The Harper Regime In One Easy-To-Understand Graphic!

H/t Boycott The Harper Conservatives

For those of you who are more text-oriented or want a comprehensive recounting of the depredations of the Harper years, I encourage you to check out and bookmark Rural's Harper History Series over at Democracy Under Fire.

Rural has taken on the unenviable and herculean but noble task of compiling the myriad abuses of and acts of contempt against democracy during King Stephen's reign; it is a lot to take in and can be depressing at times to see what we have lost, but if read in measured amounts is a very useful reminder of why it is paramount that we toss out this band of renegades in October.

I encourage you to visit his series regularly as we head into the election, and share with those who you think might benefit.

The Muslim Threat To Stephen Harper

Were I of the Muslim faith, I suspect I would have a deep and abiding contempt for Stephen Harper and his cabal. After all, he is the prime minister who has made Islamophobia a centrepiece of his re-election hopes and, unlike other groups that he has vilified for political gain, has persistently portrayed the religion as a hotbed of terrorism, so much so that repressive measures that threaten the very foundations of Canadian democracy are now ensconced in the legislation known as Bill C-51.

What is a self-respecting Muslim to do?

One answer, it seems, is to encourage one's coreligionists to vote.

Groups like Canadian Muslim Vote (CMV) and the Canadian Arab Institute (CAI) have launched major campaigns to try and pull the Muslim vote.

These groups are trying to circumvent the potential for political sectarianism by staying away from addressing specific issues and by maintaining a strict standard of non-partisanship.

In other words, they simply want the Muslims, who don't have the best voter turnout, to vote—regardless of their political taste.

It would seem that the key lies in younger generations of Muslims, those born here who see themselves as part of the Canadian fabric and are deeply disturbed by the Harper demagoguery that labels them as 'the other' and potential terrorists. Yet the venue for discussing and addressing their frustrations is not likely to be found in the mosques for a number of reasons.

Much of this is due to the political climate in Harper's Canada, which is characterized at least in part by the chilling of political speech within an atmosphere of fear.

Mosques often have charitable status, which can often be stripped away if Muslim leaders decide to take up certain political causes in ways the administration finds distasteful.

The Harper government's appetite for auditing and disrupting organizations that it differs with ideologically is well-known.

Fortunately, alternative venues are developing:

Groups like the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) have broken through the mainstream in an effort to improve the portrayal and treatment of Muslims in the public sphere.

Their nationwide campaigns have attracted Muslim youth to build similar structures of civic and political engagement.

Dawanet, an influential Muslim organization based out of Mississauga, Ont., just launched an initiative called Project Civic Engagement earlier this summer, aimed primarily at addressing Muslim political engagement and the influence of Islamophobia on Canadian politics.

Winnipeg's own Islamic Social Services Association (ISSA) has also launched public awareness campaigns in an effort to dispel myths surrounding Muslims in the Harper era.

Whether the Muslim vote will turn out to be a formidable influence in the upcoming election remains to be seen. But like other Canadians busy building coalitions to prompt greater voter engagement, any increase in participation can only contribute to an ultimately stronger and healthier democracy in Canada.

The Art Of Misdirection

Some, I guess, are better at it than others.

Breaking News On Omar Khadr

The Harper vendetta against Omar Khadr has suffered another defeat:

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday that Omar Khadr, the former teenage al-Qaeda member freed on bail last week in Alberta, should be treated as if he were sentenced as a juvenile. The federal government had argued that he deserved to be treated more severely, as an adult.

The case centres on whether the eight-year war-crimes sentence Khadr was given by a U.S. military commission in 2010 ought to be interpreted as a youth or adult sentence.

Nonetheless, it would be naive indeed to think that the regime will leave him alone to get on with his life, not with an election in the offering.

So little time, so much hatred and division yet to foment.

Oh, And Another Thing

Without doubt, some readers will be wearying of my seeming obsession with Omar Khadr. A good part of my interest in him over the past few years stems from the injustice with which he has been treated, given the flouting by both Canada and the U.S. of International human rights law as it pertains to the child soldier. The other part of my interest stems from the fact that Khadr has been a Rorschach test for the Harper government, revealing the latter's relentless meanspiritedness and willingness to sacrifice people for electoral power.

It is my hope, as stated previously, that the tide will begin to turn against the Harper regime as its mask slips away, given the public's opportunity to see and hear Khadr now that he has been released into his lawyer's custody.

If the following letters from The Globe and Mail are any indication, people are beginning to see beyond the stereotype of the 'terrorist' that Harper et al. have been promoting all these years:

Capacity for reform

Anyone who heard Omar Khadr’s comments to the media after being released on bail cannot help but be struck by the federal government’s doggedly vindictive response (‘Freedom Is Way Better Than I Thought’ – May 8). If the heart and soul of the Canadian penal system is truly rehabilitation, surely he is a good example of the human capacity for reform. Unless, of course, the government is committed to an ideological agenda from which it is unwilling to deviate, however compelling the evidence to the contrary.

