The Canadian Manifesto 8: Purgatory and the Divine Right of Kings

Rick Perry, the frontrunner in the Republican presidential candidate race, created a bit of a stir during a recent debate, by boasting that as governor of Texas, he had sent 234 inmates to their death.

But while the mediator seemed to be a little shocked by this claim, the Republican audience cheered. He had set a new record in the United States, the previous one held by George W. Bush, who had enacted what Perry called "ultimate justice", on a mere 152.

While clearly this gave Bush and Perry a feeling of power, it was actually something more. European monarchs believed that their powers came directly from God, meaning that they governed by "divine right".

The new Religious Right/Neoconservative/Republicans, feel the same way. God has entrusted them to rule over the people, and they would do that using "God's Law", as appearing in the Old Testament.

However, this is more than just "an eye for an eye", but punishment for creating "mortal sins" that are a "grave violation of God's law" that "turns man away from God", causing his "exclusion from Christ's Kingdom".

They had to be dealt with severely and since God had bestowed the "divine right of kings" on Perry and Bush et al, it was up to them to enact His law in their earthly kingdoms.

George Bush defended his position, by saying “I take every death penalty case seriously and review each case carefully…. Each case is major because each case is life or death.”

Yet when journalist Alan Berlow, used the Public Information Act to gain access to confidential death penalty memos from Bush’s legal counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, he discovered that there were no such reviews conducted.

The name was presented with a briefing on the crimes they were convicted of, and then rubber stamped "die sinner". Those weren't the words used of course, but it was with that sentiment.

Had they actually reviewed the case of Terry Washington, a mentally challenged man of thirty-three, with the communication skills of a seven-year-old, Bush might have shown mercy. (1)

But there is no mercy for those banished from Christ's Kingdom.

Rick Perry not only refused to weigh evidence before putting people to death, but tried to stop an investigation into the wrongful execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, a father convicted of murdering his children when he "set fire" to his home. Scientific evidence suggested that this was not an arson case and therefore, not a murder case.

The Texas Tribune reports that the Willingham case was not the only one that warranted scrutiny. Perry allows his religion to guide him, ignoring rational thought and common decency.

When questioned he just uses his fall back position. It was what God wanted and his divine duty to carry it through.

In 1998, a survey was conducted in the United States concerning the death penalty.  It revealed a high level of support for it, from Evangelical Christians.  When broken down further, those Evangelicals who believed in a vengeful God were more apt to agree with putting people to death, than those who believed in a loving God.

Not surprisingly, the lowest level of support came from black respondents.

This speaks to the fact that blacks are more likely to be convicted of crime, and less likely to receive justice.  The same can be said for poor people.

In his book, Crazy for God, son of Francis Schaeffer, the architect of the Religious Right, tells us that the movement was as much about race as religion.

In their book, Divided by Faith, Michael Emerson and Christian Smith, argue that "Evangelicals desire to end racial division and inequality, and attempt to think and act accordingly. But, in the process, they likely do more to perpetuate the racial divide than they do to tear it down."  This is because of a "theological world view that makes it difficult for them to perceive systematic injustices in society."

Therefore, when it comes to their penchant for the death penalty, it would stand to reason that they would feel that they would be more likely to receive justice, and less likely to be wrongly accused.

Criminal Justice and Purgatory

American conservative, William F. Buckley Jr., once wrote of punishment for crime, or more specifically community service as a punishment for some crime, as being a kind of purgatory, a place where it is believed that some sinners go to be cleansed before entering heaven.

And since punishment for crime, is a kind of penance, why not treat it as such?  Invoking the views of Irving Kristol, Buckley ponders spiritual punishment.  As an example, he says that if a young man is caught defacing a synagogue, he should be assigned a "half-dozen books of Jewish literature to study". (2)

I was raised Catholic and remember my weekly "confessions" before I could receive Holy Communion.  I'd memorize my little speech before entering the confessional.  "Bless me father for I have sinned.  It has been one week since my last confession, and since then I have lied three times, hit my brother twice and stole a cookie".  Most of this I made up, not because I was without sin, but because I honestly couldn't account for them all.  I would be excited if there was one particular one that stood out.

As contrition, I would then be told to say a number of Hail Marys and Our Fathers, which I dutifully carried out, and the cycle would begin again.

However, it meant nothing.  Just rote and ritual.

If a "sinner" is assigned biblical passages or divine literature as penance, there is less of a chance for true remorse.  Yes, a few might be converted, but on the whole, I think it is a weak strategy for crime prevention.

Besides, clearly Buckley misunderstands the purpose of Purgatory.  It is not merely a resting place.  Those sent there were required to feel the pain of the fires of Hell.  Though temporary, pain is a requirement.  Does he really want pain associated with scripture or divine literature?

Perhaps. 

No doubt those believing in a vengeful God would.

Necon Tim Hudak wants to bring back chain gangs in Ontario. Repent! Repent! Repent!

