior Conservative source or a veteran caucus member or a super-senior double-secret invisible party uber-insider. These are the words of Jane Taber herself. I’m as confused as you as to why she didn’t demand anonymity from herself.

Poor Janie. She's clearly spending too much time with Harper's caucus and is dumming down to the point where she has trouble remembering her own name.

Harper Tells Caucus to Shut the %$%# Up, While Guy Lauzon Goes Begging

According to Susan Riley Harper's big caucus meeting was not about planning strategy, but reminding them that they must do as they're told, and no matter how stupid his government's decisions are, they must try to sell them.

According to media reports from their summer caucus meeting, Conservative MPs were back in town this week to "plot the fall agenda." No they weren't.

They were here to socialize at 24 Sussex with their spouses, get their marching orders and their talking points -- and to be reminded, should they need reminding, to shut the **** up, when asked about disquieting polls, the census, rising rates of "unreported crime", the prime minister's personality, or anything, really, outside of the perfidy of their rivals and the marvels of the Economic Action Plan.

Guy Lauzon got the message but kind of screwed it up. After going door to door begging for his job, he reports that 1/3 of Cornwall residents do not want an election.

He does understand that 1/3 is not a majority, right?

He then goes on to suggest the same thing that the delusional Harper is suggesting, that the economy is too fragile to handle an election.

And yet they won't talk about the horrendous decisions to build more prisons for imaginary prisoners and new fighter jets to stave off imaginary enemies.

What were they serving at that "shut the %$%# up" party and will it land them in imaginary prison?

We need an election NOW!

Harper's High School Pet Peeve Becomes a ... "Reality"?

In Stephen Harper's final year of high school he listed his pet peeve as "reality". I took it as a teenager trying to be cool, but given his style of absolute rule, I have to agree with David Climenhaga, that he is simply creating his own reality, as in "when we act, we create our own reality."

Climenhaga is referring to the statements made by Harper backbencher Brent Rathgeber, in suggesting that his government's approach to Israeli aggression is justified because the Bible tells them so. Same old, same old.

But Climenhaga goes on to describe other self inflicted realities, like Stockwell Day suggesting we need to pour 9.5 billion into the building of new prisons for crimes that are unreported. Day holds onto this "truth" in the same way that he holds onto the "truth" that his G-G-G grandpappy rode a Torosaurus to the Colosseum. (have you ever tried to park one of those things?)

This is not a government that makes decisions based on fact. Instead they fabricate their own "truths" and then try to sell them as "fact".

Look at the enormous lengths that they are going to, to convince us that they are right on the census issue. They are even planning a 25 million dollar ad campaign to "prove" that they are "right".

And look at the 1.3 billion for G-20 security. Harper had to instruct the police to leave vandals alone so he justify his "truth" that he needed to spend that much to keep Toronto safe. But when he played images of thugs busting windows and burning cars during the summit, those watching must have asked themselves "so what was the money for and why is there no security?"

He never thinks these things through. He is "right" ... end of.

Cimenhaga ends with:

... this in turn suggests that the troubling key proposition that underpins his argument is so widely held in government circles as to amount to an assumption of fact. If that it so, while hardly surprising, it means Canada under the Harper government can make no positive contribution to resolving the tragic situation in the Middle East.

The Harper government is incapable of making a positive contribution on anything and that's the "truth".

Conservatives Could Still be Charged in "In and Out" Scam

Some Conservatives could still face charges over the "In and Out" election scheme in 2006, that allowed them to undemocratically spend more money in the final days of the campaign; but also cheat taxpayers out of almost a million dollars.

I posted the other day, that several may not even be allowed to run for re-election.

Still no decision on charges on Tories' 'in-and-out' ad buys

A federal prosecutor is still considering whether to bring charges over contentious advertising purchases made by the Conservative Party during the 2006
election. Director of Public Prosecutions Brian Saunders was referred the file on the Tories' "in and out" advertising buys in June 2009, but, more than a year later, has yet to say whether he'll initiate a prosecution under the Canada Elections Act.