Peter Laurie, Peterborough, Ont.

..........

At last, the “convicted terrorist” Omar Khadr speaks. First, Prime Minister Stephen Harper muzzled the child, then he muzzled the man, but on Thursday Canadians were allowed to finally hear him for themselves. I am proud of Canada.

Robin Hannah, Toronto

Whether any of this has long-term efficacy will, of course, be put to the test in October.

The Sweet Taste Of Freedom

Watching Omar Khadr's media scrum last night, it became obvious why the Harper regime fought so hard, first, to deny media access to him while he was in prison, and second, why it so vigorously opposed his release on bail: when you control the narrative, you have free rein, as the regime had, to demonize and incite fear and hatred. When that control is lost, a different perspective and narrative emerges.

While I am no expert in human psychology, what I saw last night was a reflective and articulate young man who was enjoying his first tast of freedom in 15 years, a young man who appears to be without bitterness or rancour over his gross mistreatment by the Harper government. When asked what he had to say to the prime minister, he essesntially said that he would have to disappoint him, as he is not the person Harper thinks he is.

He showed admirable restraint; perhaps he felt that his lawyer. Dennis Edney's, earlier excoriation of Harper as a bigot, a man who doesn't like Muslims, was sufficient denunciation of our cruel overlord.

I doubt that Khadr has an easy road ahead of him. His freedom on bail comes with many restrictions, and where his appeal against his American conviction will go is anyone's guess. What the years of imprisonment, torture and other abuse have done to him remains to be seen.

Perhaps those experiences will have been leavened by the efforts of people who have worked hard to help educate him during his long incarceration:

Nine Alberta university professors, most of them from The King’s University College in suburban Edmonton, have spent years visiting Khadr in prison, spending hours tutoring him. Since Khadr was transferred to Alberta in May 2013, the professors have worked with him at least once a week.

Then there is the social network knitted together by University of Alberta graduate Muna Abougoush, who

began the website six years ago to keep Khadr’s name circulating and to remind people that he was still imprisoned. She began writing to him and visiting him in prison. “Omar has such a support community. I could probably say with certainty most inmates don’t have this,” says Abougoush. This past Christmas, Khadr received 500 letters from supporters — some as far away as China. And he tries to answer them all.

Perhaps some of those lacking in sympathy for Khadr, now that they have something more than government propaganda upon which to base their opinion, will come to new insights. As pointed out in today's Star editorial,

whatever his misdeeds Khadr, now 28, has paid the full price, and more. From the day U.S. troops captured him in Afghanistan in 2002 he has been denied justice, tortured, forsaken by Ottawa and tried in a discredited U.S. military court. He has spent twice the time behind bars as he would have, had he been convicted here of first-degree murder as a young offender.

Omar Khadr now stands at a crossroad: the life he has lived thus far, over which he had little to no control, and the life ahead, ultimately filled with the freedom to choose. May his journey be a fulfilling one.

Omar Khadr's Lawyer: "Mr. Harper Is A Bigot. Mr. Harper Does Not Like Muslims."

Denis Edney's stinging rebuke of Stephen Harper and his regime's contemptuous treatment of Omar Khadr over the years will resonate with all fair-mined Canadians.

UPDATED: Harper's Jihad Part 3

Dear Leader's jihad against Muslims continues apace. As you probably know, his regime is going to court today to request an "emergency" stay of Omar Khadr's release on bail, their arguments appearing increasingly desperate. Previous claims that his release would do irreparable harm to Canada's relationship with the U.S. have proven to be unfounded. That he poses a threat to public safety is refuted by the fact that he has proven to be a model prisoner.

Even as conservative and pro-government an organ as The Globe and Mail is saying enough is enough.

What is a government desperate to use Khadr as a political pinata to do? How to appeal to the prejudices and hatreds of a rabid base?

The latest claim, made yesterday and in all likelihood as fatuous as the others, is this:

"A lack of clarity in the international transfer process may jeopardize the system as a whole," the government states in documents obtained by The Canadian Press.

"(Khadr's) release unsettles the foundation of this system by introducing uncertainty and a lack of control over the manner in which Canadian offenders' sentences are enforced."

In response, Khadr's lawyers said the government's case for a stay was weak.

For one thing, they say, the government acknowledges Khadr's case is unique and will have little or no effect on other prison transfers.

"The onus is on the (Crown) to establish that irreparable harm will actually occur if a stay is not granted," they state in their reply brief.

"Reliance upon harm that is speculative or merely 'likely' is insufficient."

And so the drama continues.

Meanwhile, the Kafkaesque persecution of Hamilton lawyer Hussein Hamdani, about which I wrote last week, continues. In an interview yesterday on CHCH News, Hamdani yielded an interesting perspective, one that seems entirely plausible given the remorselessly vindictive nature of the Harper regime.