In the documentary Memorandum, filmed twenty years after the liberation of prisoners from the death camps in Germany, they speak of a Nazi tormentor, who would break from torturing Jews to recite scripture aloud.  Purgatorial Justice reminds me of that Nazi officer, who obviously believed that he was "cleansing" their immortal souls. 

Stephen Harper's Divine Right

In January of this year, Harper made headlines when he told Peter Mansbridge that he believed in the death penalty.  This wasn't news to those who had followed his career.  He drafted policy for the Reform Party, and reinstating the death penalty was high on the list of priorities.

In fact, they also believed that children as young as ten should be sent to prison.  Fortunately, when they presented a motion to that affect, it was turned down with a resounding "NO".

Another Reform MP, Art Hanger, planned a visit to Singapore to study the art of "caning", to deal with young offenders.  When it was made public, he cancelled his trip. (3)

Harper's Reformers believe in swift and absolute "justice" to enact God's law.

The media is missing his agenda.  While he claims that he won't reopen debate on abortion, roll back women's rights or reinstate the death penalty, he is in fact doing all of those things under their radar.

Facing criticism for his silencing of the press, he held a media event, allowing young people to ask him questions.  Of course, all had to be presented in advance, so his answers could be scripted.

But not only were the answers penned by the boys in the backroom, but the questions were also being tweaked.

Youths who participated in a question-and-answer session with Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Monday say their questions were edited by the Prime Minister’s Office. Other youths had earlier explained that the questions were selected by Vision Internationale, a non-profit Christian group, and then edited by Harper’s office. (4)

And when Anna Fricker, a young ambassador for the group, discovered that her question on maternal health had been edited, to remove the mention of abortion, she spoke out:

Fricker was then interrupted by an organizer who would not identify herself except to say, "I’m supposed to be handling the media." "I would appreciate if you could just work with us so that we can keep this consistent message," she said. "I’m just supposed to keep this under control." (4)

A Christian organization hired to stifle dissent and suppress free speech.

A Manitoba judge appointed by Harper, allowed a rapist to go free because he claimed that the victim had dressed "too sexy".  Another in Ontario contemplated that drunkenness could be used as a defense against some crimes, presumably domestic violence and "date rape".

Stephen Harper doesn't have to get his hands dirty.  All of this is being done behind the scenes, incrementally.

"All lasting change is incremental" - Richard Nixon (from his memoirs Seize the Moment)

 Mark Warner, a former Conservative candidate who was replaced because he refused to remove the fact that he had attended an International Aids Conference from his campaign literature, believes that Harper is using backroom machinations to bring back the death penalty to Canada, by setting precedent.



What would have happened if Harper had been prime minister when David Milgaard or Donald Marshall were falsely convicted of murder? Would he simply do what Bush and Perry did, suggest that he had carefully reviewed their cases before implementing his "divine right"?

When the Harperites speak of Christian government and God's law, it's important that we understand what that means, before we all end up in Purgatory.

Sources:

1. Death in Texas, By Sister Helen Prejean, The New York Review, January 13, 2005 .

2. Happy Days Were Here Again: Reflections of a Libertarian Journalist, By William F. Buckley, Jr., Adams Publishing, 1993, 1-55850-471-0, p. 262

3. Caning trip cancelled. (Reform Party justice critic Art Hanger cancels trip to Singapore to evaluate the caning of criminals), Maclean's Magazine, April 1, 1996  

4. The Chronicle Herald, May 18, 2010

The Canadian Manifesto 7: From the Book of Genesis

The idea of a "new conservatism" took root after World War II, ignited by the fear of Communism. But it was Irving Kristol, a former Trotskyite, who first promoted the idea of creating a political movement under the banner of Neoconservatism.

A confirmed Straussian, it was Kristol who suggested that they team up with the Religious Right, following Leo Strauss's axiom that religion was necessary to control the masses.

According to Shadia Drury in her book , Leo Strauss and the American Right:

...Kristol shares Strauss's view that a healthy dose of religious enthusiasm is indispensable for transcending the nihilism that is at the root of America's troubles. He is so convinced of the political utility of religion that he is blind to the immoderate nature of groups such as the Moral Majority of Jerry Falwell or the Christian Coalition of Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed. Kristol has encouraged the Republican party to embrace the religious right; and the party has been listening. (1)

Stephen Harper has also been listening, telling his followers to forget the tired wish list of the fiscal conservatives, and embrace the ideology of the social conservatives, or what he calls "theocons", as a route to holding on to power. (2)

It's important to understand that the tenets of religion are immaterial. Both Kristol and Strauss were Jewish, and Strauss himself claimed not to understand Christianity, believing it to be rather foolish.

Says Drury: 'Strauss believes that a healthy society is one that is bound together by a single authoritative truth that provides the citizens with shared values and a common way of life'.

