RSS Feed

Tag Archives: Chris Alexander

KELLIE LEITCH, CHRIS ALEXANDER AND THE “LOCK HER UP” CRAZIES

Frank Pelaschuk

I have said this before: Politics is a filthy game.

It is a world not particularly noted for being overly populated by necessarily sensitive, bright, articulate, ethical, decent, or even capable folk. In that world, there is a substratum of politico denizens who inhabit a dark, dank world of putrefaction that would shock even the most jaded and unshakable who, while never really part of that corrupt aspect would, nevertheless, still be stunned by what passes for political discourse. Idealism is for fools and fools are quickly and easily ground up and spat aside. Ideas, too, are of little value. This is about winning after all, and it’s the stories and the promises that most entice and assures that will determine the outcome. Thus truth and sincerity are less important than grandiose promises of shiny trinkets and inflaming passions, rousing hostility, blaming others for the travails we experience. It is never our fault but theirs. There is no need to concern oneself with opposing ideas…disagree with me you are the enemy. There is an absence of tolerance, a surfeit of blame, a jungle of fear, and a mania for belligerence and meanness that masks as patriotism. It is not.

It is, instead, a vile mockery by opportunists who care little about serving or giving back. They are winners and takers who will win and take by any means. Too often, too many are willing to take the role of bottom feeder and sewer rat; it appears for some, the role comes naturally.

It is unfortunate that the Conservative party seems to be home to so many of them. They were prominent under Stephen Harper, quickly and eagerly revealing themselves for what they were. During the last campaign, Canadians were treated to the most odious aspects of the Conservative party as it sought to win re-election through a campaign of racial and religious intolerance. Now, the Conservative Party defeated, Harper gone and many of the old vile gang still MPs and running for the Conservative top spot, the ordure of the Harper era is as strong and vile as ever. I am thinking of three in particular: Kellie Leitch, Chris Alexander and Steven Blaney.

Blaney’s most notable achievement apart from his mediocrity and dullness is his role as Harper’s “yes” man; as minister of public safety, he introduced C-51, the anti-terrorist bill, that scholars, jurists, lawyers, activists, and citizens have condemned as sweeping, likely illegal in many areas, punitive and of failing to provide adequate oversight to prevent abuse by Canadian security agencies. Even peaceful protests could be considered economic acts of terrorism. Blaney would be easily dismissed as a nonentity except that his leadership hopes, as is that of his colleague Kellie Leitch, is based on fear and blame directed against the Muslim community. That is the only reason he merits notice. It is the other two that should concern us more, not because they will likely be leaders but because of what they represent. It is ugly. It is real. And it poses a real threat.

Scapegoating in politics is a familiar game and Leitch and Alexander are experienced practitioners of the art. Shortly before the October 19, 2015 election, the two, standing side by side and playing the roles of all three stooges, Leitch and Alexander proudly announced the Conservative promise to create a snitch line devoted exclusively to the reporting of “Barbaric Cultural Practices” perpetrated by you-know-who. Evidently Leitch’s supporters liked that; she was re-elected. Alexander’s? Not so much, he lost his seat. However, both are back and running for the Conservative leadership, not so funny this time either. Leitch, evidently inspired by the Trump victory, has doubled down on a campaign of shame, blame and racial and religious intolerance. Alexander has distanced himself from that preferring to stick to the role of just plain nastiness without ideas. Sadly, for Leitch, the worst of the bottom feeders, there seems to be some support; that is a comment not only of her, but also of her supporters. What kind of people are these? Not ones I would sit with for stimulating conversation; the wait would be too long.

As troubling as Leitch’s efforts and her methods are, there is something equally disturbing and it signifies a change in Canadian politics. Leitch has tapped into something particularly dark and nasty and it seems to be an element that appears to have gained impetus following the Trump victory. There is also a component of blind rage, an import of anger and stupidity that is rootless and extremely dangerous because so wildly undirected. And it was her cohort of the last election, Alexander, who was to witness, and encouraged, the first rearing of that ugly aspect.

On Saturday, December 3, Chris Alexander appeared before an anti-carbon tax rally on the steps of the Alberta legislature in Edmonton. The rally was hosted by Rebel Media, the Ezra Levant effort that propagates the extreme views of the right. Levant is the fellow who coined the oxymoronic “ethical oil” label. He was also a lobbyist for Rothman’s. If you don’t believe cigarettes kill or that climate change and global warming are a threat and man-made, he is likely your kind of man, which means you may have attended the rally where literacy for Levant events is likely not a requirement and probably treated with the same degree of contempt and dismissal as “experts” and “science”.

At the anti-carbon tax rally, as Alexander spoke, he offered up the premier’s name. Unsurprisingly, this elicited from the Levant supporters a chorus of boos, the boos quickly transformed into cries of “Lock her up, lock her up.” The her, of course, refers to Rachel Notley, democratically elected NDP premier of Alberta. Now, observers may believe that this was just a spontaneous outburst by enthusiastic anti-carbon protestors. They are of a type and they are predictable. They are also malleable and easily led. It is doubtful the outpouring was spontaneous but rather an orchestrated happening by provocateurs seeing an opportunity and running with it. As they chanted this charming refrain, “Lock her up, lock her up”, imported from the Trump campaign, Alexander grinned broadly, his hands and head bobbing to the enchanting noise (those Albertan Rebel Media stooges are really, really original, witty, and smart, yes, they are, and musical to boot). If Alexander expected otherwise, he must have been disappointed by the harsh, swift and pointed condemnation by all parties, including the Wild Rose and his own Conservatives. Later, he would deny that he supported the sentiment expressed by the crowd. He was grinning like an idiot not only because he is but also because he was “shocked” he claims. He was moving his hand and head to the rhythm of the chant not because he wanted to encourage the crowd but because he wanted to find the moment he could interject and say, “Vote her out, vote her out”.

Alexander is not credible or creditable. Neither is Leitch or Blaney. There is too much baggage as a result of feeding from a rotting carcass of vindictiveness, pettiness, and failure of ideas: it is easier to hate, to poison, to destroy than to create and come up with something meaningful, hopeful and promising. Better and easier to appeal to a mass of folk who prefer to blame and to accept the lies and myths of huckster politicos than to exert the effort to inform and to look at themselves.

“Lock her up, lock her up” was the chant of the ignorant Alberta mob. Had any of them been approached and asked, “Lock her up for what?” what would the answer have been? Probably Duh? What?

These are stupid, malleable folk, easily led, assured by the manipulators that they are good, decent people, that their incoherent rage is justified and that they really are the victims of them.. They are all the more dangerous because so incoherent in their anger. It is as if they are unaware that the market has failed them, that  forty years of Conservative misrule and pillaging of the Heritage Fund had never been. The bottom feeders know this and they feed and feed.

It is easy to point the finger and blame others. Leitch and her ilk are there to help you do it.

***

But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. – Thomas Paine.

***

They that can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

Advertisements

KELLIE LEITCH’S BARBARIC POLITICAL PRACTICES: THE POLITICS OF DIVISION, FEAR, INTOLERANCE, BIGOTRY AND HYPOCRISY

 

America needs fewer men obsessed with erecting fences of hate, suspicion and name calling. – William Arthur Ward

Joe….was ignorant enough to feel superior to everything. – John Ciardi

We have just enough religion to make us hate but not enough to make us love one another. – Jonathan Swift

He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it. – George Orwell

Frank Pelaschuk

NEW REGIME, OLD STORY

Having observed politicians for some time, I have not found any reason to hope that Trudeau and gang would fulfill many of the campaign promises of newer and better than the Harper fare Canadians endured for the past decade, they were too many and too lavish. But there are some things that are refreshing and offer signs of hope, the prime minister and his crew showing a willingness to engage with the media, answering questions and offering responses that are not always scripted something that became the crippling hallmark of the Harper regime; it’s clear that Trudeau has confidence in his ministers and trusts them enough to carry the government’s message without coming across as living dolls incapable of independent thought. As well, I do appreciate that the Liberals have made an effort to consult with the public but have my doubts about the necessity of doing so on almost every conceivable item many best left for those who really do know what they are doing.