“This is politically motivated in my estimation, so it’s not really a review. This is just something that’s been said to remove someone, who’s been critical of a recent piece of legislation, bill c-51,” Says Hamdani.

Which may be true. The allegations contained in the TVA news report are not new, they’ve been investigated before by CSIS, and the RCMP. “Which is interesting because I’ve been renewed, and renewed and renewed and every renewal there is further security checks that are done by CSIS, by the RCMP and I’m vetted again. And every time I’ve passed, you know, right from the beginning.”

And, if you read the next paragraph, fresh insight into the regime's motivation is offered:

As recently as February however, Hamdani was the pride of the Harper government at President Obama’s summit on countering violent extremism. Hamdani says his ouster could also have something to do with his recent appearance at a fundraiser for Justin Trudeau. “I think what’s happening is that this government says, why are we having somebody who is obviously a Liberal supporter on our round table? We don’t like him. We’re gonna get a better ‘yes man’!”

None of this, of course, will come as a surprise to those of us aware of the deeply vile nature of our current government. The difficult task before all of us is making a wide swath of Canadians aware of the terrible manipulations they are being subjected to, all in the service of retaining power.

A better reason to get rid of these renegades in October I cannot think of.

UPDATE: Thanks to the regime's tireless persecution of Khadr, he will have to wait at least two more days to be released on bail.

Harper's Jihad - Part Two

As I have written elsewhere on this blog, I am convinced that humans (along with other primates) have an innate sense of fairness, one that is regularly violated in so many ways by the Harper regime. Yesterday I wrote a post about the bald and unsavoury political motivations behind Dear Leader's crusade against Muslims both domestic and foreign. One egregious example is his ongoing war against Omar Khadr, the latest skirmish involving the government's efforts to prevent the former child soldier from being released on bail.

Happily, there is ample evidence from a host of Star letter writers that Canadians feel deep outrage at this persecution, and see through Harper's divisive and self-serving rhetoric. Here is just a small sampling of those letters:

Re: Free at last, almost, Editorial April 25
Re: Let the Khadr furor fade away with him, April 27

What is the matter with Mr. Harper? Why this persistence in hounding this young man, who as a child was prosecuted in the U.S. and served most of his time. We Canadians believe in being fair and we try not to demand that last pound of flesh. Not so Mr. Harper it seems. He wants his pound of flesh.

Omar Khadr deserves a chance to prove he has moved on from his teenage years and their influences and can be a valuable member of society. Mr. Harper needs to check his big bully ways at the courtroom door.

Joan Joseph, Cambridge

The behaviour of the Harper government in relation to Omar Khadr continues to be mean and vicious, all apparently based in politics. It is calculated to appeal to the Harper base in the so-called tough defense of national security and be useful in the coming election.

I think, however, that this may in fact work against the government. Surely the general Canadian public is not that ugly.

Derek Chadwick, Toronto

Please let Omar Khadr go. Let him go. Enough already. Hasn’t this poor man suffered enough?

The Harper regime’s decision to appeal the granting of bail is frankly despicable. Once again, thank goodness for the Charter of Rights. I’m sure Stephen Harper wishes he could abolish it, but it’s fortunately too well entrenched for even a seasoned political opportunist like him to destroy.

Nothing says more about the mean-spirited, reptilian rule of Supreme Leader Harper than the tragic saga of Omar Khadr. Yes, his ordeal began under a Liberal government, but nobody has exploited his story as eagerly and effectively as Harper, simply to further his anti-Muslim agenda and his bogus war on so-called “terrorism.”

As Thomas Walkom mentions in a recent column, Khadr is nothing more than a political football to be tossed around in the upcoming election campaign. This is disgusting beyond words.

Khadr has been the victim of a mockery and travesty of justice unseen in recent times. The injustice he has been subjected to is a stain on the Canadian body politic. All Canadians should be ashamed of his inhumane treatment.

How dare Canada lecture anyone on human rights after what we’ve put this guy through?

I say go, Omar, go – enjoy your freedom. You’ve more than earned it.

Andrew van Velzen, Toronto

Why do Stephen Harper and the Conservatives hate Omar Khadr?

Omar Khadr was a child soldier, captured by the Americans in 2002 at the age of 15. They chose to ignore his child soldier status and to prosecute him under laws that were enacted years after he was captured and imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay. All other G8 countries demanded the release of their nationals from Guantanamo Bay, except Canada.

Omar Khadr’s father was an operative for Al Qaeda and a personal friend of Osama Bin Laden. His son had no choice about becoming an Al Qaeda soldier. He has spent the past 13 years in detention at Guantanamo Bay and in prison in Canada, where he has been denied access to anyone who would speak for him in the press.