He saw an irresolvable conflict between the interests of the individual and the interests of society, and felt that the conflict could only be resolved,

...by lies and deceptions, and that the greatest among these is religion. The reason is that human beings are selfish and self-centered and will not be willing to sacrifice themselves for others in the absence of belief in a god who punishes the wicked and rewards the just. Further, Strauss believes that the existence of such a god cannot be established by reason or philosophy. The gods of "shuddering awe" are necessary to civilize humanity and to turn natural savages into husbands, fathers, and citizens. What is needed is something grand enough to capture the human imagination, something magnificent and majestic, something splendid and sublime, such as Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.(3)

And yet we are witnessing the results of too much religion that has manifested itself in terrorism, both foreign and domestic.

Following Francis Schaeffer's belief in the necessity of a Northern European* (which includes Canada, Australia and New Zealand) revolution to turn this cabal of states into a Christian theocracy, the Neocons have selected that particular religion, while bringing Judaism along for the ride, with both fighting the forces of Islam, in what they call "a clash of civilizations".

Recently, Stephen Harper claimed that 'Islamicism' is the biggest threat to Canada. The religion. And he promises to bring back tough Patriot Act style legislation, no doubt targeting all who practice the faith.

In Canada.

It breaks my heart.

So What's Wrong With a Christian Nation?

Nothing. Many former leaders have been guided by faith. Tommy Douglas was Evangelical and gave us universal healthcare. J.S. Woodsworth was Evangelical and gave us prison reform. Lester Pearson was Evangelical and gave us the peacemakers.

Harry Stevens, a cabinet minister in the government of R.B. Bennett, followed what he referred to as "Christian economics". (4)  He fought against corporations who were destroying small business, and headed a Parliamentary Committee and Royal Commission, investigating the practices of chains like Simpsons and Eatons, referring to them as "big shots".

William "Bible Bill" Aberhart, also embraced the war on "big shots", lamenting so much "poverty in the midst of plenty", during the Great Depression.

But today's Christian Right movement is different.  It is embraced by "big shots" and defined by corporate greed, war profiteering and righteous indignation.  They hate any form of liberalism, socialism and even democracy, which they believe is over rated.  Instead, it is being replaced with what they call "authoritarian democracy", where you must not demand, but obey.

The National Citizens Coalition, that Stephen Harper left to run for the leadership of the Alliance Party, not only promote a free market (with no pesky regulations or need to pay taxes), but endorse the notion that government should only be responsible for foreign policy and defense. (5)  The religious side of our government, led by men like Ted Byfield, feel that the only thing government should regulate is morality.

I can't imagine living in a country like that, though I suppose we might have to get used to it, if the left can't get their act together.

But What if We Don't Go to Church?

There are many radicals in the movement, who would like nothing better than for "Northern Europe" to become a church-going nation (?), led by the United States.  Jeffrey A. Eisenach, formerly with the now defunct,  Progress and Freedom Foundation, takes it even further, as they must reclaim the world for Christianity.

Should the world fail to understand this messianic role of the USA, there will be need of recourse to “compelle intrare,” based on which Saint Augustine approved forcible joining of heretics to the Church.

However, Strauss suggested that political leaders didn't really need to go to church or practice any faith, so long as they understood the importance of using it to manipulate.

When researching his book, Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, William Johnson interviewed Harper's former fiancee, Cynthia Williams.   When asked about his faith she became embarrassed and said that they never went to church or anything.  (6)  Harper's VP at the National Citizens Coalition, Gerry Nicholls, confirmed this, but said that Harper did have strong "spiritual" ideas. (7)

Ezra Levant has denied that Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, was a Christian fundamentalist, because he never went to church.  But you don't have to go to church to believe in something, and the manifesto he created made it clear that Europe must return to it's Christian roots.

The New York Times referred to this new doctrine as a "civilizational war that represents the closest thing yet to a Christian version of Al Qaeda." 

I suspect that Harper's Evangelism is more political than ecclesiastical.  He is one of The Chosen.

OK.  So Whose Version of Christianity Do We Obey?

Ronald Reagan moved Evangelicals into his government at an alarming rate.  Stephen Harper has done the same.  The idea is to restructure our laws to fit with The Old Testament.  I get it.

But Christian sects are often at odds with each other, in how they interpret the Bible.

In his book, Faith in the Halls of Power, D. Michael Lindsay discusses this, using as an example, the Aids crisis.  Gary Bauer, Reagan's family values czar, felt that Aids was God's punishment for homosexuality.  However, C. Evertt Koop, partner of Francis Schaeffer and Reagan's Surgeon General, disagreed.  He thought it his Christian duty to help, and the Koop Report promoted safe sex, including the use of condoms, anathema to many in the movement.

Harper appears to have painted himself into a corner on this issue.  He refused to attend an International Aids Conference and scrapped plans to build an Aids vaccine plant, in favour of bullet factory, though he cashed in on a photo-op with Bill Gates, who was willing to help finance the former.

Part of this neocon/Religious Right mandate, is to remove the teaching of evolution from classrooms, and replace it with Creationism.  But again, whose version?

According to John Baldock (Women in the Bible), there are at least two versions. 