The support they have garnered is still extremely high. Perhaps that accounts for a few missteps since their massive victory. In less than a year, they have revealed themselves as susceptible to hubris, to a sense of entitlement and to questionable ethics as they have in the past and which their Conservative successors and predecessors have embraced under the Harper banner. Many of the Trudeau cabinet are new to politics but their behaviour in some instances is reminiscent to that of the old politico guard with years of experience revealing, so early into the mandate, troubling signs of rot. There is Jody Wilson-Raybould, just months into her office as justice minister showing a complete failure of understanding or simple disregard for public perception of her attendance of a fundraiser put on by prestigious lawyers from prestigious firms, the very entities who stand to benefit most from the decisions made by her ministry. For some, myself included, this is a clear example of conflict of interest revealing a justice minister of poor judgement, questionable behaviour and a careless indifference to either. Such fundraisers or other methods, including private access for loot, have become common, accepted practice among politicians such as Kathleen Wynne, Christy Clark and other premiers, ministers and backbenchers. They should not. It does not look good and it’s not good. Wynne, when questioned by the media, acknowledge such and has since made moves to scrap such practices. But how sincere or effective are such displays when some, as Clark, see nothing wrong in holding private meetings with those who can afford it: it’s about privilege and money. We just have to take the word of Christy Clark and her fellow politico hacks that access for money does not mean everything is not on the up and up. I don’t accept that and I cannot believe that. Access for cash is by its very nature corruptive; something is being bought and sold and apparently it’s our politicians.

And then we have politicos, who are pikers, the cheesy nickel-and-dime types who pilfer from the public trough with bogus claims in the belief the amounts too small to earn notice or the public fury. When caught, they will often apologize, claim they had done nothing wrong, that everything they did was allowed under the guidelines and, if the noise becomes too loud for too long, still claiming innocence of wrongdoing, some will offer to reimburse the treasury. Three recently elected Liberals who apparently had no trouble not consulting Canadians regarding the picking of their pockets immediately come to mind. There is Catherine McKenna, environment minister, who charged the pubic well over $6K for photos from a professional photographer to highlight the work she was doing on our behalf while at the Paris climate change conference. Surely that was an unnecessary expense since the media following the event must certainly have been as eager to showcase this new and highly photogenic cabinet member as she was to be photographed. Jane Philpott, health minister, is another who had little difficulty charging Canadians for costly limousine services and for access to Air Canada’s executive lounges across North America and Europe. When the first story broke regarding limousines, Philpott quickly agreed to repay taxpayers though there was some quibbling as to what constitutes a luxury vehicle. Again, when news broke of her signing up for the executive lounge pass, she offered to repay the tab. The question is: Why do these things in the first place? Perhaps it’s the thrill of pushing the envelope in hopes of seeing with what one can get away; if caught, there’s always the public apology for it’s seldom that something ever comes of such abuses. Finally, we have Chrystia Freeland, international trade minister, who had been in Manila on government business and had already been booked to return home on a government plane. However, she booked another plane to make an appearance on a TV show with Bill Maher. The cost to taxpayers? Close to $20K. Even if she had committed to government business as she claimed, surely that should have been planned for ahead of time rather than appearing to be a sudden change of plans that the Conservatives were quick to pounce upon as a “vanity” trip to L.A. Too, while she was campaigning to get elected, she charged $500 as grooming expenses to the public. Evidently Freeland and the Liberals and their supporters see nothing wrong in this. Yet, Conservative Eve Adams suffered considerable grief for doing the same in 2013. When you’re as loved as the Liberals anything is allowed it appears.

These are behaviours, however, easily remedied by these very people if they possessed a sense of shame and the desire and integrity to do so. Regulations, detailed and not too complex regarding expenses can be made explicit so that even the most ignorant among them with the comprehension of a preschooler can be made to understand and follow them. Should the rules be broken, punishment should be instant, public and severe; neither apologies nor repayment should be considered sufficient. People who can’t be trusted with the little things certainly can’t be trusted with the big.

These are not deadly blows to the Trudeau gang, but they are telling. I do not like that Trudeau has broken his promise of making human rights a priority by going through with the LAV trade deal with Saudi Arabia. Nor do I like that he is in China signing trade deals without taking a stronger stand and making such deals conditional on China’s own problems with human rights. These are in contravention of Canada’s own regulations regarding trade with nations that violate human rights. These should be more damaging but apparently are not. The broken promises and unethical behaviours suggest a culture of entitlement, a cold disregard and insensitivity for the realities by which most Canadians and citizens of the world live, and an attitude that the suggests because something is not forbidden by law it becomes acceptable and therefore allowable because doable. Offensive and egregious as they are, and to me they are egregious, such attitudes can ultimately be remedied by the voter if not the folks he or she elects: boot the bums out. MPs can be made to act ethically even if reluctantly if the punishment is certain, swift and public. MPs can be made to repay padded expense claims as had Jane Philpott (unfortunately, only when her extravagant ways became public). Rules need to be rewritten so as to remove all possibility of pleading ignorance, of claiming misunderstanding because the guidelines are too difficult to understand. They must be rewritten so that even the stupidest, the sharpest, and the most corrupt can know for a certainty, without exception, the consequences of breaching ethical guidelines. The buck stops with the MPs and not with sacrificial staffers or the use of legalese as a refuge: the rules allow it; the rules were not clear; others have done this in the past; I was told this was allowed. That is the response of the coward, the man or woman who accepts no responsibility for his or her own acts. Those who blame others or who resort to legalese have no right to hold office.

THE SHAMEFUL AND SHAMELESS

I did not vote Liberal. Nor did I vote Conservatives. Both parties have histories of corruption and have ruled as if entitled. Nor do I much admire a party a couple so besotted by cameras and adulation of the public as the Trudeaus. I find their sincerity fulsome and believe it more show than genuine. It may be real; I have just to be convinced. I have never much trusted actors who can put on the sad faces on cue or who express warmth and authenticity by furrowing their brows and tapping their fingertips on their breasts to convince me of their sincerity. I have met a few like that over a long life and none have later proved themselves the real thing.

That said, the one thing I have yet to see from the Liberals, and hope to never see, is the utter debasement of politics as practiced by America’s Donald Trump and Canada’s Conservative party last election when they warred against two women over the niqab and then announced the Conservative plan to create a snitch line so that Canadians could report the BARBARIC CULTURAL PRACTICES OF YOU KNOW WHO! as proudly trumpeted by their own Kellie Leitch and Chris Alexander. Astoundingly, only a few paid a price for that debacle, one of them Alexander. Leitch, as we all know by now, and many of the prominent figures of the old Harper gang of mean-spirited, petty, shrill, lying, and hypocritical members still holding office as Official Opposition, are running for the leadership of the Conservative Party.

With Leitch running for office, there is no need to look south at Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton and not so quietly trumpet our own moral superiority. We have our own sewer rats.

When the Conservatives were ousted from power to become official opposition, months after the election, April 21, 2016 in fact, Leitch appeared with CBC’s Rosemary Barton on Power and Politics making a big show of penitence for the party decision to create the snitch line and her role in happily making the announcement at the time. As she spoke, she appeared to be struggling to squeeze a few tears. That’s the trend these days, politicians going to the same school learning how to offer their “Sorry’s”, some even going so far as if to offer concrete proof of their rue, dabbing their eyes as if there really were tears or actually shedding and wiping a few drops of the real thing likely induced by onion juice rubbed into their knuckles. That’s all that’s needed they believe; hollow regrets, a few tears, real or faux.