Stephen Harper and the Conservative government have made it clear that they intend to continue persecuting this young man as long as they can use him as a scapegoat to whip up fear and hatred (against “terrorists” and Muslims) – whatever might help them to get re-elected.

Surely, Harper and the Conservative government are guilty of conspiracy to persecute a child soldier and should be charged under the Geneva Convention. At the very least they are guilty of promoting hatred against this young man.

Bill Aird, North York

Meanwhile, Back At Campaign Central

Hate campaign, that is. True to form, the Harper regime wasted no time in denouncing the decision to release Omar Khadr on bail pending his appeal. And in addition to playing to their rabid base, they took the opportunity to excoriate both Trudeau and Mulcair with some verbal prestidigitation:

Meanwhile, Thomas Walkom offers a good analysis of the government's strategy:

Conservative Roxanne James, [seen in the above video] the government’s designated spokesperson, said Ottawa opposes Khadr’s release because he has been convicted of “heinous crimes.”

What she should have said is that, in the lead-up to this fall’s election, the Conservatives hope to use the Khadr affair as a political wedge issue.

A polarizing figure since his arrest in Afghanistan, the former child soldier is viewed in rather absolutist terms by the Canadian public. There are those who believe he is an inveterate terrorist who deserves no mercy, while others see him as a victim of his parents' jihadist zeal and a political football very useful when governments want to vent their demagogic spleen and manipulate the masses.

He is, in short, a perfect political vehicle for a Conservative prime minister hoping to use crime and national security as defining elements in the election campaign.

Khadr's political usefulness began with the Americans:

The Americans, meanwhile, were desperate to have their much-maligned military tribunal system score a judicial victory. Khadr seemed to fit the bill. The U.S. had already decided to ignore the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan. Instead, captives like Khadr would be labelled “unlawful combatants” and accorded none of the usual rights of soldiers at war.

Not far behind, the Canadian government picked up the ball:

... by then, Harper had discovered Khadr’s political usefulness. The organizations that the Conservative base loves to hate — including human rights groups, liberal churches and lawyers — were all clamouring for Ottawa to bring Khadr home, where he could have a chance at parole.

So the prime minister resisted. The more the critics clamoured, the more strident his resistance became.

Last year, the Conservatives castigated Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau for suggesting that Khadr be treated fairly.

Clearly, in contrast to the take-no-prisoners approach the Conservatives usually employ in their politicking for the hearts of Canadians, they are making an exception for Omar Khadr.

Hither And Thither

For a government whose every policy seems to be concocted with an eye to re-election, it is not surprising that Finance Minister Joe Oliver has not yet firmed up a date for this year's budget. After all, he and the rest of the cabal need to know how effective their war on Canadian peace-of-mind is going first.

Have they, for example, succeeded, via Bill -C-51, in diverting the masses away from what heretofore has been their biggest concern, the economy, now forecast to have a rough year ahead thanks largely to the sharp drop in oil prices? Are lavish tax cuts and credits having their intended effect? Is appealing to Canadians' self-interest at the expense of the collective still working?

A new poll might prove instructional for 'Uncle Joe' et al.

The economy trumps terrorism by a massive margin as a priority for Canadian voters, according to a new poll, even as the Conservative government turns its attention to national security in preparation for this fall’s election.

Canadians are also far more likely to favour infrastructure spending over tax cuts as the best way to give the economy a boost.

Apparently, Harper is in need of something spectacular to move some recently-awoken citizens:

A Nanos survey conducted for The Globe and Mail found 90 per cent of respondents said the party or leader with the best plan for the Canadian economy will be more important in determining who wins than the party with the best plan to fight terrorists. Only 4 per cent said fighting terrorism is more important than the economy.

Only 4 per cent place fighting terrorism above the economy? Such results are enough to make the most ardent of war propagandists blush.

These findings come despite all of the time being spent on entering unwinnable wars and trying to convince Canadians that the only thing standing between them and ISIS is Dear Leader and legislation that would weaken our Charter Rights.

And there is even more indication that Canadians are willing to think outside of their own immediate interests, despite the best efforts of the regime:

When asked by the polling firm what the government should do with a budget surplus, building infrastructure, at 32 per cent, was the most popular response. Paying down the national debt was the second-most popular response at 30 per cent, followed by 23 per cent who said the government should invest in social programs and 14 per cent who wanted tax cuts.

These are surely encouraging signs for progressives, but such obvious failures of the well-oiled propaganda machine cannot be comforting for the Harper government.

Surely heads will roll.

Some Inspiration From A Clear-Thinking Citizen

That's what I derive from Donald Crump's Star letter. It is a shame more of our fellow citizens are not possessed of such critical faculties:

Increasing risk of terror in Canada

When a government starts making decisions based primarily on getting re-elected, with little regard for what is best for the country, we should all take notice. In Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s view, the fact that a majority of voters support his “war on terrorism” is reason enough for his government to increase the risk that terror will come to our shores. I think we have learned since 9/11 that terrorists cannot be defeated through the normal rules that apply to wars between countries. Rather than feeling safer because our Armed Forces are fighting in the Middle East, we now have a large target painted on our country, a target that gets larger and more tempting with each passing day to those who would do us harm.