In weaving together two accounts of the creation of the universe from different traditions, the opening chapters of Genesis offer us contrasting images of the nature of the relationship between man and woman. In the first account, which dates from C-400BC and is the more recent of the two, the relationship is seen as one of equals for we are told that God 'created humankind asleep he removed one of his ribs and made it into a woman. Whet the man saw her, he said, 'she shall be called Woman [Hebrew] in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them'. ... However, in the second account, which is dated to I000-900BC, we are told that God first created 'the man', then the plants, animals and birds. He then caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep he removed one of his ribs and made it into a woman.

This is why we need the separation of Church and State.  It's that simple.  And we need the truths of science, not "noble lies".  Everyone should be allowed to practice their religion freely without being put on a list.

The neocons tell us that they are doing "God's work".  But looking at the Tea Party and the new right's addiction to war and greed, have they ever considered that this might just be the devil's handiwork?

Just a thought.

Footnotes:

*The idea of a 'Northern European' Christian movement, comes from the Reformation when Northern Europe, with the exception of Ireland and pockets of Britain, turned Protestant, and southern Europe remained Catholic, while Central Europe fought holy wars for the remainder.  The belief is that the "colonies" were won by the Protestants.

Sources:

1. Leo Strauss and the American Right, By Shadia B. Drury, St. Martin's Press, 1999, ISBN: 0-312-12689-1, p. 19

2. Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons: The rising clout of Canada's religious right, By Marci McDonald, The Walrus, October 2006

3. Drury, p. 11-12

4. Reaction and Reform: The Politics of the Conservative Party Under R.B. Bennett 1927-1938, By Larry A. Glassford, University of Toronto Press, 1992, ISBN: 0-8020-7673-4, p. 139

5. The Myth of the Good Corporate Citizen: Canada and Democracy in the Age of Globalization, By Murray Dobbin, James Lorimer & Company, 2003, ISBN: 1-55028-785-0, Pg. 200-203 2

6. Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, McClelland & Stewart, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3

7. Loyal to the Core: Stephen Harper Me and the NCC, By: Gerry Nicholls, Freedom Press, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-9732757-8-0

Dean Del Mastro Plays the Race Card From an Incomplete Deck

When Dalton McGuinty released his party platform, one item had Federal Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro in a flap.

The $10,000 incentive to employers who hire immigrants.

For Del Mastro it brought back chilling reminders of Bob Rae and affirmative action, that made it difficult for him as a "young white male".

Mind you, according to Del Mastro it did not mean that he couldn't find work, only that it restricted his opportunities. He should have tried living as a non-white male, or a female of any shade, when doors were permanently closed. For many there were no opportunities at all.

To me this Peterborough MP is a "chilling reminder" of the racism of his Reform-Alliance-Conservative Party. They were singled out in the 1995 book The Colour of Democracy, as bending toward "white supremacy".

This way of thinking characterizes the ideology and behaviour of right-wing Supremacist groups such as the Heritage Front. While such groups can, to a certain extent, be ignored because of their small numbers, such thinking is also evident in the doctrines of the Reform Party [those doctrines written by their policy chief Stephen Harper], who won a substantial number of votes in the federal election of 1993 and who hold 52 seats in Parliament.(1)

Reform members were notorious for racial slurs.

Tim Hudak is going to have enough trouble removing the shadow of Mike Harris, without having to contend with the wider shadow of the Reform Party.

Hudak himself weighed in, suggesting that it was an insult to immigrants to be singled out. Rich coming from the man who sought Jason Kenney's advice on how to mine votes by exploiting immigrants.

I found that offensive.

The fact of the matter is that immigrants remain among the poorest of Canadians. They are also more likely to be exploited in the workplace (2).

Del Mastro's colleague, Lee Richardson, once suggested that most crime is committed by immigrants, not those you lived next door to. He was wrong of course, but it didn't matter. They were convenient scapegoats.

I look forward to the day when hiring incentives are not needed, but unfortunately, today is not that day.

I think that this was not only a smart political move, since it challenges Hudak to remove the "hand up" to those he's hoping to court, but it is the right thing to do.

Sources:

1. The Colour of Democracy, Racism in Canadian Society, By Frances Henry, Carol Tator, Winston Mattis, and Tim Rees, Harcourt Brace & Company, 1995, ISBN: 0-7747-3255-5, Pg. 24

2. Persistent Poverty: Voices From the Margins, by Jamie Swift, Brice Balmer and Mira Dineen, Between the Lines Toronto, 2010, ISBN: 978-1-897071-73-1

Fresh Merger Talks Raise the Question: Is it Time?

Thomas Walkom had a column in the Star this weekend, raising the possibility of Bob Rae as the next federal NDP leader.

A rather silly attempt at reminding Canadians that he once led the NDP in Ontario, even acting as premier. While in office, Walkom wrote a scathing book: Rae Days: The Rise and Follies of the NDP.

It's a one-sided rant, that fails to mention that before the balloons starting losing air on election night, the right-wing noise machine sprung into action. Another reaction to an NDP victory.