Federal prosecutor still considering charges over Tory ad buys

Corbett's investigators raided Conservative party headquarters in Ottawa in April 2008 and, aided by the RCMP, seized boxes of documents and computer records. They also hired forensic auditors and outside legal counsel to help unravel the trail of wire transfer, expense claims and invoices from the campaign. The dispute between the Tories and the Elections Canada centres on $1.3 million in radio and TV ads the party purchased during the campaign.

Vic Toews Archaic Views on Rape Reflect Government's Narrow Minded Agenda

The Canadian Press has learned that Vic Toews tried to abolish the broad definition of sexual assault, calling it the "biggest mistake in criminal law ever made."

By replacing it with "rape" would take us back decades.

Catherine Kane, who's in charge of the criminal law policy section at Justice, jumped to the defence of the current law, internal documents show. “We have several offences that cover the conduct previously captured by the very narrow and impossible to convict of charge of rape,” she wrote in a late-night email on May 11, the same day Toews made controversial public comments on the issue. “And we have several offences to cover the equally harmful sexual offences that fell short of the offence of rape.”

I do like this comment from Rob Nicholson though:

“The government currently has an ambitious justice agenda and we are committed to pursuing it. However, in regards to your question (about rape), there is nothing currently in the works.”

"Ambitious justice agenda" ... yes. "Committed to pursuing it" ... yes. The need for it ... not on your life.

In what has turned into a rite of summer in recent years, Statistics Canada has released data that again suggests the crime rate in the country continues to fall. The annual police-reported crime statistics issued yesterday indicated drops in overall crimes, motor vehicle thefts and even violent offences. The crime rate in the country in 2009 was 17% lower than a decade earlier. A relatively new indicator, the Crime Severity Index, which is a weighted average of criminal offences, is down 22% from the level in 1999.

Going through with massive corporate tax cuts when this country has so much poverty, our health care is in crisis and our veterans are being treated like dogs ... That's the real crime that needs to be addressed.

Harper Government Now Operating From Crisis to Crisis

During the prorogation near catastrophe for the Harper government, insiders claimed that the decision to prorogue came from Stephen Harper's chief of staff Guy Giorno.

Apparently Harper himself only wanted to break for 10 days but Giorno convinced him that they could do far more damage if they had 2 1/2 months without the annoying opposition telling them that Canadians simply don't want this.

We also learned from John Ivison in his 'Judging Giorno" that the man was responsible for trying to end voter subsidies, the budget, the Canada Action Plan, refusing to hand over unredacted documents, the spending of tens of millions of dollars on signs and TV ads, leaving out abortion from maternal health, and pretty much every bad decision since he first joined the PMO in May of 2008.

But what also came out of the article was that their government is now operating from "crisis to crisis". And these crises are self inflicted. So was it Giorno who suggested that Harper end the census long form? Is he afraid of what the results will be after his (mis)handling of Stephen Harper?

And like any other crisis, the Harperites are trying to use the same old tired talking points to justify what they are doing. And like any other crisis, Stephen Harper is not going to handle it. He will allow everyone else to fight his battles. Some leader, huh?

The head of Stats Canada has resigned over the issue:

The embattled head of Statistics Canada has resigned over the Harper government's plan to scrap the mandatory long-form census, saying the replacement they propose for this will not work. In a letter on StatsCan website, Munir Sheikh refused to say what advice he gave the Conservatives when they asked him to make these changes. But he made it clear he cannot accept the scheme the Tories say is a perfectly adequate replacement for a compulsory long-form questionnaire.

"I want to take this opportunity to comment on a technical statistical issue which has become the subject of media discussion," Mr. Sheikh wrote. "This relates to the question of whether a voluntary survey can become a substitute for a mandatory census. It cannot," he said. "Under the circumstances, I have tendered my resignation to the prime minister."

The Globe provides a bit of analysis on how scrapping the mandatory long form will affect Canadians:

Abandoning the mandatory long form of the census will have ripple effects on Canadians because so many decisions are based on information leaned from it, critics of the change say. They argue that the voluntary system would introduce bias and reduce the reliability of data collected about individual neighbourhoods, wreaking havoc with local planning, experts say.