I understand the political motivation for our leaders to show decisiveness in the face of a threat, but I don’t understand the blind pursuit of a political strategy that can have no outcome other than to make us less safe and secure. If, as Harper professes, the terrorists hate our freedoms, the measures under Bill C-51 to restrict those freedoms seem to be giving ISIS et al. exactly what they want. Coupling that with attempting to bomb them into submission through military excursions that may be illegal if they include Syria is the height of folly — and arrogance — and will inevitably anger those terrorist organizations and motivate more to join them.

For my part, I would rather live my life in freedom, accepting that occasionally bad things will happen. That is the price of being free and is a price we should all be willing to pay. The remote risk that a terrorist act would affect any individual Canadian should not justify a government creating fear and exaggerating that risk.
It’s time for our government and opposition parties to show leadership and consider effective means to combat terrorist organizations rather than knee-jerk revenge measures and totalitarian restrictions on our rights to be free.

David Crump, Toronto

Penetrating The Fog Of War

Today I turn, once again, to Star letter-writers to inspire both sanity and hope in our troubled land:

No ‘middle’ in Mideast war debate, March 25

Prime Minister Stephen Harper bet Canada’s future on oil prices remaining abnormally high. Some economist! Now he is about to order our Armed Forces to take another series of baby steps into that miserable immoral morass known as the Middle East. Why? To distract voters from taking a hard look at his government’s dismal record. History shows banging the drums of war is by far the best way to manipulate people’s emotions. Attacking thoughtful critics for being unpatriotic or cowardly is another ploy used by tyrants and bullies.

Horrendous atrocities have occurred in the Middle East and will continue as long as that region’s despotic quarrelling nations support local terrorist groups. Western governments and their multinational energy corporations have been maliciously meddling in the area for more than a century. If only the seeds of democracy had been planted and nourished during that time. But nobody cared about the ordinary people. The ongoing violence has turned the Arab world into an irrational religious-based kaleidoscope of warring factions. The cradle of civilization is becoming enveloped in a shroud of acrid smoke and the putrid stench of death. Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread.

Lloyd Atkins, Vernon

Harper’s flip-flop on war fits larger pattern of deceit, Column March 26

Haroon Siddiqui speaks volumes when he describes our leader’s ill-conceived venture into Syria. As I flip more pages in the Star and see a country of interracial harmony, I am saddened by the fact that our new generation, which was created by a young nation built with a vision for transparency, peacekeeping and diplomacy, is now relegated to fear mongering and misrepresentation of our foundation.

Peter Keleghan, Toronto

An Instructional Video

The following has been floating around the Internet for some time, but it warrants renewed circulation, in that it shatters some of the stereotypes about Islam. I would suggest it could edify Prime Minister Harper, but I live in the real world, a world where Canada's leader, for crass political purposes, is intent on demonizing and sowing fears about 'the other' within our midst.

Reza Aslan killed these two "journalists"

You need to watch this! Reza Aslan killed these two "journalists". They weren't able to salvage a shred of dignity because they are simply stupid, ill-informed, racist. Party on CNN!

Posted by Issam Bayan on Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Full Of Sound And Fury, Signifying Nothing But An Unfitness To Govern

Like one of my favourite Shakespearean creations, Macbeth, the story of a corrupted Scottish king, Stephen Harper's tale unfolds on a landscape that has become increasingly blighted thanks to his diseased leadership. Harper's demagoguery, his total disregard for the moral, social and ethical well-being of Canada, all powerful attestations to his unfitness for the country's leadership, grows more poisonous the closer we come to the next election. A man seemingly without any ethical underpinnings, he exploits every opportunity that presents itself to vilify and condemn, inviting the citizens of our country to participate in his campaigns of hatred and segregation.

Muslims are one of his favourite targets, easy ones given fears about terrorism and the horrific actions of ISIS, an ever-growing group of fanatics who seem to know no bounds whatsoever. And yet, it is the height of stereotyping to conflate such with the overall Muslim population, something Harper does with especial relish.

Zunera Ishaq, in her refusal to doff her niqab for the Canadian citizenship ceremony (which, the laws says, is not necessary) has become an easy target for Harper's vituperation, attended by his claim that the wearing of the niqab is rooted in a 'culture that is hostile to women.' Fortunately, not all Canadians are swept up in Harper's hatred.

As usual, a group that keeps me from total despair, Star letter-writers, offer their reactions to the prime minister's war on the niqab:

Why I plan to wear a niqab at my citizenship ceremony, Opinion March 16

I have thought long and hard about joining the debate on the right of Islamic women to wear the veil for the citizenship ceremony. I cannot remain silent on this matter as we all have to at some point say enough is enough.