Gerald Caplan wrote an excellent piece for the Globe in October of 2010, in which he says:

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.

The National Citizens Coalition created the Ontarians for Responsible Government, running radio ads and placing billboards in prominent places.

And of course, Walkom wrote a book.

Yet nowhere in that book does he mention Ontarians for Responsible Government, or Conrad Black who vowed never to invest a penny in the province under the NDP.

And even the rank and file abandoned him because he wasn't implementing the changes they wanted, failing to understand why it was almost impossible. Said Caplan:

... corporate interests threatened a virtual strike of capital unless the government relented on its intentions to introduce higher business taxes and to strengthen union rights, environmental regulations and equity programs.

Mr. Rae and treasurer Floyd Laughren made themselves easily accessible to business representatives, many of whom ran Canadian branch plants of huge American multinationals, only to be threatened with capital blackmail. The premier was warned that their U.S. head offices weren't about to invest further in Ontario unless the government abandoned most of the programs it had run on.

Bond traders declared that slashing government programs to reduce the deficit was a prerequisite to Ontario borrowing at competitive rates, even though Ontario’s deficit was equivalent to that of Conservative-run Alberta. Suddenly the entire media was fixated on the government’s threatened credit ratings, never mind that Ontario had the only Standard & Poor’s AAA rating in the country. The Social Credit government in British Columbia, the Conservatives in Alberta and Robert Bourassa’s Liberals in Quebec all had lower credit ratings. Yet only in Ontario was the government threatened.

What happened in Ontario then was an almost carbon copy of what President Obama is facing in the United States because he dared to suggest that big business should pay more, and wanted a universal healthcare plan, right down to the "debt crisis".  So I wouldn't put too much stock into anything that Walkom says about the NDP. He was part of the problem.

Pat Martin, one of my favourite MPs on the Hill, is again calling for a merger. A realist, he appreciates the challenges the NDP face from corporate interests. Unfortunately he was booed off the stage for suggesting they drop "socialism" from their mandate.

Martin is a smart man, and while there was much rejoicing over their latest victories, let's be real. Most of the gains were in Quebec and a surge of popularity for Jack Layton.

It resulted in the loss of many progressives from both the Bloc and Liberals. Hard working MPs replaced with paper candidates, and vote splitting that gave the neocons Ontario.

But how well will those paper candidates do next election, when they have to actually raise funds and campaign? Many never even had campaign offices. Their constituents didn't vote for them, only their leader.

I'm afraid that if the Liberals and NDP don't work together, whether in a formal merger or spirit of co-operation, we are going to end up with a neoconservative dynasty.

One thing that Walkom did get right, was his observation that Jack Layton was trying to move the party to the right, in an attempt to garner support from the mainstream.  However, Canada is not a right-wing country, and Stephen Harper's success is in large part due to the fact that he pretends to be governing from the centre, while moving the centre with his usual "stealth".

So if there is a new party created, they have to offer a real alternative for Canadians, not just give it lip service.

Personally, I would prefer that the Liberals rebuild, drawing in support from the old PCers, or "red Tories".  Canada had a unique political culture, in that for decades, we were led by centrist governments, who drew from the right and left.

The only drawback to that was that while the right wing Reform/Alliance earned concessions, and the left-wing NDP earned concessions, any fallout was placed on the party in power, and ironically, later used by those same people seeking concessions.

I don't want to lose the NDP because they gave us so much, including universal healthcare and prison reform.  But I don't want to lose our centre either, and that's where the only alternative to Harper should be.

The Canadian Manifesto 6: To Every Action There is a Reaction. Cough, Cough!

Isaac Newton may not have had neoconservatism in mind when he wrote his laws of motion, but it seems fitting when discussing the multitude of think tanks and AstroTurf groups that back up the movement.

Most were created in reaction to an action that went against their ideology, or to bolster a policy being implemented by a neocon government. They are also important to industry lobbyists, since all are financed by large corporations hoping to dictate public policy.

If you want to follow the money I suggest you read Donald Gutstein's Not a Conspiracy Theory: How Business Propaganda Hijacks Democracy. Well researched and informative.

Beginning in the 1980s and throughout the 1990s, many books and papers were published detailing Canada's neoconservative movement, courtesy of the Chicago School and Uncle Sam.

This was back in the day when we were allowed to call Stephen Harper and his entourage neocons, without having to face a verbal firing squad.

I've began rereading several of my books from that time, now that we've had a federal neocon government for five years, and in Ontario Tim Hudak's neoconservatives have a good chance of retaking Ontario. (Mike Harris was the first to advance the interests of the American Neoconservatives)

The authors, journalists and pundits who were sounding the alarm back then, may take little comfort in knowing how right they were, but their words can still be used to educate Canadians today, especially the media.

