The Most Powerful Symbol You Will See This Election

I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind. John Diefenbaker

On January 6, 1941, Franklin Roosevelt, in his State of the Union Address; put forward four tenets of freedom that every citizen should enjoy:

Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Worship
Freedom from Want
Freedom from Fear

I watched a short Canadian newsreel recently, that would have been shown in movie theatres as propaganda.  It was made in 1943, at a time when Canadians were growing weary of war.

Lorne Greene of Bonanza fame, narrated, and started out by showing victorious battle scenes in an attempt to convince the movie goers that we were winning.  They just had to hold on a bit longer.

He then repeated those four tenets of freedom, one at a time, with all the passion he could muster.

It was very moving, and they were not just empty promises.  On behalf of the Government of Canada, Social Scientist, Leonard Marsh, prepared a report that was presented to a House of Commons committee that year:  Report on Social Services for Canada; as part of the plan for post-war reconstruction.

It wasn't enough to just bring soldiers home, They had to come home to a country committed to making that country, not only worth coming home to, but with visible signs of the things they had fought for. Their sacrifices were not in vain and the welfare state was born.

Initially, the term was used to describe an industrial capitalist society, in which the state manipulated the market, but in 1967, British historian Asa Briggs, in The Welfare State, laid out revised provisions of what the welfare state should look like:

- Provision of minimum income
- Provision for the reduction of economic insecurity, resulting from sickness, old age and unemployment
- Provision to all members of society a range of social services

Not just the freedom from want but the freedom from need.  If we were expected to make sacrifices during wartime, we needed to be taken care of at times of peace.

Then in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, turned the whole thing upside down.  Forget all that.  There was no such thing as society and no need for social services.  Give more money to the wealthy and the resulting economic boost would trickle down to everyone.

The corporate welfare state was reborn.

Conservatives will take every opportunity to use the word "freedom",  but clearly have no idea what it means.  Chest thumping and carnivorous nationalism is not freedom.  

Instead of freedom from want, they leave society wanting, and use fear, attacks on religious groups and stifling of free speech, so they can have us participate in perpetual war.

Photo-ops with soldiers, first responders, or anyone in uniform, might make you look good, but you can't remove them from the picture once the cameras are turned off.

Those who risk their lives for us, deserve better.  Indeed, all Canadians do.

Our hopes are high. Our faith in the people is great. Our courage is strong. And our dreams for this beautiful country will never die.  Pierre Trudeau

This election campaign, we're hearing a lot about the middle class.  There's no denying that a strong middle class is tantamount to economic security.  However, even with a strong middle class, there was still poverty. 

There was still want.

Instead of a higher minimum wage, that will only force small businesses out, we need a living wage guarantee for everyone. We need a strong social safety net, that includes a housing strategy, so terms like "homelessness" and "food banks" are removed from everyday conversation.

Courage, my friends; 'tis not too late to build a better world. Tommy Douglas

George Bush referring to corporations as "job creators" is a myth.  Corporations only create jobs when it's convenient to do so, and will shed jobs anytime they threaten their bottom line (as we're seeing now in Alberta).  And despite the fact that the public has subsidized these corporations for years, shareholders take priority over stakeholders.

Enough is enough.

A recent Nanos poll indicates that 2/3 of Canadians are ready for a change.  It's up to us to make sure that that change, is not simply more of the same.

If a picture speaks to us, the image of the crest above is speaking volumes.  It's not only a reminder of what freedom was supposed to look like, but also a reminder that we are failing our heroes and heroines.

Patriotism is not dying for one's country, it is living for one's country, and for humanity. Perhaps that is not as romantic, but it's better. Agnes MacPhail

Thomas Mulcair is wrong to Invoke Tommy Douglas and the War Measures Act.

On October 12, 1970, Pierre LaPorte's wife received a letter from her husband: (1)

The day before Quebec premier Robert Bourassa had also received a letter from his labour minister: (1)

How could Mr. Bourassa not be moved by such a letter?  How could anyone not in that situation?  "You have the power of life and death over me..."

LaPorte's kidnapping, had followed the kidnapping of British Diplomat James Cross, the week before.

Cross would survive.  Mr. LaPorte was not so lucky.

To understand the severity of the crisis, you had to have lived during that time.  Anglophone communities in Montreal were targeted, especially in the affluent neighborhood of Westmount.

Between 1963 and 1970,  the FLQ had detonated over 95 bombs, including one at the Montreal Stock Exchange, Montreal City Hall and the RCMP recruitment office.  Dozens more were in mailboxes.  This was not like the false flag war that the Harper government has used as an excuse for Bill C-51.

This was no exaggerated far off threat.  The threats were real and the terrorist activities were taking place in our own country.

The kidnappings were an attempt to have 23 prisoners, charged with previous bombings, released; in exchange for the hostages.

The Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously to implement the War Measures Act, and Pierre Trudeau complied.  We were indeed at war.  There was some hyperbole, mostly written of in modern times, but there was definitely a clear and present danger in October of 1970.