So, almost a year from the snitch line announcement and a few months after her weepy appearance on CBC, we have Kellie Leitch emailing a survey to her constituents asking: “Should the Canadian government screen potential immigrants for anti-Canadian values as part of its normal screening for refugees and landed immigrants?

Now what Canadian values is she talking about? She doesn’t say. Are they the same Canadian values of the Conservatives who waged war against the poor and sought to disenfranchise them by rigging elections with the misnamed Fair Elections Act. Perhaps it’s the same values exemplified by Harper’s Conservatives as time and again they attempted to slip legislation into omnibus bills in hopes Canadians wouldn’t notice. Perhaps it’s the Conservative values of smearing Supreme Court Justices the way Harper and Peter MacKay did when their choice for Supreme Court Justice was rejected. Perhaps it’s the same Conservative values that, during the last election, raised the ugly spectre of racial and religious intolerance as they worked at warring against two niqab-wearing women and evoked images of slathering bloodthirsty Muslim barbarians pounding on our doors. Are her values the same as mine? Yours? Kellie Leitch was a proud, vocal supporter of that gang and that campaign. So, which person is the real Kellie Leitch? The teary-eyed one on April 21 or the one on September 1st so closely resembling the Leitch who so proudly announced the snitch line? Maybe she wasn’t even weeping for her role in the snitch line debacle, after all. Anyone with a jot of self-respect would have walked away from it instantly. She did not. My guess is that she was sorry for the loss the Conservatives sustained October 19, 2015 rather than for role in fomenting racial and religious intolerance. Regardless of how one looks at it, she has proven herself totally unfit as an MP especially one with leadership aspirations. If the Conservatives had any decency, any sense of pride and shame, they would demand she withdraw her candidacy and resign her seat. She contributes nothing to the dialogue. She vows to continue in this vein saying, “In my bid to become the prime minister of Canada, I will be putting forward policies that will make Canada safer, stronger and that will enhance a unified Canadian identity” (CTV News, Sept. 2, 2016). Safer? Stronger? Unified? This is racism, plain and simple, the Leitch emulation of Trump and for no other purpose than to garner votes from the frightened and the racist lowlifes among us. Well, we have more than a glimpse of how far she will go to satisfy her ambition and ego. But what a way to do it!

Vile.

This passes for politics. Swimming in filth and offering nothing, the triumph of the mean, ugly, reckless, ignorant; the ultimate ignominy of Conservative values. Is this the best the Conservatives can offer? Here are some of the other contenders: there’s Maxime Bernier who is best recalled for leaving behind classified documents after a night with his then ex-Hell’s Angels girlfriend; there’s Tony Clement who still hasn’t explained what happened to the missing $3 billion when he was president of the Treasury. He’s also the guy who called public servants deadwood and during the G8 and G20 Summits in 2010 created a $50 million slush fund for his riding. There’s Brad Trost who likes to boast of being to the right of Attila the Hun. There’s Deepak Obrai. Who? Enough said. There’s Michael Chong, a relatively decent chap, I suspect, and relatively unknown. And then we have those yet waiting to declare themselves: shrill hysteric Michelle Rempel who wondered in what appeared to be drunken tweets if the world was ready for someone like her. She’s right; we’re not. We have Andrew Scheer who, as Speaker of the House, abused his role with too many bad decisions including keeping from the House requests by Marc Mayrand, Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada, to suspend Conservatives Shelly Glover and James Bezan until they submitted full, corrected, campaign expense claims. And, of course, we have the possible entry of Peter MacKay, the man who betrayed to Progressive Conservative Party by joining with Stephan Harper’s Reform party. You get the drift. There is one possible decent candidate in the mix but how many really know Michael Chong.

Unfortunately, one notable member is not running for the leadership. That is Jason Kenney who months ago has announced he would run for the leadership of the Alberta PCs. He also announced he would keep his MP seat, which he has, and continue to collect his pay, which he has, as a lame duck member of parliament until the Alberta Conservative leadership race becomes official. That, too, is another abuse of office and the taxpayers’ wallet. Others have done the same, he says. So what? Does their unethical behaviour absolve his? Evidently he believes so. But Kenney is a man of fluid ethics. In the past he has used government letterheads to fundraise for his party. He has thought nothing of smearing Justin Trudeau with fundraising letters by attempting to suggest he was sympathetic to terrorists because he had visited a mosque in Montreal that, after the visit, had been declared a recruitment centre for al-Qaeda by American intelligence. Nor did Kenney have any qualms of tweeting photographs of women in chains and a young “child-bride” with her hands bound with her “husband” with the clear intent of inflaming anti-Muslim sentiments; he just neglected to inform the public that the first photograph was that of an historical re-enactment and the second a faked document. And it was Kenney who made the false claim that, of the allies, only Canada and the US had the capability of precision bombing to justify Canada’s expanded role in the war against ISIS. No doubt, he will work up a complete set of new fiction to smear his opponents and inflame his supporters as he campaigns in Alberta. Had he stayed, however, he might have given Leitch a run as she plays in the sewer so familiar to every member of the Conservative party.

While no supporter of the Liberals and holding the Conservatives in contempt for their narrow, mean-spirited, pro-corporate parochialism, I prefer the NDP and even the Liberals who at least attempt to offer solutions and ideas that for the lowest and meanest among us offer at least a glimmer of hope. The Conservatives offer none; not ideas, certainly not hope; theirs is a commitment not to citizens but to special interests. It’s about the bottom line, dollars and cents and the myths of free enterprise and trading on fear: lower taxes, the infrastructure will take care of itself; corporate tax breaks are good for the country; tax breaks create jobs; the homeless and poor are to be feared; those collecting welfare are fraudsters, lazy bums; more jail time is the only answer to crime; every foreigner must be viewed with suspicion; every Muslim is a potential terrorist; every aboriginal a drunk; every person of colour suspect. The Liberals were swept into power not by the politics of fear but by offering many of the things that the Conservatives offered but also the possibility of hope and renewal. The Liberals have not fulfilled and likely had not even intended to fulfill all the commitments they made; that is the cynicism that has infected politics. It should not happen.

We, as voters, are too ready to forgive. We should not be. We must demand and expect more from those we elect. The least we can expect is that they be honest, ethical, open. We do not need politicians who will seize every opportunity to enrich themselves simply because they can. Nor do we need the likes of those who foment hatred and fear and target strangers as suspect. As voters, we have a responsibility to know for what we vote. We must educate ourselves and we must question and challenge rather than blindly accept every promise from a politician’s mouth as a promise fulfilled. As voters, we must not fall into the same traps we have always succumbed: that of acceptance and acquiescence. Politics should not be about getting power and then clinging to it by any means. And it should not be about voters asking, “What’s in it for me?” but rather, “What’s in it for us?”

But, as long as we keep electing those who pander to the worst in us, nothing will change.

Just how stupid are we?

***

But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. – Thomas Paine.

***

They that can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

 

STEPHEN HARPER AND GANG: WINNING THE VOTE WITH RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE

Thwarted lives have the most character-conditioned hate… The easiest idea to sell anyone is that he is better than someone else. The appeal of the Ku Klux Klan and racist agitators rests on this type of salesmanship. – Gordon W. Allport

Frank A. Pelaschuk

On October 19, Canadians will go to the polls. Chances are it will be a Conservative or Liberal minority. Voters will go back to repeating the same stupid mistake they have made since the first Canadian vote took place.

I have heard some people say, “I would vote for the NDP but I’m afraid of splitting the vote and getting Harper for another term”. If every person who offered the same excuse actually voted for the party they say they prefer, the NDP would have gotten in long ago.

These people are disingenuous at best. The truth is they are afraid, too cowardly to take risks even when there are none though they have had plenty of experience with bad, even corrupt governance for the same reason. They prefer the same old same old because they bought the Conservative/Liberal lies and can’t seem to get past their own blind ignorance. We all know the Liberal record and we have had close to ten years of Harper’s scapegoating and law breaking as he and his party benefited by subverting the electoral process.