The late Dalton Camp, former president of the now defunct federal Progressive Conservative Party (folded in 2003), wrote many columns on Preston Manning's* cozy relationship with the American neocons, including Mr Manning Goes to Washington ((did his then lieutenant, Stephen Harper, carry the luggage?), that was reprinted in his book, Whose Country is This Anyway?

However, another column he wrote, helps to reveal how these think tanks/AstroTurf groups work: Luntz of Luch With Newt (first appeared on March 17, 1995).

In it he discusses Manning's appearance with Newt Gingrich on National Empowerment Television in the U.S.. The Newt was rewarding Manning for helping him to storm Washington in 1994.

As a bit of background (I have a lot more on this which will appear in another element of the Canadian Manifesto), NET was the brainchild of Paul Weyrich, the man who helped Stephen Harper in 2006, by demanding that his flock stay silent on Harper's involvement with the American Neoconservative/Religious Right.

The late Weyrich was also a key strategist for the paleoconservative movement (white nationalism), that includes early Reform Party inspiration and Harper's favourite author, Peter Brimelow; and founder of The Christian Coalition**,  Pat Robertson.

That's Why he Makes the Big Bucks

According to Camp:

Most of the questions addressed to the Reform leader came from Newt's co-host on the show, Heather Higgins ***, a woman with a ful­some, incandescent smile sufficient to melt the polar ice cap. Also present as interlocutor, and lending a little verisimilitude, was Frank Luntz, president of Luntz Research, who, according to Higgins, was "very much involved" in helping the Reform Party in its recent Canadian electoral success in 1993. Luntz is something of an over­achiever in the polling and consulting business; his clients have included not only Gingrich and Manning, but also Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan.

A little cross border back scratching.

It was Frank Luntz who advised Stephen Harper to talk about hockey every chance he got, tapping into a national symbol.

"If there is some way to link hockey to what you all do, I would try to do it."

Luntz also inspired several of Harper's counterparts, like William Kristol, son of the late Irving Kristol. Back to Camp's column:

As made clear in a recent magazine piece, Luntz is a neo-conserv­ative of Gingrichian proportions. He favours the immediate elimina­tion of public funding for the arts, the humanities, and the Public Broadcasting Service. Before eliminating farm subsidies, Luntz would prefer them to be included in a wider range of cuts. "If every­one is giving up something at the same time, it's okay," he is quoted saying. "But if we make the farmers go first, we're going to get killed in the farm community. We've all got to go together."

This sort of pragmatic counselling excites Luntz's colleagues, such as William Kristol, who explains, "That's why Frank gets the big bucks."

If you can make a fortune with that drivel, perhaps we could all be rich.

Instead of stealing one woman's purse, steal the purses of all women. Instead of kicking one man in the shin, kick the shins of all those around him. How can anyone demand sympathy, when so many are squealing with the same pain or loss?

Yet that is why "he gets the big bucks"? Frightening.

Now to My Point.  Cough, Cough!

The above may seem irrelevant, but in fact it is enlightening, for other reasons than a simple blast from the past, since it helps to explain how organizations like Canada's Fraser Institute function.  When Stephen Harper was  helping to create the Reform Party, he visited the Fraser, to see what they could do to help.  When named prime minister,  he rewarded them with new beneficial tax polices.

To give some idea of how the Fraser works, we can compare them to the group who sponsored the Manning/Luntz comedy hour on Weyrich's National Empowerment Television.  Back to Dalton Camp:

I had been witness to a television production involving the second most powerful politician in America and the leader of the third most populous party in the Canadian Parliament and ... ? Well, it was a little hard to say—until the last words appeared on the tube, inviting viewers with questions or comments to write "The Progress and Freedom Foundation."

Every totalitarian or authoritarian movement in history co-opts the language of democracy in order to conceal its purpose. The Soviet commissars could scarcely draw a breath without invoking peace or liberty or freedom**** or progress. Even as the gulags were filling up with their victims, the regime celebrated its legitimacy by claiming itself to be the one true instrument of all the people.

The true instrument of the people wielded by big business.  From the New York Times, February 11, 1995:

"One source of financing of Mr. Gingrich's college video courses is the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a conservative advocacy group in Washington. Among the foundation's donors are half a dozen companies that do business with the agency, including two for which Mr. Gingrich has personally written letters urging approval of their products, [FDA] documents show."

The list of supporters in 1998, included tobacco giants Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds.  In a letter to PFF from then VP of Public Affairs for  Philip Morris:  "…Philip Morris is pleased with the exciting work you have done, especially in the area of deregulation, and are glad to continue working with you."

The Fraser Institute, which was established in reaction to the election of  NDP  Dave Barrett  as premier of B.C., also receives a great deal of funding from the American tobacco industry.

In fact, when they were establishing their Social Affairs Centre, according to Fraser Institute sources, money could not initially be found to start it, "so the staff went to New York and secured funding from Philip Morris."

As reward, the institute then released papers, suggesting that second hand smoke was not harmful, using crack medical teams from local bars opposing anti-smoking legislation.