First of all, like many non-Muslims and even some Muslims I am uncomfortable with the whole concept of the niqab or burka. However, my discomfort does not give me or anyone else the right to deny anyone to wear them if that is her wish.

The issue in question is not an immigrant demanding that Canada amend its laws to accommodate her views or those of the culture she chose to leave behind. The issue is her asking us to uphold our own law and allow her to take her oath, having already removed her niqab before the judge to establish her identity.
If we allow our uneasiness and fear, which is being stoked by cynical politicians, to allow us to change our laws to trample this woman’s rights, then everyone of us who is different in any way should start looking over his or her shoulder.

When all the Muslims are gone, who will be next?

Denise Irvine-Robertson, Toronto

Tory MPs are kept on very short leashes with their barking restricted to PMO-approved talking points. The recent spate of racist and anti-Muslim comments coming forth from this group appears to be a rather disgusting tactic within Harper’s re-election campaign much like a lawyer who speaks inappropriately before a jury and then withdraws the comment – knowing full well it will be remembered.

These messages are intended to attract, engage and inflame the fearful and prejudiced components of our personalities to motivate us towards voting Conservative. So does Bill C-51 address the radicalization of the Canadian public when it’s committed by MPs and a prime minister?

Randy Gostlin, Oshawa

MP Larry Miller’s inappropriate comments are proof that the veil has finally fallen off the Harper Conservatives hidden agenda. It has been slipping for months as nasty, mean-spirited, bigoted utterances have been made by Conservative caucus members and cabinet ministers.

Harper himself tested the waters with a bigoted comment and when it was cheered by his base Harper, the only economist who thinks one third of anything is most, quickly adopted the mantra that most Canadians agree with him. True to form this chant has been taken up by his cabinet and caucus to support the party policy.

Keith Parkinson, Cambridge

Demanding that a woman take off her niqab during the Canadian citizenship swearing in ceremony offends me deeply. I am a 33-year-old Jewish male. I am proud that Canada is a multi-cultured country. People wear turbans and kippahs and should be proud of their cultural dress.

Philosophically, I don’t love the idea of a niqab, but who am I to judge? I have a thick beard that grows to my eyebrows — my face is technically “covered.” If they have to take off the niqab, I should have to shave.

Many people mistakenly associate the niqab with oppressive Muslim extremists, which elicits fear. But when someone wants to be Canadian, so long as they aren’t harming anyone, they should be accepted for who they are, and what they wear.

Our opinion on their choice of clothing is irrelevant. And if you argue that wearing a niqab is not a choice, just ask Zunera. I’m with her, and offended that this conversation even needs to be had.

David Keystone, Toronto

So 67 per cent of Canadians oppose women wearing the niqab. So what? From time to time, in both personal attitude and public policy, “Canadians” have opposed everything from immigrants to aboriginals to pit bulls to nude beaches – the list is long and embarrassing.

Canada has evolved, with painful slowness, from its elitist, xenophobic roots to a diverse and somewhat tolerant society that was until recently the envy of the world. Now a desperate government is trying to use public opinion polls to drag us back into the dark ages where democracy is equated with majority dictatorship.

Paul Collier, Toronto

Fear In The Streets? It's What He Wants

Those of us who have been following the machinations of our Machiavellian prime minster know that he seems intent on remaking Canada in his own malevolent image - a land where fear, suspicion, and division prevail, a land where only he and his party deserve the people's electoral trust to keep a panoply of hobgoblins at bay.

Immobilized by Islamophobia? Mr. Harper is on the job, protecting our values from the niqab and fighting ISIS for all that is good and holy. Intimidated by domestic terrorism? Bill C-51 is the answer. Horrified at the prospect of rural renegades? Gun ownership for personal protection is your salvation, intones the Dark Lord. The world is a dark place, and only the strong leadership of Dear Leader can save us from perils too prolific to enumerate.

So goes the official narrative, growing increasingly shrill the closer we come to the next election.

Yet Haroon Siddiqui feels our fears are misplaced. We should be much more wary of Harper's war on truth and transparency. Take, for example, his plan to extend the ISIS mission:

In keeping with the Conservative penchant for saying one thing and doing another, the government is positing the war plan as non-partisan — after having brazenly used the war as a partisan wedge issue to whip up fear, paint critics as terrorist sympathizers (even possibly “a national security threat,” as Greenpeace has been told), and raise funds for the ruling party.

The threat that Islamic terrorists pose to Canada is itself largely a Harper creation:

... the Canadian Security Intelligence Service says that Muslim terrorists are less of a threat than white supremacists. “Lone wolf” attacks are more likely to come from radical right-wingers than radical Islamists.