This could very well cost Harper votes in Quebec:

The Conservative’s plan to get rid of the mandatory long-form version of the census questionnaire has not gone over well at all in Quebec. A Presse Canadienne story published last Thursday declared that the Quebec government is “resolutely against” scrapping the long-form census. The article quoted Quebec Culture Minister Christine St-Pierre, who said she was “having difficulty understanding” why the government would do away with such “an essential tool” for researchers and policy-makers.

The problem of course is that Giorno will look at this situation as he does all others. How it will affect the polls and not how it will affect the country.

When Girono was making all of the horrible decisions for the Mike Harris government of Ontario, he earned the nickname Rasputin. And just as that "mad monk" helped to discredit the tsarist government, leading to the fall of the Romanov dynasty, Girono could very well cause the collapse the Harper regime.

Maybe we'll end up owing him a debt of gratitude after all.

Oh, Oh! Vic Toews Caught Cheating - Again!

And this time I'm not referring to his affair with a younger woman, though that one still represents hypocrisy at it's best.

... the 55-year-old Toews' public face of self-righteous morality is now clashing with his troubled private life. An MP dubbed the "minister of family values" by Liberals is embroiled in a messy divorce after fathering a child last fall with a much younger woman.

So much for family values.

This time Toews is being investigated for a conflict-of-interest:

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has not disclosed $18,000 in annual pension payments as required by law in a conflict-of-interest declaration for the public registry he personally signed. The Conflict of Interest Code for Members' of the House of Commons requires all MPs to disclose assets,liabilities and sources of income over $1,000 outside their MP salary. If they earn income over $10,000, that fact is to be made public in a disclosure summary posted on the ethics commissioner's website. There is no pension income listed in Toews' most recent summary that he signed on March 5, 2009.

In an affidavit filed in Manitoba court April 10, Toews acknowledges earning $18,267.84 a year from the Manitoba Civil Service Superannuation Board. Those pension payments began when he turned 55 in September 2007. Also included in court documents is an e-mail Toews wrote to his lawyer in May 2007. In that e-mail, Toews' indicates he had not disclosed to the ethics commissioner the pension he was about to start receiving or a condo his wife owned in Gatineau, Que.

More of those so-called "conservative values" we keep hearing about. And Vic is a card carrying member of the Religious Right. Wonder if he'll get kicked out of the club now?

Oh Canada! What Happened to Us?

I was just reading an article about the Haiti earthquake, and how despite the fact that Canadians gave generously, and Stephen Harper used it to try to score political points, very little aid has reached the country.

Six months after Haiti was struck by a catastrophic 7.0-magnitude earthquake, questions are being raised about how the hundreds of millions of dollars in aid money is being directed. Many Canadians gave generously following the Jan. 12 quake, which killed more than 200,000 people and devastated the Caribbean country's capital. The Canadian Red Cross alone raised some $200 million, while the federal government has pledged $600 million for reconstruction efforts. But many aid workers who have recently visited Haiti say there is little sign of progress. People are still living in tents and the streets remain littered with rubble ...

I've read similar stories the past few days, but what struck me were the comments at the end of the article. Things like:

"Haiti was a devastated nation long before the earthquake hit. I am encourged that aid funds are being released very slowly. Throwing money at a nation which, for decades, has run on corruption, abuse, greed and oppression is NEVER going to be cost effective."

And:

To Haiti people: It is US and Canada that still support your corrupted Haiti government that doesn't care for the people of Haiti but survival of its own power. It is another puppy government for the West.

And:

Ahem ..... We are speaking of Haiti n'est pas... I mean 'quel surprise eh !!!! Anything done should have been from the 'bottom up' as the stench of political corruption in Haiti knows no bounds !!! Wise up !!!

Haiti is poor because we helped to make them poor. And the story is that Canadians opened their hearts and their wallets to help the victims of this earthquake. So where did our money go?

I started giving thumbs down to the comments but found that I just didn't have the energy.

I was getting some things together for my book and came across a story I had filed. I've blogged on it before, but it was a column from an American newspaper.

Reading and listening to the Canadian news media during those family trips could be a tad boring, but it also was touching, like remembering your earnest grade-school civics teacher lecturing about the wonders of the American democratic process. But in my visit this past summer, I noticed that the tone of Canada suddenly had changed. There was a nastier edge to the commentary.