I don't know if they copied their work from the American think tanks, but if you peruse them, you'll find many that challenge anti-smoking laws by again suggesting that second hand smoke is not harmful, including Paul Weyrich's Heritage Foundation.  (he was a busy man)

With NET now defunct, they used Fox News to sell it.  However, all of this was in reaction to the action of anti-smoking laws, that ban lighting up in public places.  (You should hear them huff and puff over the new ads on cigarette packages).

A Perfect Example

All of these right-wing think tanks and AstroTurf groups have several things in common, not limited to their funding.  One of them, is the easy movement of staff from their offices to the government offices, and vise versa.

The directors of The Progress and Freedom Foundation, included not only heavyweights like Kenneth Starr, the man who worked to impeach Bill Clinton, but also people like Jeffrey Eisenach, who worked as a senior policy advisor for the Federal Trade Commission under Reagan and Bush, senior and junior.  Kenneth Ferree, who spent time with the Federal Communications Commission under G.W. and several others who worked directly for Dick Cheney.

One of the best tests for Newton's Theory in Canada, relates to Ridley Terminals in B.C.

The first action was to clean up the books of the federally owned terminals, and determine whether or not they could be made profitable.  The first reaction was the hiring of Dan Veniez, to do a bit of house cleaning.

The next action was Veniez' s recommendation that they sell the terminals, since they would always be a cash cow.  The reaction was John Baird's, who immediately flapped his way to Vancouver, to fire the highly competent Veniez.  This was in response to the American Coal industry, who needed those terminals to remain subsidized.

When Veniez went public with the reasons why taxpayers were being bilked, the AstroTurf groups started kicking up divots.  Said Terrance Corcoran in the Financial Post:

In the great scheme of Canada’s economy, Ridley Terminals Inc. is no big deal. With annual revenue of just under $25-million, the Crown corporation operates a bulk-commodity handling facility off Ridley Island in Prince Rupert, B.C., 1,000 kilometres north of Vancouver. FP Comment’s editorial team has never been to Ridley Terminals, and wouldn’t know a bulk handling facility from the Coney Island Cyclone Ride. What we do know, when we see it, is big time corporate subsidy seeking, backroom politics, scheming lobbyists and cabinet ministers throwing their weight around to satisfy the big time corporate interests.

He nailed it. 

One of the AstroTurf groups working for corporate interests, was the Ridley Terminals Users Group, funded by Houston based  Global Public Affairs, lobbying reactionaries, who have worked with  George W. Bush.

With slight of hand, Stephen Harper removed Erin Wall as administrative assistant to his MP Brian Jean, then Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities (aka John Baird) and sent her to work for Global Public Affairs as a registered lobbyist for their affiliate, International Commodity Export Corporation, the largest beneficiary of government subsidies to the Ridley terminals.

On the same day, June 19, 2009, just before the firing of Dan Veniez, ICEC underwent a name change  to give it the appearance of a Canadian company.  You'll notice that they altered the date of this name change in June of 2011, but I believe I still have a screen shot of the original in my files.

Regardless, you get an idea of how this works, resulting in the Canadian taxpayers subsidizing the American coal industry.

And that is not the only example.  There are many, including Josh McJannet who was the contact person for the AstroTurf group The Canadians For Afghanistan.  McJannet was a former staffer of both Conservative Jay Hill and Rahim Jaffer, who registered as a lobbyist for Summa Strategies, an Ottawa government-relations firm that counts some defence contractors, including U.S. aircraft manufacturer Boeing, among its clients.

For every action there is a reaction, with the motion being the flow of our tax dollars to corporate interests, on both sides of the border.

And you wonder why Paul Weyrich wanted to protect Stephen Harper.  He is pure gold to the American neoconservatives.

Footnotes:

* Manning was the first leader of the Reform Party which became the Alliance Party, which became the Conservative party of Canada

**The same year that Manning went to Washington, Jason Kenney and others from Canada's Cristian Right attended a conference there, importing Robertson's 'Coaltiion', thus creating the Canadian Christian Coalition.

*** Higgins would also write for the godfather of the Neoconservatism, Irving Kristol's The Public Interest, and become involved in the Independent Women's Forum, and anti-feminist organization that dispute the notion of a gender gap. Similar to our REAL Women of Canada.

**** The National Citizens Coalition, that Harper once headed up, hand out a Medal of Freedom every year.  Both Stephen Harper and Preston Manning are past recipients of this prestigious (?) honour.

"Tough on Crime" Stumping is the Socialism of Fools

When former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher met Conrad Black for the first time, he chewed her ear off about crime, with typical "hang 'em high" rhetoric. She knew she had to be nice, because Black then owned a large share of the British media, but when he walked away she remarked to those around her, "compared to that guy, I'm a liberal"

Now Conrad Black is coming out publicly criticizing tough on crime legislation, that puts the emphasis on penance. Costly crime bills and "build it they will come" prisons, are relics of a by-gone era.