Harper's fevered campaign attests to the fact that in war (either real or imaginary), truth is the first casualty:

Contrary to facts, Harper links Muslim radicalization with Canadian mosques. And he remains undeterred even though his ban on the niqab during a citizenship ceremony has been tossed out by the Federal Court. He and his acolytes are inventing new rationale on the run: the citizenship oath must be seen to be recited and it should be recited loudly — when there is no such requirement.

The Machiavellian motivation behind his campaign is obvious to those whose intellects allow them to resist the puppet-master's manipulations:

The Conservatives are shameless in using the anti-niqab campaign to raise funds. Similarly, no sooner had Harper told rural Canadians to use guns to protect themselves than the party followed with a fundraising appeal.

Jenni Byrne, the party’s national campaign manager, told potential donors that Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau “want to make life harder for lawful hunters, farmers and sport shooters by bringing back the long-gun registry,” while “opposing everything we do to punish criminals who commit crimes with guns.”

Siddiqui ends his column with this bracing observation and advice, to which I have nothing to add:

The Harperites want us to be terrified of terrorists, niqabis, criminals, thieves, etc. Time for us, in fact, to be terrified of the Harperite bigots, bullies and ideologues.

More About That Gun Thing, Mr. Harper

Despite Stephen Harper's strong warnings last year about its dangers, two professors of criminology have thrown caution to the wind and 'committed sociology.'

In today's Star, Irvin Waller and Michael Kempa use that dark art to question Mr. Harper's recent professed enthusiasm for the use of guns as personal protection, especially in rural areas.

The professors assert that the facts, never especially useful to an ideologue like Harper, suggest otherwise:

In Canada, home invasions and violent assaults by strangers in rural areas are so rare that they are virtually unrecorded and unreported threats.

And random gun violence is only slightly more likely in urban areas. A quick glance at our recent police data confirms 505 homicides last year for our whole country of 35 million.

More importantly, of the 131 murders with a gun, 85 were gang-related shootings, which by definition do not occur in our typical rural communities. So you are left with 46 gun murders or less than 10 per cent of the total. There are few occasions where guns are likely to be useful for self-defence.

Beyond those indisputable facts, however, lies another element that makes Mr. Harper's demagoguery dangerous:

Suggesting that gun owners have their weapons ready for self-defence will encourage rural Canadians to break our laws requiring ammunition and guns to be stored separately. These laws are important because it is well-known that storing loaded weapons increases the suicides, accidents and murders that occur in emotional situations, especially in those tragic cases involving domestic violence.

Another statistic shows the folly of having loaded weapons readily available:

Nearly nine out of 10 Canadian homicide victims are killed by someone they know, too often their distraught spouse or separated partner. By loading up more guns, Canadians can expect to have more innocent victims killed, not fewer houses invaded by strangers.

Towards the end of their piece, Waller and Kempa commit full-bore sociology:

Rather than take the easy path of following some of the U.S.’s worst gun failures, rural safety in Canada would profit most through developing crime and violence reduction programs that have been proven through mostly American research. Massive databases of program evaluation results confirm that sensible prevention approaches that provide non-violent conflict resolution training in schools and community centres protect two of the most over-victimized groups in our society: women and youth.

Clearly, their words will be lost on a heart as densely obdurate as Harper's. One can only hope that there are sufficient numbers of Canadians who have not been infected with the prime minister's dark visions and philosophy and recognize his ideology as the true danger stalking all of us.

About That Gun Thing, Mr. Harper

Yesterday, I wrote about Prime Minister Harper hitting upon yet another red-meat issue, this one potentially quite dangerous, over which his base can salivate. He suggested that guns are an important part of personal safety, especially in rural areas.

Two letters in today's Globe suggest not everyone with rural experience embrace Mr. Harper's twisted vision.

PM, gun control

As one who resides in a rural area and has guns, the concept of having them for my safety has never been something I’ve thought about (Provocation, Pandering And Prejudice – March 17). I suppose if that were the case and I were truly worried about my safety, instead of locking them up and storing the ammunition separately, loaded guns would lying all over the place. It’s hard to believe that this is what Stephen Harper had in mind. Instead, chalk the comments up to the mouth moving faster than the brain.

Jeff Spooner, Kinburn, Ont.

.........

My father spent his early days on granddad’s horse ranch in the Cypress Hills where the ethic was to keep one’s doors open, whether at home or not, for anyone who needed shelter and a meal.

Americans across the border had a different approach. Our gunslinger PM wants seems to want to bring gun violence north.

Jerry Thompson, Ottawa

There Is No Depth To Which He Won't Sink

It is well-known that Stephen Harper is in constant election mode, ever in search of issues that will further divide Canadians as he makes almost exclusive appeal to his base. His positions on climate change, Mulsim dress habits, provincial relations or a whole host of other issues serve only an agenda that invites discord, quarrel, contempt and dismissal of all concerns other than his own.