... Standing out starkly against the bland traditions of Canadian governance was the pugnacious ‘tude of American political combat, wedge issues pounded in with a zeal that put the goal of winning and holding power over everything else. It was as if a virus that had long infected the people south of the border had overnight jumped containment and spread northward establishing itself in a new host population. But – as I began to study this new phenomenon – it became clear that this infection did not just accidentally break quarantine.

Rather, it was willfully injected into the Canadian body politic by conservative strategists and right-wing media moguls who had studied the modern American model and were seeking to replicate it. ...

Judging by those comments they are no longer seeking to replicate it. They have succeeded.

I have to watch videos of the Canada I know and love for encouragement. Otherwise, I think I'd just give up.

Conservatives Play to Base From Mr. Bean's Playbook

I'm pretty sure that Stephen Harper's last speech was plagiarized from Rowan Atkinson. It sounds oddly familiar.

When Mr. Ignatieff spoke in Kingston today he made an interesting comment. This may not be the exact quote because while I wrote it down, my handwriting is atrocious.

But he suggested that rather than looking for the best in Canadians, Stephen Harper seeks out the worst.

They call it playing to their base, but in order to keep their base they just keep wallowing deeper and deeper into the mud. The latest census debacle is a perfect example. They were forced to lie, by stating that Canadians had been complaining about the extra paperwork.

Despite statements by the Conservative government that they scrapped the long-form census due to widespread privacy concerns from citizens, Canada's privacy watchdog has received just three complaints about the census in the last decade. Their office was not consulted on the government's decision, says Anne-Marie Heyden, spokesperson for Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart, nor did they recommend the government drop the long-form mandatory questionnaire or
replace it with a voluntary one.

"If we felt that would be warranted, I think that's something we would have recommended to them," she said. "I do want to emphasize the fact that we have a good working relationship with StatsCan and we've always worked closely with them to ensure that privacy rights are respected throughout the census process."

Three complaints in ten years? Well that's worth the millions of dollars they are going to spend on this. But it's more than just the cost.

The agency uses a rigorous methodology to select individuals who answer the questions on the long form. The selection process ensures that an accurate cross section of citizens who provide richer detail about their backgrounds. Researchers can then use that information in combination with other data sets to explain certain behaviour. For instance, do the prescription drug habits of people in a certain neighborhood have anything to do with socio-economic factors such as how much money they earn, or their ethnic background? Combining information from the long form with the actual prescription drug habits provides researchers in British Columbia with possible answers.

So if the information is so valuable, why is the government doing away with the census long form and replacing it with a survey that will cull similar information, but voluntarily? The government says it is simply responding to concerns of individuals who were worried about the intrusive nature of the questions.

Oh yes. The concerns of three people in ten years. I forgot about those guys.

But then John Baird jumped into the fray spouting nonsense. Is that boy on crack?

Standing beside Marjory LeBreton at the news conference in Ottawa was John Baird, the minister who has become the de facto spokesperson for the prime minister when he's not around. When asked about the long form and the reason for
changing the government's policy, he gave an answer that left journalists scratching their heads.

"(The) government threatening to put people in jail if they don't tell how many bathrooms they have is a bit heavy handed and a bit ridiculous. We will respect peoples' right to privacy. At the same time the important information that's needed in the census will be gathered." Flummoxed, journalists pressed Baird and LeBreton to explain what they meant by throwing "people in jail."

What a kook. But there is a Facebook page where you can read and share stories. Vent, cry, laugh, then cry some more.

Ironically, the only complaint I ever heard was from an Evangelical who takes his Evangelism seriously. He opposed the census because they are now being processed by Lockheed Martin, a weapons manufacturer, and he opposes war.

The opposition is demanding an inquiry:

The Opposition Liberals and New Democrats want a parliamentary committee reconvened this summer to probe the Harper government's decision to stop
requiring that one-fifth of households fill out a lengthy census questionnaire. They want to Industry Minister Tony Clement called on the carpet to explain himself, saying the move will erode the ability of social scientists and policy makers to build an accurate picture of Canada.

It's the latest volley in what's become a culture-war battle between the right-wing Conservatives and their liberal-minded critics. Mr. Clement is refusing, however, to consider changing course, saying the Tories feel that compelling people to answer questions about their personal lives is an unwarranted intrusion of privacy

"Culture-war between the right-wing Conservatives and their liberal-minded critics?" What is wrong with you people? This is a war between the Harper government and the Canadian people.