What is truly astounding is that those who vote for Conservatives have no shame. They clearly do not care about corruption, lack of ethics, honesty, open government, and truth. What is even more alarming, more reprehensible is that these people support Harper’s fomenting of racial and religious intolerance under the guise of protecting women from the “subjugation” of men within a culture. That is, Muslim men and a Muslim culture. Those who support Harper on the niqab issue say that this has nothing to do with racism or religious intolerance. I beg to differ. The courts have ruled on this matter and yet Harper and gang and those supporting them seem to believe that the war against two women should continue. This is bullying. This is politicking at its vilest, meanest and smallest this targeting of minorities to win voters. That was the same appeal that allowed for Hitler and Mussolini. It was racism and religious bigotry then and it’s racism and religious intolerance today.

The Harper gang and those who support them solely on the basis of this one issue represent the worst that Canada has to offer. They support racism and bigotry.

For this I blame Stephen Harper, Jason Kenney, Chris Alexander and all the other hypocrites in the party who have revealed themselves for the straw men and women they truly are. Harper now promises to ban the niqab in public service. That’s a nonissue; no one or almost no one wears the niqab in government offices. He promises to set up a snitch line for those engaging in Barbaric Cultural Practices (i.e., non-Christians, Muslims in other words). He and his filthy group are suggesting such things are common in Canada. It’s not. It doesn’t exist in Canada. On CBC’s Power and Politics, pundit Amanda Alvaro said it best, what the Harper gang is doing is “barbaric political practices”. She is absolutely right in this. Where are the snitch lines for battered women, the murdered and missing women, the child molesters. Oh, right, 911.

Harper claims ours is a “welcoming”, “open” society. Who can believe it when liars, cowards and bigots fan the flames of hatred and so many appear to welcome it?

If Harper can do it to one group, why do you believe you may not be next? Just reflect on these words by Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out –

Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out –

Because I was not a Trade Unionists.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out –

Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.

Neither silence nor complicity guarantees safety. It’s okay to be afraid, but not okay to stand by and allow Harper to do what he has done. You could be next.

Then what?

 ***

But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing. – Thomas Paine.

***

They that can give up essential liberties to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

THE SCUM ALSO RISES: STEPHEN HARPER, PARANOIA AND THE DEGRADATION OF POLITICS

 

There are some politicians who, if their constituents were cannibals, would promise them missionaries for dinner. – H.L. Mencken

When a man tells you he got rich through hard work, ask him whose? – Don Marquis

Fill the seats of justice with good men, but not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. – Sir Thomas Talfourd

 Frank A. Pelaschuk

BOTTOM FEEDERS

There must have been a time when individuals entered politics with the goal of contributing to society, of making a meaningful contribution towards change and enlightenment: a better world for all if you will. The gratification, apparently, was derived from working in the service of others. That must have been once upon a time long, long ago in a far, distant land. Service to others. The politicians of today, hearing that, must laugh all the way to the bank. How touchingly naïve.

That is not to say every politico was honest, wasn’t self-serving, wasn’t greedy or hypocritical “in the good old days”; some of them could quite easily keep up with those politicians of today in chicanery, corruption and knavery. It just seems, and perhaps that’s all it is, a chimera of memory, that governing parties were not as shamelessly openly corrupt as those we have today nor were they as many. I cannot recall the days when almost every member of a governing party was as fiercely partisan, as wilfully ignorant, as indifferent to openness, integrity, truth, as deaf to and contemptuous of the voices of the people and the opposition and as hostile to Democracy as this Harper regime. Does anyone even remember the good ones, Stanley Knowles, Tommy Douglas, even hapless fumbler Robert Standfield, a good, decent man as far as I know even if a Conservative? Does anyone even care that there are very few like them today? We still have Joe Clark and Ed Broadbent, but they have, to all intents, left the political scene. Do they recognize their old parties? Would they be welcomed and warmly embraced or would they be quietly endured with impatient politeness and then hustled out the door?

Oh, yes, yes, there were knaves, there always is, but there was a time of courtesy, respect, and decorum in the House, a time when the Speaker commanded respect because it was believed by all sides that he or she could be trusted and impartial. Now we have a Speaker whose word and decisions cannot be trusted because he has shown himself untrustworthy and biased as when he sat on two letters from the Chief Electoral Officer, Marc Mayrand, for two weeks instead of informing the House, as he was duty bound, requesting that Shelly Glover and James Bezan be suspended from performing their duties until they made a full and accurate accounting of their expenses. There was a time when opposition members could frame questions from the top of their head and government members would respond in like fashion with no more than reference notes and with civility and a certain degree of frankness; today, questions and answers are scripted, the answers from the governing side never varying regardless of the question thrown at them. Asked the price of widgets, Harper, one of his oily ministers or some officious parliamentary secretary will stand up and say, “Glad you asked that. We reject your premise but will have a committee look into it.” If an opposition member were to immediately follow up with, “Is you mother a whore”, the response would be, without even a hint of a smile, “Glad you asked that. We reject your premise but will have a committee look into it.” Think I’m exaggerating? Watch Question Period when Parliament is in session. These are leaders of our nation. These are the folks we entrust to pass laws. Is this what we vote for?

This is not governance but a Punch and Judy show, a contemptible display of parties scoring points and settling scores on one side and a party clinging to power on the other convinced it is answerable to no one.

Thanks to Harper and his pea-brained gang, the days of questions and real answers are gone forever. Mean and petty, as small and ignoble as any group can possibly be, Harper and his crew have tossed aside the protocols of parliamentary dignity, transparency and inclusivity: obfuscation, circularity, outright lying, and sneering dismissals to any question posed are the order of the day. Opposition members are no longer viewed as legitimate representatives of the public; they are ignored, excluded, shut out of almost every important decision that, in previous regimes, would have had the governing party seeking and welcoming their input if only as a protective measure: everyone could be blamed. Not so with Harper and his hooligans.

SO, HOW BAD IS IT?

Last year, in an event honouring the contributions of volunteers across the country, one that most sane people would believe a non-partisan event, the ever-small Harper and his gang “uninvited” members of the opposition previously included because members of their community were being honoured for their work. Now that is small.

In January of this year, Harper traveled to Israel with a large entourage in tow, many at taxpayers’ expense. Touted as a business junket, it was also a photo-op for Harper where he loudly declared his friendship for the Jewish State. In the past, it was common for members from all parties to be invited. Well, Harper’s one of a kind when it comes to petty partisanship behaviour. No NDP or Liberal members were invited. Too, needy Conservative Mark Adler (remember the “million dollar” shot with Harper and Israeli leaders he was denied?), co-host of an Israeli charity event, barred Liberal MP Irwin Cotler from attending it. Cotler was there on another matter on his own dime; he is widely respected in the Jewish community and renowned as an expert on international law and human rights. Yet Adler, in a fashion typical of the Tory regime, could not resist in publicly humiliating a man simply because he was a Liberal MP. This is small stuff, extremely petty and mean but it paints a significant and disturbing picture of Harper and his sorry gang that is ugly, blindly partisan, and certainly not representative of a respectful, tolerant government.

These are just a few examples of many of the degree of disrespect Harper holds for those who oppose him. It is also a clear demonstration of the fear and cowardice of a governing power that, even with its majority, must feel compelled to pulverize and humiliate opposition parties who are presently incapable of even posing a threat to their reign of error. This is an example of raw power abused. The message is clear: those who oppose Harper and gang are subject to the full fury of their thuggery; they include personal ad hominem attacks which may end with your reputation smeared, your integrity questioned, your credentials dismissed and trashed and your patriotism challenged. Too often, we have heard members of this odious group label others “radical”, “stooge” “hack”; these are almost gentle lashings compared to what Pat Stogran, Linda Keen, Richard Colvin, Kevin Page, Marc Mayrand, and even one of their own, Helena Guergis, have been subjected. My sympathy for Guergis, I must admit, is muted somewhat; until she found herself out with Harper, she was just as nasty as the worst on the Conservative team.