Just when you thought he couldn't sink any further, the putative prime minister has achieved a new low. Disgust and outrage do not adequately convey what I feel about this:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, after years of cautiously linking gun ownership to farmers and duck hunters, now says firearms are needed by rural Canadians for their own security so they can shoot people who pose a danger.

Harper’s comments are being promoted by the Conservatives’ election campaign manager, [Jenni Byrne] who says she is “proud” of how Harper said gun ownership is “important for safety for those of us who live a ways from immediate police assistance.” But a spokesman for the Canadian Bar Association is urging people to realize that they do not have an automatic right to defend themselves at home with a gun, and that they could end up facing criminal charges.

Never one to miss an opportunity, the Conservative party is distributing fund-raising emails that include Harper's remarks equating gun ownership to personal protection. And those remarks are being very well-received in some quarters. NFA president Sheldon Clare thinks what Harper said is just peachy:

On Monday, the National Firearms Association (NFA) applauded Harper for making a statement that was “long overdue.” The association said all Canadians — rural and urban — should have a clear right to use firearms to defend themselves against an intruder who breaks into their home.

Fortunately, not everyone embraces the concept of vigilante justice:

Eric Gottardi, chair of the Canadian Bar Association’s criminal justice section, rejected the notion Monday evening that Canadians have the legal right to defend their homes with a gun.

“Deadly force through the use of a gun would never be justified unless that situation turned into one that was life-threatening. And at that point, you’re really talking about self defence.”

“At 3 a.m., if someone is breaking into your house, you might think that your life is in danger. But the reality is that if it’s an unarmed intruder and you blow them away, you’re going to be arrested for murder.”

Others weighed in as well:

Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control, reacted in an emailed statement to the Citizen.

“The Prime Minister seems to be implying firearms are used for personal protection against criminals which is not the usual purpose for having firearms in rural areas and is at odds with safe storage requirements that only allow guns to be unlocked if there is reason to assume that there is an imminent threat,” she wrote

Wayne Easter, Liberal public safety critic,

said Monday that this is not the message Canadians should hear from their prime minister.

“One thing that police always say is, ‘Do not take justice into your own hands”.

“That position has done Canadians well throughout time and it’s a position we should maintain. What Harper’s statement could lead to is (that) the prime minister is almost saying vigilante justice is fine.”

Clare, of the NFA, has an accurate take on Harper's ploy, for which he utters praise:

“We think it’s really something that he is well aware is an issue with people who would normally vote Conservative. I think he is reading his mail. I think he’s getting the message that people are concerned about defence as a fundamental right.”

"Unfit to govern" seems far too mild an assessment of this malevolent presence polluting the Canadian landscape.

Resisting The Fashion Fascists

If his shrill demagoguery is any indication, I suppose Herr Harper and his regime can be considered to be at war with Islam; the latter's offences range from embracing jihadism to being a culture that, according to our self-appointed fascist fashionista, is 'anti-women.'

In that war, Zunera Ishaq is what we might consider a resistance fighter. You will recall that the Pakistani woman and devout Sunni Muslim who is seeking Canadian citizenship, while willing to remove her niqab to an official before taking the citizenship test, wanted to remain veiled for the swearing-in ceremony. A federal judge overturned the ban on her veil, but the Harper regime is appealing the decision, while at the same time eagerly fanning the flames of intolerance to better reach his base.

In today's Star, Zunera Ishaq offers her perspective on the issue:

I am Zunera Ishaq. I am a mother. I am university educated. I believe that the environment needs saving and I try to do my part by joining campaigns to plant trees. Chasing my boys in the snow is one of the things I love most about winter. I believe we should strive to give back to others, and for me that means volunteering: at women’s shelters, for political candidates or at schools.

I also wear a niqab. And according to my prime minister, that is all you need to know about me to know that I am oppressed.

It’s precisely because I won’t listen to how other people want me to live my life that I wear a niqab. Some of my own family members have asked me to remove it. I have told them that I prefer to think for myself.

Ishaq, who has removed her niqab on every occasion that required facial identification (airport security, driver's licence, etc.) offers a spirited defense of her decision:

I will not take my niqab off at that same ceremony for the sole reason that someone else doesn’t like it, even if that person happens to be Stephen Harper.

I am not looking for Mr. Harper to approve my life choices or dress. I am certainly not looking for him to speak on my behalf and “save” me from oppression, without even ever having bothered to reach out to me and speak with me.

Had Harper asked why she wears the niqab, he might have learned a few things that would have challenged his rigid intolerance:

I would have told him that it was a decision I took very seriously after I had looked into the matter thoroughly. I would tell him that aside from the religious aspect, I like how it makes me feel: like people have to look beyond what I look like to get to know me. That I don’t have to worry about my physical appearance and can concentrate on my inner self. That it empowers me in this regard.

In her article, Zunera Ishaq emerges as a thoughtful and independent thinker. As we know, those qualities, while normally real assets, are seen as most unwelcome obstacles in Harperland.