Showing posts with label stephan harper. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stephan harper. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Fear And Loathing From The Right

The other day I wrote a brief post linking to a site developed by the Conservative party that seeks to sow fear about Thomas Mulcair's 'shadow' cabinet. That campaign of demonization against the most serious threat the Harper regime has faced for sometime is now ramping up, as reported by Tim Harper in his Star column today.

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Will I Be Deemed High Risk for Terror, Crime or Immigration Fraud ?

I have a confession to make. Since January of 2010, my wife and I have visited Cuba four times. So what, one might ask? Cuba has always been a popular destination for Canadians seeking some respite from harsh Canadian winters. What harm is there in that?

Well, potentially a great deal, if I understand the terms of the new border security pact that the Harper government has struck with the Obama government. Called Beyond the Border, it is being extolled by our 'leader' as the biggest breakthrough in Canada/U.S. affairs since the North American free trade pact. Unfortunately, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

As reported in The Star, one of those details is the following:

Under a sweeping new entry-exit system to be in place next year Canada will share more information on travellers, including people arriving here from abroad, or going from here to third countries. So-called “trusted” travellers will be speeded across borders, while those deemed “high risk” for terror, crime or immigration fraud will be red-flagged, or prevented from getting here.

In his column, Thomas Walkom elaborates:

Canada will be required to give more information about its citizens and residents to the U.S. By 2013, the countries promise to put in place a “systematic and automated biographical information-sharing capability” and by 2014 a “biometric information-sharing capability.”

A new exit-control system will be put in place for those crossing the land border between Canada and the U.S. in order to “exchange biographical information on travellers.


So what does any of this have to do with our frequent visits to Cuba? Well, perhaps the most salient fact is that since 1982, Cuba has been designated by the Americans as a '"state sponsor of terrorism," the reasons for which can be seen by clicking on this link, reasons that are, in my view, typical of the United States' paranoid and jaundiced contempt for countries that don't embrace their worldview and values.

Nonetheless, I think the implication of this new border deal are clear. Personally, since I have not travelled to the U.S. for over 10 years, I doubt that the pact will have much effect on me, since if I had to choose between the two countries, Cuba would be my preferred destination.

However, fate can be capricious, and who knows if circumstances might at some point necessitate a visit to the U.S., that benighted country where reason has been largely supplanted by hysteria, and where productive policy has been replaced by demagoguery? Will I find myself being denied entry for my love of Cuba and its people, about whom I have written previously on this blog? Will I be taken to a back room and grilled about my relationship with certain Cubans that we have become friends with outside of the resort? Will I be subjected to the dreaded and invasive body search that can be imposed on the most unlikely of travellers?

These are questions that apparently are of no concern to Stephen Harper, who seems perfectly content to surrender our privacy rights and sovereignty because of the boost the pact will give to cross-border trade.

Quaint notions, sovereignty and privacy rights, aren't they?

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

What is Mesothelioma? A Question I Am Sure The Harpur Government Well Knows The Answer To

Think of Stephen Harper and his minions when you watch this video. He and his government are directly responsible for cases of this dread disease in developing countries such as India.





Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.

Friday, May 20, 2011

Stephen Harper, John Steward, and Asbestos

An online article in today's Globe and Mail, written by Gerald Caplan, explores how the Harper government's retrograde policies have made Canada something of an international pariah. Especially interesting is how the export of asbestos was recently skewered on The Daily Show.

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Conservative Constipation

While most of the world celebrated the triumph of freedom over tyranny, of the will of the people over the despot in Egypt, one part of the political spectrum, at least in Canada, seemed decidedly uncomfortable.

My local television station had comments from a number of 'experts,' and while there was general satisfaction over the ouster of Mubarak one man, representing a think tank called the MacKenzie Institute, rather peevishly carped that the revolution was going to do nothing to bring down food prices in Egypt, something he seemed to feel was the impetus for what occurred. Typical of the right wing, he was looking at human motivation through the narrow lens of 'homo economicus' (economic man) which sees all human action as being prompted only by self-interest.

Similarly, Stephen Harper, in what can only be described as a bout of verbal constipation, (it seemed very hard indeed for him to get the words out), offered a very grudging and qualified endorsement of the Egyptian liberation, reminding them of the importance of adhering to their peace treaties. This, of course, was his way of reminding everyone of his unqualified, unwavering and completely uncritical support of Israel.

It has long been obvious to me that while the right wing likes to talk about the importance of human rights and democracy for the world, its support tends to be confined only to those people who make the correct choices at election time, the right choice being, of course, voting for those candidates who may not necessarily be best for the people, but rather friendly and deferential to first-world democratic interests, which are all too often synonymous with the goals of the corporate world.