And we saw how vicious and careless when, with disregard for facts, they chose to publicly single out Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin after the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that Justice Marc Nadon, Harper’s choice for a seat in the highest court of the land, did not meet the requirements for the position. Ignoring many warnings from experts informing Harper that Nadon failed to meet the necessary requirements, Harper nevertheless persisted in pushing for Nadon. Furious with the outcome, Harper and MacKay responded as any worthy bully or child might: both threw a public tantrum and opted to impugn the integrity of Chief Justice McLachlin and the Court. It’s worth noting that Harper had appointed five of the eight judges presently sitting in the Court. He hopes to add another. Harper’s hostility for the Court has been longstanding and overt. It is too “liberal”, tends to favour criminals, it is an “activist” court, i.e., has an anti-Conservative bias. Well, that’s what he would have us believe. It was clear he wants to stack the Supreme Court with likeminded individuals. Apparently, with the Nadon decision, the judges were swayed more by the sanctity of the law than loyalty to an ideology or to the man who gave them the job. That’s as it should be.

This is not the first time things did not go Harper’s way. The government lost the decision when it sought the opinion of the Supreme Court as to whether it could unilaterally change how senators were elected, set term limits which would openly politicize them, or abolish the Senate outright. Instead of picking up their toys and licking their wounds, as any adult would, Harper and MacKay chose to attack the Court and the Chief Justice whom they apparently view as emblematic of all the things they believe wrong with an independent Court: it is not Harper Conservative enough! As far as Harper and gang are concerned, the high court, in failing to reach a decision with which Harper agreed, was a biased Court, which favoured criminals and, I would suspect, dissenters who are probably terrorists or riffraff in the Conservative world. Another shining example of the “if you ain’t for us, you’re against us” mentality that fuels this miserable gang.

But unhappiness with the decision was not enough for Harper; that impish rascal just could not stop his bullying ways. He proceeded to charge that Chief Justice McLachlin had improperly approached him in July of 2013. Clearly, we are meant to take from this the suggestion that Chief Justice McLachlin had been opposed to the Justice Nadon appointment from the onset simply because he was Harper’s choice. In making the accusation, he was also suggesting that he, he alone, had attempted to preserve the sanctity of the Supreme Court by rejecting the advances made by her. It was an extraordinary charge clearly meant to inflame public prejudice against the Court with its suggestion of bias and political interference. As if that wasn’t cheap and low enough, Harper and MacKay deliberately left out information in the charming tale clearly intent on misleading the public. Their version was made of half-truths, which makes it untrue. Key elements were missing. For one, the parliamentary committee looking into the selection of candidates for the Supreme Court had been the ones who approached McLachlin for advice on vetting the candidates. That is normal, in fact, is expected. She did, however, admit to warning the Harper gang of potential eligibility issues. As did other experts. But McLachlin had issued that warning months before the issue was brought to court and at least a month before Harper’s choice of Nadon was named. Harper, as defender of the people from the law, became Bozo the Clown shot down in flames.

Evidently, these folks can’t help themselves; charge and attack and the truth be damned. For both Harper and Peter MacKay, this must be a new low of countless lows. This is gutter politics and a far cry from the political interference suggested by Harper and MacKay. To no one’s surprise, but everyone’s dismay, neither McKay nor Harper bothered to clear the air with the facts or the timeline. Certainly there was no apology from either bottom feeder. Crude, rude, and unacceptable.

This is extremely vile behaviour from a governing party towards the highest court in the land. It is serious, malignant – deliberate. Evidently Harper believes that attacking the high court might enhance his reputation among his followers who still believe man walked with dinosaurs and that the world is six thousand years old. For the troglodytes, such behaviour may be acceptable and expected, but it will likely garner little sympathy from the public at large. I know whom I trust in this tawdry tale.

THEY NEVER GIVE UP

Naturally, it doesn’t end there with these two. Last week, the Harper crew appointed Federal Court of Appeal Justice Rober Mainville to Quebec’s highest court with MacKay saying he would be “welcome at the Supreme Court”. Constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati, who had successfully challenged the Nadon appointment, is again challenging the Harper appointment saying the Constitution clearly states judges on the Quebec court must be appointed by the Quebec bar. Other critics believe this just another Harper/MacKay end run to avoid appointing a qualified Quebec judge. If so, what does Harper fear from Quebec justices? “What had they done to upset Harper,” asked panel member Martin Patriquin in his appearance on CBC’s Power and Politics. Are Quebec judges considered too progressive for Harper’s Conservatives? Or is this retaliation against a province that did not elect enough Conservatives? Either way, petty.

But what should frighten and truly offend the public at large, especially if it believes the courts should be above the political fray, is not so much Harper’s blatant disregard for the sanctity of the Supreme Court, but his willingness to publicly declare his desire to politicize the judiciary to achieve desired outcomes. If the five Harper appointees to the Supreme Court might have ever harboured sympathy for some of his policies in the past, they might have little reason for feeling such now. Harper and MacKay have demonstrated the extent they are willing to embellish, omit and distort to achieve their goals. Their behaviour is discreditable, reprehensible, and just plain dishonest.

But that is not unusual behaviour from these two. MacKay had years ago proved he was untrustworthy when he betrayed David Orchard and the Progressives in the Progressive Conservatives by joining forces with the Alliance Party and Stephen Harper in 2003. To this day, despite proving himself nasty, untruthful, and incompetent in every post he has been offered, MacKay continues to hold a key position in the Harper gang solely because of his role in the formation of the Conservative/Reform/Alliance Party of today, CRAP in other words. For his part, MacKay is quite willing to capitalize on this. He’s incompetent, not stupid. Well…

Look at how he and Harper, having set their sights on the F -35 jets, lied and obfuscated during the 2011 election campaign about the true costs of the jets. They claimed the jets would only cost $9 billion. Experts were sceptical. When Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page questioned the numbers and requested to see the documentation, he was not only stonewalled at every turn, Harper and his rat pack began to wage a vicious campaign against him smearing his name, questioning his credentials, character and integrity. Does this sound familiar? When Page’s term ran out, he was not kept on and the public was no closer to the truth. We now know the jets will cost at least $45 billion though some have pegged the number closer to $126 billion. Canadians don’t really know what the final number will be; that is unacceptable. The Harper gang has lied and smeared their way to victory apparently untroubled that taxpayers will be left to pay a hefty bill of unknown size because of its unwillingness to admit to mistakes, to being wrong, or to even conceding that the planes may not be what we need.

Even today, with the release of a new study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives entitled One Dead Pilot, which suggests that the F-35 single-engine jets are not only costly, but also dangerous and unreliable, because it denies pilots the possibility of a backup engine should anything go wrong, Harper and gang are unmoved and determined to go through with the deal. Michael Byers, UBC political scientist, author of the report, as quoted in the National Post by Josh Visser, June 9th, notes, “…a second engine is the only thing that can prevent a crash. The issue is especially important for Canada, which has the longest coastline in the world and vast Arctic territories.” Regardless of cost, lack of transparency, and closed bidding, it appears Harper is set to go ahead with the purchase, playing loose with the lives of pilots. Well, can we claim to be surprised? We know how much they respect our vets and public servants; why should they behave any differently towards those who will fly those planes? A final decision appears to be near. Regardless of what it is, we know they can’t be trusted.