And it is not just the opposition who are upset:

Canada's minority Conservative government is under fire from business groups, economists, opposition parties, the media and others for cutting the work being done by the country's central statistics agency. The criticism -- much of it from groups that usually enjoy good ties with government -- is almost universal and is likely to be used as a weapon against the Conservatives in the next election campaign, expected within the next year.

Oh, boy. Enjoy the latest video of Canadians Rallying to Unseat Stephen Harper. Or visit our website at unseatharper.ca

New Poll Shows Liberals Within 3 Points of the Conservatives

After the big hoopla over the 10 point lead that EKOS posted, a telephone survey reveals a different result. What's interesting is that the EKOS poll was not conducted by speaking with anyone, but through voice recognition. Those things are never accurate.

No wonder the Conservatives themselves told their supporters not to get too excited because their own tracking showed different numbers.

This new poll that involved talking to actual people, shows the Conservatives at 35 and the Liberals at 32.

Cool.

Dean Del Mastro and His Training Manual

In 2007 it came to light that Harper's Reformers had created a 200 page book for their MPs that instructed them on how to make sure that nothing ever gets accomplished that doesn't fit their narrow agenda.

Among the advice contained in the book is that the Conservative Party should help pick committee witnesses and that the chairman ensure witnesses suggested by the Conservative Party of Canada "are favourable to the government and the ministry." The book also advises chairmen to "meet with witnesses so as to review testimony and assist in question preparation." It also suggests witnesses be included from Conservative ridings across the country and the chairmen make sure the witnesses' local MPs take the place of a regular committee member for the hearing.

The book contains advice on how to grind committees to a halt, whether it be by recognizing a Conservative MP just before a vote and letting them speak as long as they wish to stall the vote, or adjourning a "disruptive" committee. The instructions to the committee chairmen may explain in part some of the events that have taken place over the past couple of weeks. The official languages committee has become paralyzed as a result of a series of events that began when chairman Guy Lauzon abruptly cancelled a hearing into the effect on language minorities of cutting the Court Challenges program.

The work of two other committees ground to a halt Thursday as a result of Conservative MPs filibustering to stop discussion on the censorship of documents related to Afghan detainees and of a private members bill to prohibit replacement workers being used during strikes in workplaces that fall under federal jurisdiction.

Dean Del Mastro has memorized the book from front to back and as a result has accomplished absolutely nothing.

In an attempt to make sure his record is not broken, he has also chosen to do nothing about the G-20 anti-security measures that cost 1.3 billion dollars, but failed to secure the city of Toronto.

Maybe instead of reading his damn manual he might want to read the Vancouver Sun where they revealed that the police "could have apprehended the anarchists" at anytime but were told to stand down.

What do you think of that Dino? Is that in your book?

Or watched the video where citizens were chasing Black Bloc and they were allowed to escape behind police lines? Is that in your book Dino?



Or how about the cop caught smashing the police car? Was that in your friggin' book?

Canadians Demanding an Inquiry in to G-20 is now has more than 53,000 members. And guess what Dino? Some of them are from Peterborough. I assume you've heard of the place.

And thousands of Canadians marched against your government trying to turn Canada into a Police State. I assume you've heard of Canada. Nice little place. Used to be a democracy.

So put your manual away Dino and get out and look around. Talk to people not within your narrow circle, but ordinary Canadians. You must know a few, right?

You might just have an "opinion", and not a bloody manual that tells you what your "opinion" should be. Next time, don't bother showing up at all. Just leave the book. We already know how it ends.

Paradis Scandal Back On ... I Think .... Maybe

Just before calling his two and half month Prorogue Vacation, Stephen Harper was trying to halt rumblings at Public Works, over a brewing scandal.

First there was a scandal, then there wasn't a scandal. it was all quite dizzying.

Auditors have been called, animal rights people have been called. It's a mess.

But try as he might, the darn thing just isn't going away and it looks like the ethics commissioner may be ready to blow the lid off the whole thing.