Modern society has learned from the past, that rehabilitation goes further than retaliation. As the popular Gandhi quote goes: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

However, this is not really about eye and teeth exchanges, but rather the new conservatism, that feeds off people's fears and insecurities. They create a crisis and then suggest that only they can save us from it.

Tim Hudak is the new hombre determined to clean up Dodge City, not only with populist rhetoric, but visible "chain gangs", which will not be so much a deterrent, as a reminder of the divisions in society.

Among those he plans to get "tough" with, are people who commit "welfare fraud", remnants of Mike Harris, who encouraged citizens to report anyone they believed was abusing the system. It was clever, linking welfare to fraud. Making criminals of poor people, by suggesting that it was an epidemic.

When federal finance minister, Jim Flaherty, was in the Harris government, he suggested throwing homeless people in jail, thus making poverty a crime in the literal sense. An obvious attempt to change our empathy to contempt.

Hudak's chain gang musings have provided fodder for his opponents, but they have to be careful. NDP leader Andrea Horwath is right when she says that this will take jobs away at a time when they are so badly needed.

However, Hudak can paint this as a stand-off with unions, and indeed he already has.

Big bad unions. Poor people who are only poor because they are lazy. Anathema to the populist crowd that could reap dividends at the ballot box.

The Liberals may also be making a mistake by overplaying it, suggesting that sex offenders and dangerous criminals would be out in the open. In fairness to Hudak, it's highly unlikely that they would be included in the program.

Instead they should ask citizens, what kind of province they want to live in. One with chain gangs and Gestapo style raids in low income neighbourhoods, or one that promotes fairness and justice for all.

Strengthened social programs to help eliminate the real crime of poverty, and one that promotes trust, not suspicion.

In the last Ontario election campaign, on the day that Conservative leader John Tory was announcing tough on crime policies in a high crime district, Dalton McGuinty announced his "Family Day".  A stat holiday providing time to spend with family.

This was not only smart electioneering, but revealed our priorities. Both the Liberals and NDP need to focus on that.

But if Hudak wins and gets his chain gangs, I think we should lighten the mood by forcing those in chains, to keep us entertained with a little "Hoo! Hah! Hooh! Hah!

Gloria Steinham Was Right. For Anti-Abortionists Life Begins at Conception But Ends at Birth

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

As the anti-abortionists rev up their protests, with signs showing images of aborted fetuses, and comparing abortion doctors to Hitler; they are missing a more important story.

A recent report from the World Health Organization and Save the Children, reveals that in the United States,  the infant mortality rate is on the rise.  Or perhaps more accurately, the infant mortality rate is improving in countries far less developed, making them 41 out of 45, in the study.

Gloria Steinham once said that for pro-lifers, especially those from the Religious Right, Moral Majority crowd, "life begins at conception but ends at birth".

They oppose social programs, public healthcare and sex education, all of the things that would help to improve and prolong the lives of children.

And we in Canada have no bragging rights, because we are not doing much better.

We rank 15 out of 17 peer countries.  According to the Conference Board of Canada: 

Canada gets a “C” and now ties the U.K. for 15th place out of 17 peer countries. Its infant mortality rate is shockingly high for a country at Canada’s level of socio-economic development.

Every year the "March for Life" protests, increase in number, though that doesn't necessarily mean that more Canadians are joining the movement.  Instead, as with everything else associated with Canada's Neoconservative/Religious Right/Tea Party, their numbers are bolstered by their American cousins.

This year there were representatives from both Silent No More and their parent organization Priests for Life.  PfL has spent tens of millions of dollars on ad campaigns and the promotion of candidates for public office, "who will devote themselves fully to the proclamation of the Gospel of Life.”

In other words, they are a political organization, associated with the Republican Party.

The founder of PfL is Frank Pavone, an administrative member of James Dobson's Focus on the Family.  From an interview he gave in Vienna:

Under Obama "a lot has been changed", says Pavone regarding the introduction of Universal Health Insurance. This is not per se bad, he foresaw -- like the American Catholic Bishops -- but there is the danger that in the coming foreseeable State provisions of government funds could be used for abortion ... the "Tea Party" at the most recent "Mid-term" - vote put the focus on the social questions, says Pavone. Principally, the "Pro-Life" movement is therefore "at home with the Republicans".

So while they are pouring millions into this Republican/Conservative campaign, their country and ours, is falling behind in providing adequate care to ensure that children are kept alive.  As we know, in the U.S. the Tea partiers fought tooth and nail to make sure that tax cuts for the rich went through as planned, while also making sure that food programs for those damn lazy poor people were axed.

Our man on the street and inside women's wombs, Rod Bruinooge, who spoke at the March for Life, again touted the same old line:  "Prime Minister Stephen Harper won't reopen the abortion debate in Canada."

Of course he won't.  A debate would suggest that we had input.  Instead he's using stealth, by cutting all funding to Planned Parenthood (just like the Tea Party) and women's groups (just like the Tea Party)

If these people really want to convince us that they are "pro-life", they might want to start acting like they really care about all life.

Poor people are human too.