THE FAMILY CIRCUS

Sometimes one gets the uneasy feeling that the so-called Fair Elections Act, as with so many of their efforts, so clearly botched, had been introduced solely for the perverse joy the Harper Conservatives experience in observing the response from poking the contemptuous Conservative finger into the collective eye of both public and critics. It has passed third reading and will soon become law the loud chorus of opposition ignored and dismissed. The heedless contempt and faux surprise exhibited by Pierre Poilievre, that viciously partisan Minister of Democratic Reform and Harper’s go-to man when it comes to dirty fighting, and the smug self-congratulatory hypocritical huzzahs that greeted the outcome from that quarter, was overt and painful to observe; these are despotic personalities taking sadistic delight in the despair of the howling voices railing against the bill’s inherent unfairness many consider a direct assault on Democracy. The outcome was no more in doubt than Poilievre’s dismissal of all such concerns as alarmist fear-mongering. He has resolutely campaigned to pass the bill as is with only token consultation or consideration of advice from opposition members as is customary and he pointedly ignored all other voices including experts in constitutional Democracy. Cherry picking “facts” that suited his purpose, Poilievre, often quoting and misquoting from a report by Harry Neufeld, past Chief Electoral Officer for British Columbia, suggested the changes were essential to stop voter fraud. In that claim was also the suggestion that voter fraud was widespread and perpetrated by a certain segment of society. When asked for proof of fraud, he could offer none because there was none. In fact, the only fraud perpetrated has been by Conservatives, how they reported on the bill and the methods employed to bolster support including their deliberate misreading of the Neufeld report. Can anyone who saw it forget Conservative Brad Butt’s contemptible little charade in the House? He regaled a spellbound Conservative audience (surely no one else was duped) with a tale of witnessing with his own two beady eyes opposition campaign workers scooping up voter information cards discarded by recipients which were then used by other opposition supporters passing themselves off as those voters named on the card. He had no answer for why he did not report it then. Later, in the House, he admitted he had lied, it hadn’t happened. Now, that is fraud. And, of course, we all recall how the Conservative Party paid $52000 for its role in the 2006 “in-out” campaign scheme for exceeding election expenses. And we mustn’t forget bulldog Conservative Dean del Mastro, that loudmouth thug who, along with Pierre Poilievre, waged a vicious smear campaign against Elections Canada and Marc Mayrand, Chief Electoral Officer, for having the nerve to investigate the Conservatives for allegations of voter suppression. Del Mastro, pleading not guilty, now faces several charges for election fraud during his 2008 campaign. These are not nice people.

So what is it about C-23 that has so many experts and ordinary citizens troubled? Simply by getting rid of as ID the Voter Information Cards we all receive in the mail, some estimate that 100,000 voters could be disenfranchised with the passage of this bill. Others have pegged the number to be as high as 500,000. One is too many. Those are large numbers and these will include our native peoples, seniors, students, transient workers, the poor, the homeless, the disabled, and the mentally ill. In other words, those least likely to vote Conservative. That is no accident.

But C-23 doesn’t stop there. The Commissioner for Canada Elections, the investigative body of Elections Canada, which reports to Parliament, has been moved to the Department of Public Prosecutors, which reports to the government. There is a difference and it is significant. With Harper at the helm, the potential for political interference is not a possibility but a certainty. Poilievre, without his trusty sidekick, evidently has a few more scores to settle with Elections Canada.

Bill C-23 also considerably weakens the powers of Elections Canada to investigate election fraud, enforce regulations, and denies it the right to compel witnesses to testify. Too, those under investigation must be informed that they are being investigated. As well, their permission must be sought before such investigations can be made public. In other words, Harper and gang have determined that the public has no right to know when the rules are broken or by whom unless the offenders volunteer the information. There is absolutely no incentive for those who are naturally dishonest to be honest during election campaigns because the likelihood of discovery and punishment is almost nil. And while Elections Canada can inform people when and where to vote, it can no longer encourage them to vote. Again this targets large segments of society, the same folks victimized by the changes to vouching rules.

The Conservatives did retreat on some items. They tried to bypass spending limits by exempting telemarketing calls to anyone who donated more than $20 in the previous five years. This was a loophole that would benefit the richest party (guess which one) with the most number of donors by increasing the amount it is allowed to spend without having to claim it as an expense. As well, they retreated on the matter of incumbents determining who the polling station supervisor would be. Had this been allowed to stand, one can imagine that all disputes brought before the incumbent’s choice could only have one result.

The Conservatives, never shy about rigging the game in their favour, have now, in fact, entrenched bad behaviour into law with C-23. No doubt, with their past experiences and proclivities the party will take full advantage of these limitations.

Who can honestly claim to be surprised? All too often Harper and his crew have demonstrated that, when it comes to abuses of Democracy and unseemly behaviour, they couldn’t care less what we may think. It is not enough to win the game, they have to rig it and they have.

It’s not just the fixing of the game or the meanness of the Conservatives that offends, though I do detest them for that; it’s the smallness of their characters, the limitations of their vision, the selfishness of their goals, the blindness of their ideology, the aridness of their souls. If they use the word inclusive, wanting us to believe that is what they are and what they wish to be, they will stumble over it, perhaps even mask a smile with a hand. It’s a word they drag out for election campaigns or when attempting to convince us that what we might believe of them isn’t true. That they stumble always diminishes the message; it is foreign to them, the word difficult to get the tongue around. Besides, they don’t mean it. They see too many enemies in every dissenting sign and give the impression of believing the poor and helpless lesser beings. Workers employed at menial jobs are to be exploited, diminished, kept in their place; it’s good for business; those who dare speak out, those ungrateful sods, those who actually might believe they deserve more and better find their jobs auctioned off to foreign workers who are less likely to demand more and better than their Canadian counterparts whom they replace. Canadian workers are sacrificed to a life of drudgery as opportunities in trade schools and further education are closed to them. The have-nots have even less and the haves much, much more. Big Business, aided and abetted by an anti-union, anti-worker government, no longer need train workers, they can be found elsewhere. And that’s the problem and the threat facing low-income earners: a lifetime of nowhere and nothingness. For that, they can thank the likes of Jason Kenney and the Harper gang and those profiteering exploiters in the service industries.

To hear the lords and masters of industry, Canadian workers act too Canadian. I recall, I don’t remember where, reading that employers love foreign workers because they don’t act Canadian. By that was meant they worked harder, work longer hours, kept their mouths shut, didn’t make waves, didn’t complain, and didn’t dare believe that they deserved more and better. In other words, foreign workers are pliable, flexible, submissive and exploitable. If not, if they dare get uppity, there is always the threat of shipping them home. For the foreign worker, and he is not the enemy, the choice is stark: slavery in Canada or in their homeland Though employers and the Harper gang will deny it, all this is in aid of suppressing wages of low-income earners and even of those in the trades. Speak out there are others willing to step in. Of course, it’s not necessary to speak out in some instances. Not if you are Canadian. Many of us may remember the episode of RBC workers training foreign workers to take their jobs overseas. And we all know of Sandy Nelson and Shaunna Jennison-Yung, the two long-time service workers in a Weyburn Saskatchewan restaurant, who were fired due to “restructuring” and replaced by the very workers they had trained. Restructuring. That’s jargon, employers taking advantage of a government program to exploit foreign workers at the cost of Canadian jobs to maximize profits. With business, loyalty is apparently a one-way street.

And, as always happens when these things occur, business and the Harper stooges loudly condemn the abuses and promise a harsh response. And, as always, nothing happens. Jason Kenney (notable for using government letterheads to fundraise for the Conservative Party, for which he received a warning slap on the wrist), Minister of Employment and Social Development, a vocal supporter of the Temporary Foreign Workers Program, a true free enterpriser, has so far, failed to take any significant action against the exploiters. It’s business as usual.

The lords and loudmouths of free enterprise, and that includes every member of Harper and his gang, always demand more of others than from themselves and the Temporary Foreign Workers Program appears to be one of the results, Canadian workers sacrificed on the altar of profit.