Parliament's ethics watchdog will examine a cabinet minister's dealings with Rahim Jaffer, despite the Conservative government's herculean efforts to distance itself from the former Tory MP.

Mary Dawson, the ethics commissioner, will look into whether Christian Paradis improperly used his position as public works minister to help out Jaffer. Jaffer called Paradis on the minister's cellphone last August, asking him to go for beers and telling him about a project he was working on through his company, Green Power Generation, to install solar panels on federal buildings.

Paradis arranged for his parliamentary affairs director, Sebastien Togneri, to deal with Jaffer and set up meetings with bureaucrats. Documents tabled with a House of Commons committee show that civil servants were asked to speed the process of meeting with Jaffer and business partner Patrick Glemaud.

I'm glad they're going to build all those super prisons. They're going to need an entire wing for Harper's government.

More on Hatred Being Validated by the Conservative Movement

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

If you think the conservative "Tea Party" movement is daunting, take a look at a new report issued by the Department of Homeland Security that says right-wing extremism is on the rise throughout the country. In the report, officials warn that right-wing extremists could use the bad state of the U.S. economy and the election of the country's first black president to recruit new members to their cause.

In the intelligence assessment issued to law enforcement last week, Homeland Security officials said there was no specific nformation about an attack from right-wing extremists in the works. The agency warns that an extended economic downturn with real estate foreclosures, unemployment and an inability to obtain credit could foster an environment for extremists to recruit new members who may not have been supportive of these causes in the past. (1)

And:

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "right wing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. "It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning says. (2)

These Tea Parties are bringing back all of the old radicals and encouraging new radicals. It's what happens when you combine religious fundamentalism, the new Conservatives and Fox News.

One of the very bizarre accusations overheard at the tea bag protests Wednesday was that President Obama is somehow a "fascist." At the same time, and often in the same protest, he was also accused of being a "communist." Of course it's ideologically impossible to be both, in the same way it's impossible to be both informed and a FOX & Friends host, but then again I'm expecting too much logic and message coherence from people who spent all of Wednesday protesting against socialism and wealth redistribution while gathered in publicly funded -- dare I say "socialized" -- parks and town squares.

But back to that "fascist" accusation. I'm not convinced that tea baggers like Michelle Malkin understand that fascism is, in fact, a form of right wing extremism. Because for the last 24 hours or so, Malkin, Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and the usual band of apoplectic brainiacs appear to have been vigorously defending "right wing extremism" after having previously accused the president of being on the same flank of the ideological spectrum. (3)

I visited the site mentioned in the video, which is the second in the four part documentary: White Power USA: The Rise of Right-Wing Militia in America. Council of Conservative Citizens is a hate group, that has been legitimized by the new Conservative movement. According to the Anti-Defamation League, they are:

Ideology: White supremacy, white separatism

Outreach: Mass mailings, prison newsletter

Approach: Advances its ideology by inflaming fears and resentments, among Southern whites particularly, with regard to black-on-white crime, non-white immigration, attacks on the public display of the Confederate flag, and other issues related to "traditional" Southern culture.

Connections: Several mainstream figures have spoken at or attended CCC meetings, including Senator Trent Lott; Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour; Mississippi state senators Gary Jackson and Dean Kirby; and several Mississippi state representatives. Former governors Guy Hunt of Alabama and Kirk Fordice of Mississippi also spoke at CCC meetings.

Extremist associations: David Duke, Mark Cotterill, Chris Temple, Jared Taylor, Paul Fromm

Considerably more polished than traditional extremist groups, the Council of Conservative Citizens propounds its bigotry in the guise of hot-button conservative advocacy. Striking hard-right positions on such contentious issues as immigration, gun control and affirmative action, the organization has insinuated itself into the mainstream successfully enough to attract a number of prominent conservative politicians to its gatherings. However, an examination of the origins, membership and publications of the CCC suggests that it remains, despite its assertions to the contrary, squarely within Southern racist traditions. While not every CCC chapter may be equally extreme, all are founded on anti-minority bigotry. (4)

OK. So you don't think this could happen here, huh? Not in Canada, right? Well pull up a chair because you're going to want to be sitting for this.

We already have a non-profit group called Immigration Watch Canada. And guess who they call on for inspiration?

Hidden Cameras on the Arizona Border: Coyotes, Bears, and Trails. Remember J.T. Ready from part one? In fact, most of the links on Immigration Watch Canada, are to American anti-immigration right-wing extremists. The Tea Party Gang. Who knew?

Thank you Stephen Harper. I just love who we are now.

Sources:

1. Homeland Security Report Warns Of Rising Right-Wing Extremism, Huffington Post, April 14, 2009

2. Federal agency warns of radicals on right, The Washington Times, April 14, 2009

3. Sharing Tea Bags with Right Wing Extremists, By Bob Cesca, Huffington Post, April 15, 2009

4. Council of Conservative Citizens, Extremism in America, The Anti-Defamation League

The Validating of Hatred by the Conservative Movement

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

I have been writing a lot about the resurgence of hate groups, that have now attached themselves to anti-tax, anti-immigration and some of the more extreme Religious Right organizations. They are now moving from the fringes and using these organizations as a bridge to the mainstream.

The above is part one* of the documentary White Power USA: The Rise of Right-Wing Militia in America, and validates what I have been saying. And if you think we're immune you're dead wrong. I'm not suggesting a militia but we will be attacked. And Harper's Fox News North, launched by his ex communications director, Kory Teneycke, is where the battle will begin. They just have to overturn our hate crime laws, but they're getting closer all the time.

However, it actually started sooner than that. The Reformers have been quietly moving Canada to the right. Not in our thinking. Canadians are still Canadians. But the perception of Canada by other nations, is diminishing. They now see us as just another Bush administration.

The Mexican Invasion

Earlier this month, Habtom Kibraeb, an Eritrean refugee, committed suicide in Halifax from fear of a pending deportation. In December 2008, a 24-year-old woman was deported to Mexico, where she was murdered months later. She had applied for asylum in Canada twice. This tragedy occurred while Kenny was imposing visa requirements on Mexicans, claiming they were bogus. (1)

The above video mentions J.T. Ready, a Republican candidate who is heading up a movement to stop illegal immigration from Mexico. He has support from some pretty high places, including the Republican Party. One of them is Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce. He was responsible for drafting the controversial Proposition 200, which makes it a crime for public officials to fail to report people unable to produce documentation of citizenship when applying for benefits, and allows citizens who believe that public officials have given undocumented persons benefits to sue for remedies.

Since Proposition 200 passed last fall, its backers have presented an alarming 20 bills targeting immigrants in the Arizona legislature, have cheered the vigilante Minuteman Project on the Arizona-Mexico border, and have worked to sponsor similar bills in other states. But there is a growing grassroots mobilization against the resurgence of racist policies in Arizona, and the threat of an international and national boycott of the state looms. (2)

And yet it is gaining momentum and has sparked a new group: Protect America NOW!

J. T. lost the election but his Minutemen are still on the March and have the full endorsement of the Republican Senator Pearce. You can see them together in the photo to the right.

Just three weeks ago at a tea party rally in Tempe, he handed out fliers calling for landmines to be placed along the Mexican border to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing into Arizona.

Now, neo-Nazi J.T. Ready says he plans to lead an armed group into the desert south of Phoenix this weekend to put a stop to what he called “narco-terrorists.” Ready appeared decked out in camouflage during an interview Wednesday with KPNX (Channel 12). He showed off a stockpile of guns and ammunition he plans to take with him and claimed his group will stake out an area of Pinal County that drug smugglers use as a route to bring “chemical warfare into Phoenix.”Ready has grabbed more traction with local media in recent months as the debate over illegal immigration heats up. He has also appeared frequently at rallies and protests in support of Arizona’s new immigration law, hoping to attract supporters to his cause.

That was no different on May 29 at the “Stand With Arizona” rally in Tempe, an event organized by several tea party groups. Ready was there handing out fliers for the Mesa chapter of the National Socialist Movement, the largest neo-Nazi group in the United States. (3)

And left unchecked the worst may have already happened.

I called Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada Thursday about a report I’d read on the Website of NBC affiliate KVOA Tucson concerning four border crossers fired upon by two men wearing camouflage and bearing assault rifles.

One man was injured with a gunshot wound to the left forearm, the rest were unharmed. The shooting occurred around 5 a.m. on Friday, June 11 at Peck Canyon, nearby Rio Rico. Sheriff Estrada suggested in the KVOA report that the shooters could have been U.S. citizens “hunting illegal border crossers.” What the piece didn’t explain is whether the victims of the attack had been able to identify the perps as Anglo or Hispanic. But Sheriff Estrada told me that the migrants couldn’t say. (4)

And:

In addition to shootings of Latinos by Border Patrol agents, there have been mysterious shootings and even murders in Arizona deserts. Troubling details are emerging that suggest these attacks on Latinos are not drug-related, as often reported, but the work of violent border vigilantes. (5)

These actions have been inspired by the new racist policies of the Republicans. Grover Norquist gave Russell Pearce an award for his no-tax rhetoric. The Tea Party group is an extension of the Republican party and Fox News, who have now validated hate.

Will Fox News North promote the same things? I'm sure the Republicans never expected this outcome. Remember, this is not your father's Conservative Party.

"This is a problem in Canadian refugee law which encourages bogus claims." -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper

While apologizing to the president of Mexico, Prime Minister Harper has echoed what his immigration minister, Jason Kenney, has been saying for some time. Canada's refugee system is overwhelmed with bogus refugees who come to take advantage of a generous asylum system. These bogus refugees are queue jumpers who are sneaking into Canada through the asylum system. And nobody likes a queue- jumper, least of all Canadians.

... Kenney is quite clear about who a bogus claimant is: anyone who is a failed refugee claimant. He cites Mexican claims as the example. Eighty-nine per cent were rejected in 2008. He has said they are all queue jumpers, economic migrants who are abusing the refugee system. But are they?

With the minister's indulgence, I would define a bogus claimant as one who makes a false refugee claim knowing that he or she is not a refugee. That definition would undoubtedly cover some Mexican claimants who come to Canada with a phoney story about horrible events that never happened. It would even cover the Mexican migrant who has naively been misled by an unscrupulous travel agency to simply arrive in Canada. It would not, however, describe many of the failed Mexican claims ... When Kenney says that he does not believe that Czech Roma or Mexicans are refugees, and therefore they are presumably bogus refugees, he is contradicting both the IRB and the Federal Court which have both said that some Czechs and some Mexicans are refugees who are at risk of serious harm. (6)

We're just a few tea parties away from a J.T. Ready. Or are we?

Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Jason Kenney is known as the Minister of Censorship and Deportation because of his record as one of the most repressive immigration ministers in Canadian history. Deportations have increased, while the number of people accepted as refugees and sponsored family members have drastically dropped. Instead, Kenney has increased the number of temporary workers who are constantly exploited for their labour. His new refugee bill creates a racist two tier system based on nationality, and he has called a wide range of migrants– from Mexicans to the War Resisters – “bogus”. Under his regime, an Eritrean refugee committed suicide from fear of a pending deportation, and a young woman was murdered upon her deportation to Mexico. (7)

Footnotes:

*You'll see Amy Goodman from Democracy Now on this video. She was the journalist who was detained in Canada and had her car searched because they were afraid of what she may be here speaking about. Ironically, it was freedom of the press.

Sources:

1. Community Group Outraged at Kenney’s Proposed Refugee Reform, By No One Is Illegal-Vancouver, March 30th, 2010

2. Racist Fervor becomes Law in Arizona: Calls for State Boycott Gain Momentum, by Margot Veranes and Adriana Navarro, June 5, 2005

3. Teabagger Neo-Nazi J.T. Ready says he plans to lead an armed group into the Arizona desert, By Nick R. Martin, June 18th, 2010

4. Cross-Post: The Rio Rico Shootings, J.T. Ready, and Neo-Nazis in the Desert: June 19, 2010

5. Murder in the Desert, Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric Turns Violent, By Jill Garvey, Artists Against Bigotry,
June 16, 2010

6. Bogus claims made about bogus refugees, By Peter Showler, The Vancouver Sun, August 18, 2009

7. Peoples March Against Jason Kenney, P.E.O.P.L.E.S M.A.R.C.H A.G.A.I.N.S. J.A.S.O.N K.E.N.N.E.Y
Saturday July 24th at 2 pm, TBA, Vancouver