We know that Tommy Douglas opposed the implementation of the WMA, and said so in his October 16, 1970, address to Parliament.  Four NDP MPs broke ranks, but the rest supported their leader.  He would later explain to CBC, why he raised the alarm:

I'm not saving that the government is going to do all these things. But I am saying that it is dangerous to take these tremendous powers in order to deal with a situation that could be dealt with very easily, namely by bringing into the House of Commons a bill to amend the Criminal Code, giving the powers to search without warrant and whatever other powers it needs to cope with the situation in the City of Montreal. (2)

I see amending the Criminal Code, "giving the powers to search without warrant and whatever other powers it needs to cope with the situation in the City of Montreal" being a slippery slope, since it is quite vague, without an exit.  How long would the allowance to search without warrant be on the books?

There has been a suggestion that Douglas's opposition to the WMA was political, but I don't believe so. Tommy Douglas was a man of conviction. Thomas Mulcair is not, nor would he have opposed the implementation of the Act.

In 1982, the Government of Canada funded a new group called Alliance Quebec, to protect Quebec Anglophone economic interests and combat the threat of separatism.  Mulcair would become their director of legal affairs.  He had also been part of the anti-separatist movement, protesting the 1980 referendum.

Recently, a former president of the AQ had this to say:

My name is William Johnston. I am a veteran journalist/writer and former president of Alliance Québec. I believe the use of the War Measures Act by the federal government of M. Trudeau was necessary at the time. To know more about my views, consult the Virtual Library.

If Mulcair had opposed the WMA at the time, he would never have been allowed membership into Alliance Quebec.  Yet I'm constantly being reminded of the NDP stand, in discussions over Bill C-51.

Like only they have ever stood up for our rights.

As we know Tommy Douglas's opposition was not popular at the time.  85% of Canadians supported the idea, including a large number of NDP members.

Author Elaine Kalman-Knaves wrote of her personal experiences living in Montreal during this time.  She recounts the site of tanks during a different period in her life, when she was a child in Budapest.  They were Soviet tanks, invoking fear.  However, in 1970, while riding a bus home, she remembers seeing the soldiers with guns.

I was awfully glad to see those soldiers at the front of the bus. They were there to protect me and the way of life my family had come to Canada for.

Like many who supported the government's response at the time, she does feel some reget.  However, says Kalman-Knaves:

At the time, I was a card-carrying member of the NDP, yet I believed that David Lewis and Tommy Douglas, who opposed the War Measures Act, were wrong. They weren't going through what Montrealers were in 1970. They didn't feel the pounding of my heart.

Sources:

1. Documents on the October Crisis, Quebec History, Marionapolis College

2. Comments by T. C. Douglas, Leader of the New Democratic Party, On the War Measures Act, CBC, October 16, 1970

Clearly Liberalism is Not Dead Though Conservatism May be On Life Support

When Stephen Harper was with the Reformers, promoting an American style conservative movement, he mocked Canada's historic Conservative Party, because they boasted to be descended from Sir John A. MacDonald. "So what!" he said.

Recently the Harper government conducted a poll to determine the top ten Canadians who inspired us. From top to bottom:

1. Pierre Trudeau
2. Terry Fox
3. Tommy Douglas
4. Lester B. Pearson
5. Chris Hadfield
6. David Suzuki
7. Sir. John A. MacDonald
8. Wayne Gretzky
9. Jack Layton
10. Romeo Dallaire

What first struck me about the list was that no women were included.

What about Agnes McPhail, the first female MP and her work on prison reform? The Famous Five who fought and won the right for women to become "persons", not chattel? Louise Arbour who became the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights? The list goes on.

Most who made the cut are self explanatory, since they contributed a great deal to building Canada as a nation, and strengthened our international reputation.

Jack Layton was a puzzle though. He enjoyed some political success but I can't think of anything he did that would stand the test of time.

He joined Stephen Harper in fighting against the Kyoto accord and even campaigned against the carbon tax, claiming that it would hurt families, despite the fact that it was revenue neutral.

Elizabeth May recounted her experience with Layton and his political move.

I remember phoning Jack Layton to beg him not to bring down the government on the opening day of the climate conference. I had known and liked Jack since he was on Toronto City Council. He had been enormously helpful, volunteering as an auctioneer in local Sierra Club events. He told me when he ran for leader of the NDP that he was only seeking a role in federal politics to deal with the climate crisis. I had believed him. As he threatened to sabotage the most important global climate negotiations in history, I recall leaving a message on his cellphone: "How will you look at yourself in the mirror if you do this?"

... It is only with hindsight that I have come to believe that the climate negotiations were not merely collateral damage to the incidental timing of November 2 8. I now believe that Harper and Layton had a shared desire to pull the plug before the Martin government had a chance to look good on the world stage. I think it is extremely likely, given the way Layton downplayed the climate threat in 2006, that a conscious decision was made by NDP strategists. They had to make sure the key issue remained Liberal corruption for the NDP to avoid losing votes to the Liberals. (Losing Confidence: Power, Politics, and the Crisis in Canadian Democracy, By Elizabeth May, McClelland & Stewart, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-7710-5760-1, Pg. 2-7)

A similar strategy backfired in the recent Ontario election.