Originally created to help business find skilled workers not found among Canadian workers, it has been expanded and degraded to include even low skill, low paying, jobs. Employers love it. But its abuses and excesses are well documented. The program must be ended. Now.

Jason Kenney and the Harper gang have a lot to answer for. This regime has not just abandoned the Canadian worker it has betrayed him. It is also betrayed those foreign workers who have done nothing wrong except seek better lives for themselves and their loved ones. A free market mentality that encourages the exploitation and degradation of workers around the globe, feeding off their fears and desperation at any cost, including putting lives and limbs at risk, is a product of a bygone era and must be exterminated.

SO WHY IS NO ONE LAUGHING?

How troubled should Canadians be with a government that talks obsessively of jobs and the economy and yet seems as obsessed with spying on Canadians? What do they fear? What are they looking for? We know that they have little tolerance for those who step on their toes, but do they really believe the Supreme Court is their enemy or that those vocal opponents of the Keystone XL pipeline are threats. Does the Harper crew, notwithstanding its majority, fear the electorate so much and doubt its own platform that it feels compelled to pass new bills that rig elections in their favour? Is every differing voice the voice of the enemy, someone out to get them? Sadly, the answer appears to be yes.

On June 13th of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada gave Harper another reason to whine and smear. On a criminal matter appearing before it, the court had rendered a unanimous verdict on internet spying saying that police cannot get information on internet users from service providers without first obtaining a warrant. This is extremely significant because it places in jeopardy Bill C-13, the “cyberbullying” bill, introduced last November by Peter MacKay. The Court agreed that everyone had a reasonable expectation of privacy and the right to not fall victim of unreasonable search and seizure.

The bill, which critics do say does address the issue of cyberbullying in the first few pages, appears to go much further than its stated goals and seems more interested in gaining access to user information from service providers without warrants and protecting those providers from repercussions when they voluntarily hand over information to law enforcement agents. This bill allows Harper to share data collected on Canadians with the US and, presumably, any country it deems friendly. This is clearly about more than sexual predators though the Harper and MacKay would have us believe otherwise. It’s about looking for enemies, real and imagined in every charity, political organization and individual expressing a hostile thought regarding Harper and his prolonged war against the citizenry and democratic principles.

This is not new for Harper. In the past, Vic Toews, another of their ilk and one time justice and public safety minister, attempted something similar. As today, there were howls of outrage and Toews, good Conservative that he was, opted for the smear of vitriol over a dab of peacemaking honey by charging all critics of siding with pornographers. Nice. He now sits as a judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba.

Opposition members and legal experts have said C-13 will not pass as is and that it should be split into two: an anti-bullying bill and what, an all purpose spying bill? Of course, what could the Harper gang do but ignore the recommendations. It made sense. Besides, doing as the critics suggested might deny Harper the opportunity of another excuse to malign the Supreme Court. The new Privacy Commissioner, Daniel Therrien, appointed without consultation by Harper and protested by the opposition because they believed him not to have the “detachment” necessary for the job, i.e., he might be biased towards the Harper gang, surprised everyone, no doubt Harper most of all, when he agreed the bill should be split in two. In an appearance before a Conservative dominated committee, he warned that law agencies would be given too broad a power to investigate Canadians on mere suspicion and that C-13 gave immunity to providers who spied on users and voluntarily gave data to law enforcement. The Conservative members of the committee, not surprisingly, turned on him, their own appointee, as they are wont to do with anyone who doesn’t behave as they wish.

Will the recent Supreme Court decision cause MacKay and the rest of the gang to reconsider the bill? Don’t count on it. This was another defeat for Harper and gang and it is very unlikely he will be in an accommodating mood. Poor baby Harper. Like all spoiled children, he will likely keep on trying until he either beats the Supreme Court Justices into submission or the public decides it’s had enough of him.

SO WHAT ARE THEY DRINKING?

Yes, they are stubborn folk those Harper louts full of the certitude of their righteous virtue, superior vision and the sanctity of their goals. What reason is there to heed the voices of others when they, the Conservatives, are whole and perfect in thought, word and deed?

Then we have Chris Alexander to help us rethink that. Not too long ago, he, along with Michelle Rempel, Candice Bergen, Kellie Leitch and the nasty Poilievre, was part of a cadre of Conservative bobbleheads appearing on various news programs reciting the Harper message of the day. They weren’t much then and they aren’t much now, all promoted and confirming the Peter Principle. Alexander is the citizen and immigration minister. In the past, he gave the impression of amiability, the least offensive of Rempel, Bergen, Leitch, but, with his elevation to minister, all that is gone. He has become angry and shrill and altogether unpleasant. I never did like the scripted Conservative messages he offered, the obfuscations and outright lies, but now I find him as offensive as the rest though, I must admit, Poilievre still beats him and the rest but only by a hair.

Bill C-24, Alexander’s baby, would strip away the citizenship of dual nationals accused of membership to an outlawed organization or “convicted of terrorism, high treason, or spying offences.” Rocco Galati, that Constitutional gnat to Harper, has moved to challenge the bill. What did Alexander do? He did what Harper Conservatives always do: began to smear Galati on CBC’s Power and Politics, June 10, saying, Galati “…also defended, a senior member, the patriarch of the Khadr family, who was a senior member of al-Qaeda.” The inference was clear: because Galati defended someone the Harper gang (and perhaps most Canadians) did not like, the lawyer was suspect as well. We’ve seen this before.

That’s nasty enough. The proposed bill is even worse and its effect is so far-reaching, it could affect all Canadians and those applying for citizenship. Any Canadian citizen, Canadian born or not, can now be arbitrarily stripped of their citizenship. Those seeking to become citizens will have a more difficult time of it and the cost to apply will triple. Immigration officers will replace judges with the power to revoke citizenship. Too, those threatened with revocation of citizenship will no longer have the right to an oral hearing before a judge. In fact, there need not be a formal hearing. As well, the ability to appeal a revocation has been removed. Residency requirements will be increased; time already spent in Canada before the application for residency is made will not be counted. This is not the behaviour of a sane, civil, democratic government. Instead, it’s a clear signal of a government deeply, deeply, troubled. The Harper regime trusts no one, is fearful of everyone and suffers no qualms in abusing the rights of all it deems unsuitable and undeserving of Canada’s generosity. I though Alexander was better than that. Clearly I was wrong. The bill is as morally bankrupt and flawed as Harper and his gang.

Doubtless Alexander’s comments of Galati are reflective of a regime still furious and smarting by the judgement Galati had won that cost Harper Nadon. During a June 11th appearance on CBC’s As It Happens, Alexander, perhaps feeling embattled by the aggressive questioning by Carol Off about Syrian refugees and how many of the them, government sponsored, had arrived in Canada, appeared to have lost his cool when pressed about the number. He abruptly hung up claiming he had to get back to the House for Question Period. Later, he would whine that As It Happens had been “unfair” and “unprofessional” in not explaining why he had hung up. They had, but Alexander’s response of shoot first and blame others rather than own up to the fact that his poor showing gave the impression of a minister behaving evasively to tough, legitimate questioning as well as having a meltdown. This, too, is typical of the regime. Harper and gang are quick and eager to ride roughshod over others when it suits them and are even quicker and more eager to whine about unfair treatment and a biased media when challenged. Another example of the if you ain’t for them, you must be against them mentality. With a mindset like that, Canadians have every reason to be suspicious of bills C-13, C-23, and C-24 and the Harper agenda. These are the kinds of legislation a paranoiac might propose. Certainly, if passed, these bills could imperil many of the rights, including assembly, fair comment, and criticism, Canadians take for granted. This relentless erosion of Democracy is the kind of behaviour one would expect from a third world dictatorship. For how much longer will Canadians remain silent before they let it be known they’ve had enough? Poor Harper. Poor baby Alexander.