I liked Jack Layton but he was not at the heart NDP, at least not in the Tommy Douglas tradition. He spent the most on travel, he exploited subsidized housing" and a study conducted by McMaster University, revealed that he was the nastiest MP.

I can think of many others more deserving, but there is a bigger issue with the list.

What does this say to Stephen Harper?

Our heroes fought for a Just Society, gave us National Healthcare, Peacekeepers, fight for the Environment and the plight of the downtrodden. Except for MacDonald, none were Conservative, though our first prime minister was nothing like our current, as Harper himself reminded us.

Clearly, Canada has not moved to the right, as some suggest. We cherish everything that Stephen Harper fights against.

It's also interesting as we watch American politics, in the days of the Tea Party, that they actually share the same values.

NBC recently conducted a poll asking who was the best President in the past 25 years. Bill Clinton was number one and Barack Obama number two.

As an interesting coincidence, the son of Canada's first choice will be running for Prime Minister in 2014, while the wife of America's first choice, may be running for President in 2016.

Harper conducted the poll in preparation for our 150th anniversary in 2017. We just have to make sure that the poll is his only involvement in the process.

How can we expect someone who wants to destroy everything our inspirations built, speak for our country?

Will NDP Members Vote for Their Party to Go Right?

As angry as I have been with Jack Layton and his alliance with Stephen Harper, I had great hope for the party.

Packed now with union leaders, activists and bright-eyed youth, I thought they might be able to rouse Parliament with a bit of the prairie fire, ignited by Tommy Douglas.

Or before him, J.S. Woodsworth, who refused to leave the floor until the government was willing to enact prison reform.

But alas, it's just more of the same: "Big oil, big banks, sponsorship scandal. Big oil, big banks, sponsorship scandal". I expect them to break out in song in a remake of the Wizard of Oz. "Lions and tigers and bears, oh, my".

Perhaps that's fitting, as the Wizard of the NDP is acting more and more like the man behind the curtain, or as longtime NDP insider, James Laxer once said of Layton, the man who fakes left, but goes right.

That was written in 2006, when Layton left the Kelowna Accord and a national childcare plan on the table.

In 2008, Laxer again criticized Layton's leadership, feeling that he was causing the party to lose direction, missing an opportunity to build a progressive movement.

He was driven purely by power so joined forces with Stephen Harper to destroy the Liberals, instead of focusing on what this country needed. A strong voice on the left.

This weekend's convention could put the final nail in the coffin, of what men like Tommy Douglas and J.S. Woodsworth tried to build, as Layton is expecting the membership to vote on measures that will clearly move them to the right.

Delegates to this weekend's convention will be asked to eradicate the word "socialist" from the NDP constitution. A proposed new preamble touts the party's "social democratic principles" of economic and social equality, individual freedom and responsibility and democratic rights — replacing the current preamble's dedication to the principles of "democratic socialism," which include "social ownership" and a pox on making a profit.

{Brad] Lavigne says the proposed change is simply part of a "modernization" of the constitution, begun two years ago, getting rid of out-moded phrases that no one uses anymore. For his part, Layton declines to explain the difference between social democratic principles and democratic socialism. "I couldn't give you a quick primer on that. I've offered lengthy courses on the topic over the years," he said earlier this week.

Layton then goes into his usual food on the table, education, medicine and pensions. And yet he is not insisting that Flaherty tell him what 111 things he's going to cut (it's a secret) or demanding that the health minister produce the Canada Health Act. Instead she is getting away with touting the party line "we're increasing transfer payments".

But for all those socialists out there, not to worry: "the NDP resolutions do include some staple big bank- and corporation-bashing".

Again ringing hollow, seeing as how the Libyan "mission" is for "big oil" and "big banks" (Goldman-Sachs already has their foot in the door).

The Liberals gave us our flag, our national anthem, our unique rights culture and our Just Society. And they accomplished that when governing from the centre, taking from both the right and the left.

But much of the success of this nation came from the NDP, making sure that the country stayed on course.

Stephen Harper's political victories came by pretending to be Liberal, or Progressive Conservative, answering the question insider Tom Flanagan once asked: "how do we convince Canadians that we are moving to the left, when we're not"? This has led to a mistrust, since those who know better, are well aware of his far-right ideology.

Now Jack Layton also wants to pretend to be Liberal, so he can take over that base. It won't happen. Right leaning Liberals would go Conservative, because of Layton's anti-corporate posturing, and left-leaning Liberals, would probably go to the Green Party, if either decided to jump ship.

However, I believe most will instead work to rebuild the party, that has given Canada so much. We lost the Progressive Conservatives and we can't afford to lose the Liberals.

I mean who would Jack Layton spend all of his time bashing then, seeing as how he has always given the Conservatives a free ride?

From Shock and Disbelief to Profound Sorrow

"Statesman, yet friend to truth! of soul sincere,
In action faithful, and in honour clear;
Who broke no promise, served no private end,
Who gained no title, and who lost no friend."
J.M. Coldwell of CCF founder J.S. Woodsworth

After last night's election results, most engaged Canadians experienced shock and disbelief. Today that is replaced with profound sorrow.

When strategic voting was abandoned for some illusive big orange wave, it threw the electorate into turmoil. Many left of centre joined the NDP bandwagon, while those in the centre or just right of it, went to the Conservatives.

And all the work done by so many, blew up in our face.

How did this happen? I'm sure we'll be asking ourselves that for many months.

At a time when our very democracy was on the line, and the removal of a tyrant necessary for our survival, Jack Layton chose to once again worry about his seat count, ignoring the impact of his strategy on our country.

He gambled with Canada and lost the hand.

In 2006, when Layton handed Stephen Harper a victory, NDP insider James Laxer wrote: Fake Left, Go Right: An insider’s take on Jack Layton’s game of chance

In it he spoke of the reason why Jack Layton had aligned himself with Stephen Harper. Their shared hatred for the Liberals and the desire to destroy them. Sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for, because the NDP may have destroyed their only allies.

In the Summer of 2008, Laxer again criticized the direction of the NDP under Layton: With its exclusive fixation on winning more seats, the NDP has sacrificed the opportunity to build a truly progressive movement. On the 75th anniversary of the CCF, James Laxer argues that to save the present, we need to remember the past.

The Party was in a celebratory mood last night, but I'm sure in the light of day they are probably no longer basking in the glow of being the opposition with a Harper majority.

Last night they said they were now in a position to hold the government to account. But as Rosemary Barton asked, how can they do that when the Conservatives control Parliament? The NDP are a top dog that's been neutered. They have less power now than they did before, when there were more bodies on their side of the room.

There were some victories last night. Elizabeth May won her seat, and my own riding was held by a Liberal. And of course, while I'll miss their input, we no longer have to be held ransom by the Bloc.

But Jack Layton has a very inexperienced caucus, dominated by Quebec. This could very well shift the real power in the party to Thomas Mulcair. I like Mulcair but we have to remember that when he decided to run for a federal seat, he first considered going to the Conservatives.

And he is perhaps more pro-Israel than Harper himself.

I once hoped that Libby Davies would take over as party leader when Layton stepped down, but that seems less likely now.

So what will this do to the progressive movement, clearly abandoned by the NDP?

What will it mean for climate change, labour groups, healthcare, a national childcare plan, women's rights, a housing strategy, poverty, seniors, veterans?

James Laxer is right. Jack Layton's gamble has erased decades of progress.

The Liberals were the only other party that had the backing of the corporate sector, and now all of that money will flow to one party. Does Layton really believe that he and his ragtag group can stop the Conservatives from doing anything?

Some people ask me what I intend to do now. I am going to continue to expose the Conservatives and fight for a progressive Canada.

Sadly, I now realize that that no longer includes the NDP.

J.S. Woodsworth, Tommy Douglas and David Lewis, are not smiling down on their party today.

The NDP's Wounds are Self Inflicted. They Tried to Move to the Right

According to Eric Grenier, who I admit needs a history lesson if he's suggesting that a 7 point spread assures a victory:

The New Democrats have slipped to 15.5 per cent nationally, and are now projected to win only 21 seats, representing a loss of 15 for the party. The Bloc Québécois, with 10.1 per cent support nationally but 40 per cent in Quebec, would win 53 seats, while the Greens are up only slightly to 8.3 per cent.

These low numbers for the NDP suggest that they may once again back Stephen Harper, so they don't have to face the electorate. But instead they should look within the party and ask themselves what went wrong.

I think they started a downward spiral five years ago when Jack Layton allowed himself to be seduced by Stephen Harper. Since then the rocky relationship has Layton often acting as irrationally a jilted lover.

And in the process he has abandoned the party's core principles, and gambled away his integrity.

A Bit of History

Both the NDP (originally the CCF) and the Reform Party (now calling themselves the Conservative party of Canada), began as Western protest movements. The difference was that the Reform represented big business, while the NDP, under Tommy Douglas, represented the little guy, fighting for social justice.

When the Reform Party had their first electoral success in 1993, it has always been thought that they did it at the expense of the PC Party, when Brian Mulroney's coalition self-destructed. But that's not true. In the West, where both parties were born, it was more often at the expense of the NDP.

According to Laurence Putnam, who wrote a paper for the Fraser Institute on the subject:

The Liberal gains in the West during the 1993 election came chiefly at the expense of the PC Party, whereas most Reform party gains came chiefly at the expense of the NDP, as was witnessed in Lorne Nystrom's shocking loss in the Saskatchewan riding of Yorkton-Melville to Reform challenger Garry Breitkreuz .... British Columbians who supported the NDP in the 1980's and supported the Reform Party through the 1990's did not expediently shift their political views from the left to the right, but rather they were voting for the populist, anti-establishment party that best represented their views at the time. (1)

Using BC as an example: Putnam says that in 1988, the NDP won 19 seats, but in 1993, only 2. The PCs went from 12 to 0, while the Liberals from 1 to 6.

So in many ways the Reform and NDP were the same, but with a different set of goals. And as a result the NDP was more palpable to central Canada, while the Reform had to hide their agenda if they wanted to make inroads.

And under greats like David Lewis and Ed Broadbent, the NDP remained focused. They would schmooze either side to get what they wanted, but the things they wanted, were for the betterment of Canadian society. It was comforting knowing they were there.

But Then it Changed

I think the first mistake that Jack Layton made was in 2004, when he agreed to join a coalition engineered by Stephen Harper, who had already garnered the full support of Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc. It failed, but only because then Governor General Adrienne Clarkson gave Paul Martin an opportunity to fix it (2).

Not by allowing him to prorogue to save his job, but by tweaking his throne speech, so that the opposing coalition no longer had any grievances.

The second sell out for Jack Layton and the NDP was when they agreed to take down Paul Martin on the very day that Kyoto was being ratified, because Stephen Harper convinced them that if the Liberals could get this done, they would look good to the Canadian public. For Harper the agenda was killing Kyoto, but for Layton it may have been the promise of an electoral truce. (3)

The two parties agreed not to attack each other, which didn't sit well with all candidates. When the "In and Out" was allowing ad buys in single ridings, some Conservatives complained that their biggest challenge came from the NDP, and yet the ads only went after the Liberals.

The 2005 deal left a viable childcare plan on the table and squashed any attempt at addressing climate change. So how can Jack Layton possibly criticize Stephen Harper over either one of those things? Or in fact for any of his destructive actions? He helped to put him on his throne.

And after posturing with how many times the Liberals voted with the government, when Michael Ignatieff finally said he was pulling the plug, Layton ran for cover and voted with the neocons.

The NDP have to decide where they're headed. If they are going to the right, as it would now appear, they should let their followers know. Otherwise, they should tap into their hidden Douglas, Lewis and Broadbent, and start acting like the NDP.

You won't beat Harper by being Harper. He's too good at it.

Sources:

1. 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

2. Heart Matters: A Memoir, By Adrienne Clarkson, Viking Press, 2006, ISBN: 10-978-0-670-06546-3

3. Losing Confidence: Power, Politics, and the Crisis in Canadian Democracy, By Elizabeth May, McClelland & Stewart, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-7710-5760-1, Pg. 2-7

A Short Film to Remind us Why we Must Fight Against Neoconservatism

Still a few bugs to iron out but I'm getting there. (Republican spelled wrong)

I plan to, by election time, create several one minute ads that we can use.

Right now I'm just trying to get as much information out as possible, anyway I can.

Maybe next week I'll march with a sandwich board. Whatever it takes.

Why I Can no Longer Vote NDP. At Least Not for Now.

After the party of Sir John A. MacDonald folded in 2003, I began voting NDP. I had read somewhere that Flora MacDonald was, so I figured what was good enough for Flora was good enough for me.

But after watching the horrendous attacks on President Obama for the past two years, with cries of his being a 'Socialist' and even a 'Communist' , I realized that if the NDP ever formed a government, corporate Canada and their myriad of think tanks, would never allow them to govern.

One of my favourite columnists, Gerald Kaplan, wrote a piece recently, The hidden history of Bob Rae’s government in Ontario. I had covered this in another posting, outlining how the National Citizens Coalition and their spin-off Ontarians for Responsible Government, spent enormous amounts of money, running constant attack ads, that included the NCC classic billboards.

But Kaplan reveals that the assault on Rae and the NDP in Ontario, went much deeper.

... within months Mr. Rae's government faced an unrelenting, brutal four-year onslaught that was unprecedented in Canadian history. The attacks came from all sides. It is no exaggeration to say hysterical fear-mongering and sabotage was the order of the day. Launched within the very first year of the new government, the attackers included every manner of business big and small, both Canadian and American-owned, almost all private media, the police (especially in Toronto), landlords and lobbying/government relations firms. Their goal was clear, and they had the money and power to achieve it.

They were determined to undermine the government every step of the way, to frustrate the implementation of its plans and to assure its ultimate defeat. In all three goals they were successful. The considerable achievements of the government – often forgotten or dismissed –were wrought in the face of a deep recession and ferocious obstruction.

In Thomas Walkom's book Rae Days, he suggests that the story is one of political naivete and broken promises, and calls Rae "lazy" and "inconsistent". The only critique I would agree with is the naivete. Bob Rae did a good job during a double dip recession, but he was forced to continually play defense. He naively thought he was running the province.

But if he gave business concessions, the left were enraged. If he gave the left concessions, business was enraged. And unfortunately, business had all the money necessary to manipulate public opinion.

President Obama has recently accused the Republicans of using foreign money to fund their attack ads against him in the run-up to the mid-term elections.

"It could be the oil industry" funding the ads, Obama told a Democratic rally today in Philadelphia. "It could be the insurance industry, it could even be foreign-owned corporations. You don't know because they don't have to disclose."

He's probably right. Canadians were responsible for some of the ads against Obama's healthcare plan, and Americans funded Stephen Harper's anti same-sex marriage campaign, that helped him get him elected in 2006.

It's sad because Obama is a good president with a genuine concern for his country. But the Republicans and Fox News have poisoned the well to the extent that there may no longer be any hope of restoring sanity to American politics.

And Harper's neocons are determined to do the same here. They will create their own tea party, and stop at nothing to make sure sure that multinational corporations are still running our country. They would view the NDP as their biggest obstacle and it would be guerrilla warfare.

It's sad really, because the NDP are more social democrat that socialist. But it won't matter. I can see the placards now.

I'm not really anti-corporation, and believe that we need a healthy business community, but at present they are getting the most, while contributing the least, and that has to stop.

We need to get our country back so that I no longer have to decide on what party I support, based of which one will be the least likely to be destroyed by the corporate sector and their neoconservative puppets.

Tommy Douglas deserves better.

From Tommy Douglas to the Exclusive Brethren: What a Journey

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

"If instead of giving gems or flowers, we could drop a beautiful thought into the heart of a friend, that would be giving as the angels give." Tommy Douglas

The wonderful Tommy Douglas (1904-1986) once told a story of a day when his father, a burly iron worker, returned home at a time when the local minister was visiting.

"As was his custom, [he] tramped into the kitchen in his dirty pants and boots, the smell of molten metal still clinging to him. "I'm going to have a bottle of beer," he told their guest. "Would you like one?""

The straight laced minister declined.

Douglas claimed that his mother and the rest of the family were horrified, and he decided on that day that if he was going to be a minister, he would be "one who would accept a glass of beer at a parishioner's home, who would accept his parishioners as he found them and would strive to be one of them." (1)

What inspired Tommy Douglas was not the judgemental man of the cloth, but the pain he saw in the faces of his family, the judged, and he vowed to never inflict that kind of pain. He vowed to be one of them and he was always one of us.

Marci McDonald's book, the Armageddon Factor*, will hopefully encourage debate in this country, about the influence of the American Religious Right movement in all it's ugliness. They are promoting a culture war, that is supposed to pit Christians against non-believers.

But we have to remember that this will not be a war against Christians, but against a political movement that is threatening to tear down Canadian society. And I firmly believe that Tommy Douglas would be on our side.

Because he was the epitome of the Canadian spirit. One of the nicest men to have ever called Canada home.

The Exclusive Brethren and the Harper Government

Out of nowhere in 2004, an obscure religious sect burst onto the political stage in Australia. Almost unheard of until then, the Exclusive Brethren was suddenly spending up big in election advertising in support of conservative political parties. But its members were shy to the point of paranoia about who they were, preferring, as they said, to fly under the radar.

Brethren members assiduously lobbied politicians, but did not vote. And they were very close to the-then prime minister John Howard.

What exactly was their interest in politics? Why did their activism suddenly blossom almost simultaneously across the world, from Canada and the United States to Sweden and Australia? And how did a small, fringe group, whose values are utterly detached from those of most Australians, infiltrate the highest office in the land? (2)

In the run-up to the 2006 federal election campaign, and the debate over Bill C-38, referred to as the same-sex marriage act; international fundamentalist groups took a keen interest in the Canadian political scene. Fearing what it meant if the gay and lesbian communities were given equal rights in Canada, they threw millions of dollars behind a variety of movements, all to interfere with our political process. And the man who was running to represent them, Stephen Harper, promised to embrace that interference, rather than protect our sovereignty.

To the American Religious Right there was a concern that our "loose morals" would head south, but why such a keen interest from the Exclusive Brethren? A cult from the United Kingdom? They have now set up offices in Calgary and apparently are even establishing schools here. Do they also believe that Canada will be hosting the "end times", and want a front row seat?

Although they are throwing money into all movement conservative governments, and attacking liberal ones. Their political demands are a seamless mix of business breaks and hard-line Christian morality. Under Hales, the Exclusive Brethren have become a new player in the right-wing politics of the world. And they have lots and lots and lots of money. (3) (my emphasis)

Australia - They poured a lot of money into John Howard's campaign and seem to have had ready access to the PM, much to the dismay of other church groups, committed to social justice. (4) They also made things difficult for the opposition.

A feisty night of heckling in the 2004 Australian elections was the first - but neglected - clue that the sect had plunged into politics. Greens candidate and intelligence whistleblower Andrew Wilkie was at the Gladesville RSL campaigning when a dull night turned nasty. "They had such a threatening presence about them," Wilkie recalled. "They weren't violent but they were very aggressive."

Voices from the back taunted the candidate about his own marriage and about party leader Bob Brown's homosexuality. "I completely enraged them by endorsing Bob and his sexuality. It got them really wound up." All in all, it was an ugly experience. "I'm pretty streetwise," said Wilkie. "But I was rattled." (3)

United States

A fortnight after Howard's re-election, a group called the "Thanksgiving 2004 Committee" registered with the US Internal Revenue Service and placed ads in Florida newspapers supporting the Senate campaign of Cuban-American Mel Martinez, a passionate campaigner against gay marriage ... On election day, the committee placed a hugely expensive full-page ad supporting Bush in The New York Times under the banner headline: "America Is In Safe Hands."

When the financial returns of the Thanksgiving 2004 Committee were published by the Federal Elections Commission in January last year, they revealed that US 377,262 (almost $517,000) of more than $US600,000 raised by the committee came from a Londoner called Bruce Hazell. Press calls to Hazell established little except that he was Exclusive Brethren. (3)

Canada

A political conflagration was soon blazing as the Canadian Parliament debated same-sex marriage. In March last year, households in the electorate of every member supporting the bill received a greeting card raging against the legislation: "The suicidal rush to fundamentally change a 6000-year-old
institution is the canker that will destroy the roots of Canada's 'living tree'."

"What I do not respect is tens of thousands of dollars being spent anonymously with absolutely no way to contact this organisation," said a Canadian Liberal MP, Mark Holland. "My office has been contacted by hundreds of residents who are extremely upset. Maybe this is acceptable to the Opposition but I would like to know who is behind it. We do not know who is behind it. Is there foreign money? Is there a political party behind it?"

His questions were answered by advertising agent Ron Heggie a few days before the Civil Marriage Act was passed last July. Questioned by journalists after placing
a newspaper ad attacking the legislation, Heggie said he and the "Concerned Canadian parents" were Exclusive Brethren. ... (3)

They also took out a full page ad in the Hill Times. (5)

According to Marci McDonald* the Brethren have hired the services of Conservative insider Gerald Chipeur, who has represented the Reform-Alliance-Conservative Party for some time. He was the one who wrote the letter to the Bloc asking for a coalition with Stockwell Day in 2000. (6) Day stated that he knew nothing of the letter but a story in the New York Times published then, revealed otherwise. They also quoted his backer, Conrad Black as lambasting Day for fooling around with separatists. (7)

Chipeur has become the regular counsel for cases challenged on the basis of religious freedom, in the same way that Doug Christie became synonymous with representing the neo-Nazis. There is certainly nothing wrong with that, because everyone has the right to hire a lawyer, and when you can afford it, an expert lawyer. A funny co-incidence is that Chipeur has had a long relationship with Stockwell Day, while Day's father had a long relationship with Doug Christie. It's common knowledge available on Wikipedia.

His father, Stockwell Day, Sr., was long associated with the Social Credit Party of Canada. In the 1972 federal election he was the Social Credit candidate running against New Democratic Party leader Tommy Douglas in the riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan—The Islands. Day, Sr., supported Doug Christie and was a member of the Western Canada Concept.

I don't think Canadians realize how well connected the Harper government is with the Religious Right, not only in America but elsewhere. They are wealthy and they are motivated. Just getting rid of Stephen Harper will not be enough. We have got to vote to get rid of this party, and once they are gone lobby government to put legislation in place that will prevent something like this from happening again.

A good place to start would be to cancel 'non-profit' status the moment a group becomes partisan, and any church that gets involved with a political party, also loses their tax exempt status.

And we have to be diligent. Everyone should have the freedom to practice their religion, but no one should be given the power to legislate it. Tommy Douglas promoted a social gospel that was inclusive of everyone. This movement on the other hand, is inclusive and divisive, and most members are not even Canadian.

I want my country back.

Footnotes:

*The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada, By: Marci McDonald, Random House Canada, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-307-35646-8

Sources:

1. Tommy Douglas: Building the New Society, By Dave Margoshes, XYZ Publishing, 1999, ISBN: 0-9683601-4-9

2. Behind the Exclusive Brethren, By: Michael Bachelard, Scribe Publications, 2008, ISBN-10: 1921372281

3. Exclusive Brethren: Hidden prophets, By: David Marr, Sydney Morning Herald, Australia, July 1, 2006

4. Elusive Exclusive Brethren, By Wendy Carlisle, ABC Radio Australia, April 30, 2006

5. Secretive religious sect behind anti-gay ads: MPs targeted by mail and ads funded by Exclusive Brethren, By Peter O'Neil, July 15, 2005

6. Day denies report of 2000 coalition plot with Bloc: Former Alliance leader once told reporters, 'I'm not big on labels', CBC, December 3, 2008 .

7. Rightist Shocks Canadians By Flirting With Separatists, By James Brooke, New York Times, August 3, 2000

The House That Jack Built: Introduction

THE HOUSE THAT JACK BUILT: Will it Hold Up Without its Foundation?

James Shaver Woodsworth (1874-1942) was the founder of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), a democratic socialist party that later became the New Democratic Party (NDP).

Unlike the political traditions of Canada, the Conservatives and the Liberals, the CCF was founded on a social need, not a political one.

According to Woodsworth's daughter, her father was moved by the plight of the new immigrants, who had flocked to our shores, displaced by war and poverty. He had witnessed the slums of London, and feared that we might replicate the same deplorable conditions.

... he could not forget the sights he had seen in London's East End during his years as a student in England. Misery and poverty had made those appalling slums during the very time that England's growing industry and commerce were piling up fabulous wealth in other parts of the city. Expansion and riches had gone hand in hand with degradation and poverty to make the largest metropolis in the world. Now here was Winnipeg, gateway to the West, expanding rapidly and becoming rich. At the same time people were pouring in from all over the world, poor people driven to seek the security in the New World .. What about these people? Did no one care that they were crowding together into Winnipeg's fast-growing slums? Did no one realize that in Winnipeg, in Canada, we were starting down the same road that had led to the slums of London?

"If through indifference or selfishness we protest, 'Am I my brother's keeper?' there comes the inexorable reply, 'The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.' Someone is responsible! Every unjustly-treated man, every defenceless woman, every neglected child has a neighbour somewhere. Am I that neighbour?"

He decided that he was that neighbour and immediately proceeded to follow the dictates of his conscience. He did not rest until the Church authorities gave him a chance to work in Winnipeg's North End among the crowds of arriving immigrants. (1)

And in 1933, during the Great Depression, Woodsworth united the left wing forces, into a political party that would address the concerns of the disadvantaged.

Tommy Douglas would eventually pick up the reins, followed by others who had a vision of Canada's vast natural resources, going to help all Canadians.

However, many now fear that under Jack Layton, the party has lost its way. Chosen because he was urban and media savvy, his priorities have switched from helping others, to building a successful political machine, at any cost. (2)

And to do this he has joined forces with Stephen Harper, whose ideology is the polar opposite to everything the CCF/NDP once stood for.

What is the endgame here? Does he believe that the Conservatives will once again topple under the weight of their own scandals, and he will be there to replace them.

Sad as it is, corporate Canada will never allow the NDP to govern. It would be Bob Rae all over again, where they wouldn't have a minute's peace?

I think that Layton has sold out his principles for power, and may have done irreparable damage to the party in the process.

Rather than building on the foundation of Woodsworth and Tommy Douglas, Layton is instead attempting to build his own structure. I think it will all come crashing down.

Sources:

1. J.S. Woodsworth: A Man to Remember, By Grace MacInnis, Macmillan Company of Canada Limited, 1953, Pg. 2-3

2. How to rehabilitate the NDP, By James Laxer, This Magazine, August 14, 2009

Faith Feud of Ernest Manning and Tommy Douglas

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

"The will of the people is bound to come into conflict with the will of God" Ernest Manning

Ernest Manning's parents belonged to the United Church and were never particularly pious. (1) But as a young man, he began listening to William Aberhart's radio Bible program, and convinced his parents to allow him to register at the Calgary Prophetic Bible Institute, becoming their first graduate.

Aberhart's brand of Christianity was of the most radical fundamentalism, bordering on the occult. Manning himself, ascribed to much of this, but when he took over the radio broadcasts, he had moderated somewhat, though was still clearly a fundamentalist. He told his audiences that every aspect of their lives could be found in the scriptures and as such they should allow themselves to be directed by the "word of God".

He believed in the infallibility of the Bible at a time when the Social Gospel was becoming more popular. Tommy Douglas, then Premier of Saskatchewan, belonged to the latter group:

These competing tendencies can be personified in Tommy Douglas and Ernest Manning, two preachers who became premiers. Douglas was a Baptist pastor in Weyburn, Saskatchewan and responded to the Great Depression by becoming involved with the Farm-Labour Party and later the Cooperative Commonwealth
Federation (CCF). ...

... Throughout his years as premier, Manning continued to appear as a lay preacher on the religious radio program that he had inherited from Aberhart. On occasion Manning recruited his son Preston to stand in for him on the show. Ernest Manning ruled Alberta from the right, particularly after the discovery of oil ... He grudgingly introduced welfare measures such as building homes for the aged, but believed none of that would be necessary if people in society were shouldering their Christian duties to care for one another.

In Saskatchewan, Douglas ruled from the left and his party introduced North America’s first state medical care insurance program in 1962. When Ottawa proposed Medicare for all Canadian provinces later in the decade, Manning was opposed. (2)

Ernest Manning's greatest fear was the spread of socialism:

"Throughout his political career, Ernest Manning was motivated by religion, and more specifically, by anti-Socialism: 'Socialism, to Manning, is a system which largely prevents the individual from attaining the state of grace and hence salvation ... Giving to the individual societal benefits such as free medical care ... breeds idleness... causing a break down in his relationship with God'. "Manning argued that 'where the state imposed a monopoly on a service ... the sinful philosophy of state collectivism scored a victory'. ((3)/em>

What I found the most compelling about Ernest Manning was how serious he was. Comedian and talk show host, Percy Saltzman, interviewed him once and had this to say:

Ernest Manning, Social Credit Premier of Alberta, I remember as the coldest fish I ever did tangle with. Ice water in his veins, I swear. Probably due to the notoriously deep-rooted streak of anti-Semitism among the Mormonic Socreds (pace Aberhart and his goys) (4)

I don't think his faith was making him happy and certainly was not cheering up those around him. The following is a brief interview, and I can see what Saltzman meant.

Some of this rubbed off on his son Preston. As a member of the youth wing of the Social Credit Party; he once stated: "We (socreds) believe that Canada is drifting towards socialism even when the majority of Canadians are opposed to collectivism and the welfare state..." (5)
Sources:

1. Like Father, Like Son: Ernest Manning and Preston Manning, By Lloyd Mackey, ECW Press, 1997, ISBN: 1-55022-299-6

2. Citizenship as ministry: Religious progressives, By Dennis Gruending, Pulpit and Politics, February 8, 2009

3. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, by Murray Dobbin, Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 9

4. PREMIERS, PRIME MINISTERS, COLOSTOMIES & ME OR ... Life in that Sandbox on the Hill, Percy Saltzman, 2006

5. Dobbin, 1992, Pg. 24-25