With this gang, perhaps like this article, it never ends. We have Peter MacKay, again, this time proposing new anti-prostitution laws that prostitutes, lawyers, police and almost everyone else agrees are punitive and very likely to put street workers at even greater risk including risk of death. Based on the so-called “Nordic Model”, Bill C-36 targets and criminalizes buyers primarily and prostitutes who solicit trade anywhere underage children might be “reasonably” expected to be. Come on. When’s the last time you saw prostitutes soliciting before a school or in a mall? The bill is ridiculous in its expectations, unworkable and inherently wrong. The Tory majority will ram the bill through and, as they have so often, ignore legal experts, critics, opposition members, and those very workers they claim to seek to protect. And, as have other bills, almost all inadequately vetted by legal experts, if even vetted, C-36 will meet a similar fate when brought before the courts. It will be tossed offering Harper another opportunity to claim he was mugged by an “activist” court.

Recently, we had Harper announcing Canada’s gift of $3.5 billion to promote the health and care of mothers and children of the less developed world. Maybe this is what Harper would have as his legacy as he prepares to leave office, if not before the next election, surely shortly after.

But even this worthwhile goal, helping the impoverished in other areas achieve a better, healthier life, he cannot help but taint in his own inimitable way. The exact nature of the funding was not made clear and critics were quick to note that there appears to be no room for family planning when it is estimated that over 47,000 women die because of unsafe abortions. For Harper, ideology trumps the lives of the impoverished. Canada’s gift is great publicity as a caring nation, but it’s marred by Harper’s inserting of his own anti-abortion stance. And while it may enhance Harper’s image abroad, and Canada’s by extension, how will this impress the folks at home, when some First Nations communities haven’t had potable water for decades, yes, decades, where suicides rates among natives are at unconscionable levels, and where most of the homes are poorly insulated and have no running water. What about the homeless and ill on our streets? By all means, those folks in less developed areas must be helped and we should do what we can and must. But it must not be just about photo-ops and positive publicity on the world stage and certainly not at the expense of those at home.

But at that summit in Toronto, Harper also addressed another issue. In this he expressed his befuddlement that people in the developed world still refuse to get vaccinated. Said he, and with a straight face, “It’s hard for me not to get very emotional about this because we know, we scientifically know, what vaccinations and immunizations have done for us, personally, in our generation and generations after us. I frankly don’t understand people who are walking away in our society from something that’s proven to work” (CBC, Trinh Theressa Do, May 29th). Did you catch that? Harper said, “scientifically know”.

This is the fellow whose government has muzzled and fired scientists for speaking out. This is the fellow whose government, so obsessed with pushing the Keystone XL pipeline, has denied the possibility of Climate Change. This against the overwhelming evidence that it is real and the threat it poses is real! This is the fellow whose minister of natural resources at the time, Joe Oliver, loudly dismissed and dissed world famous climatologist James Hansen questioning the scientist’s reputation and fairness. Science and Harper? When it suits his purpose, Harper will swing on a dime. Otherwise, he hears no one, listens to no one: the experts are wrong and only Harper and the gang know the answers. And, while I agree with him regarding vaccinations, I had to laugh at his hypocrisy. But it’s not funny that Harper can turn his back on what most of us “scientifically know”: good maternal health care also includes family planning; 47,000 lives should not be tossed aside because world leaders refused to acknowledge abortions are a fact of life in all parts of the world. Why not make them safe? You don’t have to support abortion; just allow women a choice.

Speaking of choice, this evening, June 17, as I write this, the Harper gang announced that the Northern Gateway Project had been approved. No choice for those against it. Unusually for Harper and his gang, not a single Conservative could be found to take questions from the media. Were they hiding? Too, Justin Trudeau pointed out something I had not caught. Harper has always branded his reign of terror and error as “the Harper government” which about says it all about its priorities. It’s never been about Canada or Canadians but about Harper and special interests. All decisions made, and they are always good, wise, and loved by every Canadian citizen, even if rammed down our throats, have been made, Conservatives are quick and proud to inform us, by the “Harper government”. Not this evening. Trudeau noted that it was not the “Harper government” that had approved the Enbridge pipeline deal but the “Canadian Government”. Could it be Harper is worried?

Immediately, all opposition leaders spoke out against the deal and vowed to scrap it if they became the governing party. First Nations spokesman along the route from the Alberta tar sands to Kitimat, B.C. vowed to defeat the project. There are five court cases pending. Three quarters of British Columbians reject the deal believing the risk too great and the huge tourist industry at risk. And it is. The pipeline would pass through pristine wilderness lands and rugged, treacherous terrain. The effects of ruptured pipes and spillage would be immediate, widespread and long lasting. Over two hundred tankers a year would travel through difficult coastal water channels endangering all marine habitat including polluting the navigable routes of Pacific grey whales, orcas, humpbacks and other marine life accounting for much of the tourism. That a majority of British Columbians and almost all First Nations people are against the deal makes no never mind. This is about Harper’s agenda: jobs, the economy, and, of course, the health and welfare of Corporate interests. In a recent speech, Harper suggested he would not sacrifice one job for the protection of the environment or to stave off climate change. Said he: “It’s not that we don’t seek to deal with climate change. But we seek to deal with it in a way that will protect and enhance our ability to create jobs and growth, not destroy jobs and growth in our countries. And frankly, every single country in the world, this is their position.

“No matter what they say, no country is going to take actions that are going to deliberately destroy jobs and growth in their country. We are just a little more frank about that, but that is the approach that every country is seeking” (from The Sidney Morning Herald, Crispin Hull, June 12, 2014).

That about says it all about Harper and his gang.

IT IS TIME FOR THE CREAM

What I have outlined is not a picture I have painted. Rather it is Harper’s work. It is vile, ugly and corrupt.

Standing up to Harper and his crew can be a hazardous business; it can leave your reputation in tatters, your patriotism questioned, your privacy invaded, your trust violated.

The Harper gang believe themselves misunderstood. They believe every sceptical voice raised against them is the voice of the enemy. They believe the public ignorant and uniformed. For that, they blame the media, the scholars and scientists, the Supreme Court justices, and you and I if we oppose them. So Harper and gang use loopholes to make it difficult if not impossible to apply successfully to access to information. By the time some do get the information, it is often too late and useless because of the passage of time or because so heavily redacted. Even though this is, in theory, our government and the Harper gang our employees, they act as if we are nuisances and prefer that we remain uninformed and ignorant. Harper and his gang obstruct at every opportunity and, because they are fearful and suspicious, treat us all as threats. And, because they see us as threats, they would spy on us behind bills meant to catch cyberbullies and pedophiles. The Harper gang is afraid of frank, open, and honest discussion. They pass legislation that is hidden, disguised, undiscoverable until too late and condemn those who demand a full accounting of those laws including full disclosure. They are impossible to shame because they know no morality except self-interest, economic interest, and the grasping and keeping of power. The Harper gang appears to speak with one voice with one thought. One looks at them and finds it almost impossible to differentiate one pig from another in a litter wallowing in the filth. They hear no one, listen to no one, accept no advice, least of all from “experts” and “scientists” and “scholars” for whom they hold the utmost contempt unless those same “experts”, “scientists”, and “scholars” just happen to hold the same concerns and narrow values as the Harper Conservatives.

And because it is Harper and his gang, they set up to rig the game and invalidate your vote and silence your voice. They have the majority. Don’t like it? Too bad.

Are these folks really offering you what you voted for? Do they really stand for what you believe and desire? Does honesty, integrity, decency, fairness, justice, humility, kindness, openness, transparency, democracy, dignity mean anything to you? If not, you really do belong with Harper and his thugs.

 ***

BUT SUCH IS THE IRRESISTIBLE NATURE OF TRUTH, THAT ALL IT ASKS AND ALL IT WANTS IS THE LIBERTY OF APPEARING. – Thomas Paine.

 

%d bloggers like this: