Our capacity as a species for delusional thinking and rationalization seems to have few limits, our sad record on climate change and our cheering on of oppressive and anti-democratic government measures when our convenience is at stake but two examples.
In today's Star, Heather Mallick, with whom I frequently lose patience for her self-indulgence, has written a column that merits our attention. Entitled Well, what did you expect,Toronto? she examines everything from Toronto subways to our election of the renegade Harper government in her exploration of this theme.
Showing posts with label stephen harper. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stephen harper. Show all posts
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Stephen Harper's Pathological Hatred
While I stand by my comments about The Globe and Mail in my last post, the paper does have one real asset in the person of Lawrence Martin. Unlike other Globe employees who seem strangely constrained ideologically, Lawrence is consistently robust in his criticism of the Harper regime.
Today's column is no exception, as he reveals the roots of dear leader's pathological hatred of Elections Canada.
Today's column is no exception, as he reveals the roots of dear leader's pathological hatred of Elections Canada.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
From a Star Reader: Welcome to Harper’s Harsh New World
A particularly insightful lead letter is found in today's Toronto Star. Because most letters seem to be available online for but a short time, I am reproducing writer Stephen Douglas' thoughts on the folly of our pseudo-economist Prime Minister's tax giveaways to the corporate sector, which continues its relentless mission of eradicating good-paying jobs from Canada:
On Jan. 1, 2012 the last of five annual corporate tax cuts took effect, reducing the federal rate by another 1.5 points to 15 per cent, now among the lowest rates in the industrialized world. This amounts to a total $2.85 billion in tax savings for the most profitable of Canadian business.
The notion that this will spur new jobs is a fallacy; tax breaks don’t benefit those businesses starting up who are not yet in a profitable position. Nor will it lead to increased capital expenditure by those business who do receive it; Stephen Harper himself was recently complaining about all the private business money “sitting on the sidelines” in Canada during these recent difficult times. His solution? Give them more.
At the same time, Harper’s government is proceeding with increases in employment insurance premiums. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, representing those small- and medium-sized businesses least likely to benefit from the new lower corporate tax rate, are protesting loudly with a 15,000 signature petition that this will, in fact, deter the hiring of any new employees. It is completely without merit, they add, as they have been overpaying into EI for years. As evidence, Employment Insurance currently has a robust surplus of $57 billion (2009-10), which our own auditor general has described as excessive.
The net effect of Harper’s New Year 2012 package is yet another transfer of several billion dollars in annual income from Canadian workers and small business to the largest of corporations, which are already reaping the highest profits. To add salt to the wound, these big players that Harper is generously rewarding are also significantly held by foreign-ownership (some estimates are that foreign ownership holds more than 50 per cent of the petroleum and gas industry shares and more than 50 per cent of all manufacturing in Canada).
Without any justification, for there is no economic analysis pointing toward any type of capital exodus out of Canada (to the contrary, we are traditionally considered a safe haven in turbulent periods), this New Year’s Day package pinches hard-earned dollars out of the pockets of low- and middle-class workers and pads the war chest of corporations and the wallets of their shareholders, among whom disproportionately are the wealthy, the elite and the foreign financiers.
For the last 25 years in the U.S. and Canada — under both Conservative and Liberal administrations — economic policy has been dominated by the economic philosophy of neoliberalism, emphasizing the primacy of market competition while vilifying government intervention and regulation of markets. Neoliberals insist that price adjustments ensure full employment.
In contrast, to quote Thomas Palley, what we have witnessed has seen “a slip between the cup and the lip” as the wealthiest have concentrated their power; a fall in real wages, the undermining of unions and the erosion of workers’ rights, and growing problems of poverty alongside an increase in wealth amassed by a very small minority. What neoliberalism has failed to account for is the abuse of power that accompanies the control of media and the funding of politicians.
Money does not have a conscience, and those who act to increase their personal wealth at the expense of their neighbour will find their rationalization within neoliberalism.
Harper and his cadre of conservative ideologues share this collective denial. In these hard economic times where concern is growing about the disparity of wealth, when one in nine Canadian children live below the poverty line while fewer than 4 per cent of the households hold 67 per cent of our total financial wealth (estimated total holdings of $1.8 trillion), he is thrusting us back toward a harsh Dickensian world and hopes we will be grateful for the crumbs we receive.
Stephen Douglas, Toronto
On Jan. 1, 2012 the last of five annual corporate tax cuts took effect, reducing the federal rate by another 1.5 points to 15 per cent, now among the lowest rates in the industrialized world. This amounts to a total $2.85 billion in tax savings for the most profitable of Canadian business.
The notion that this will spur new jobs is a fallacy; tax breaks don’t benefit those businesses starting up who are not yet in a profitable position. Nor will it lead to increased capital expenditure by those business who do receive it; Stephen Harper himself was recently complaining about all the private business money “sitting on the sidelines” in Canada during these recent difficult times. His solution? Give them more.
At the same time, Harper’s government is proceeding with increases in employment insurance premiums. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, representing those small- and medium-sized businesses least likely to benefit from the new lower corporate tax rate, are protesting loudly with a 15,000 signature petition that this will, in fact, deter the hiring of any new employees. It is completely without merit, they add, as they have been overpaying into EI for years. As evidence, Employment Insurance currently has a robust surplus of $57 billion (2009-10), which our own auditor general has described as excessive.
The net effect of Harper’s New Year 2012 package is yet another transfer of several billion dollars in annual income from Canadian workers and small business to the largest of corporations, which are already reaping the highest profits. To add salt to the wound, these big players that Harper is generously rewarding are also significantly held by foreign-ownership (some estimates are that foreign ownership holds more than 50 per cent of the petroleum and gas industry shares and more than 50 per cent of all manufacturing in Canada).
Without any justification, for there is no economic analysis pointing toward any type of capital exodus out of Canada (to the contrary, we are traditionally considered a safe haven in turbulent periods), this New Year’s Day package pinches hard-earned dollars out of the pockets of low- and middle-class workers and pads the war chest of corporations and the wallets of their shareholders, among whom disproportionately are the wealthy, the elite and the foreign financiers.
For the last 25 years in the U.S. and Canada — under both Conservative and Liberal administrations — economic policy has been dominated by the economic philosophy of neoliberalism, emphasizing the primacy of market competition while vilifying government intervention and regulation of markets. Neoliberals insist that price adjustments ensure full employment.
In contrast, to quote Thomas Palley, what we have witnessed has seen “a slip between the cup and the lip” as the wealthiest have concentrated their power; a fall in real wages, the undermining of unions and the erosion of workers’ rights, and growing problems of poverty alongside an increase in wealth amassed by a very small minority. What neoliberalism has failed to account for is the abuse of power that accompanies the control of media and the funding of politicians.
Money does not have a conscience, and those who act to increase their personal wealth at the expense of their neighbour will find their rationalization within neoliberalism.
Harper and his cadre of conservative ideologues share this collective denial. In these hard economic times where concern is growing about the disparity of wealth, when one in nine Canadian children live below the poverty line while fewer than 4 per cent of the households hold 67 per cent of our total financial wealth (estimated total holdings of $1.8 trillion), he is thrusting us back toward a harsh Dickensian world and hopes we will be grateful for the crumbs we receive.
Stephen Douglas, Toronto
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Harper To U.N: Call Us When You Have Another War, But Mind Your Own Business Otherwise
In what is emerging as a clear pattern with the Harper government, or, as I like to call them, Canada's national embarrassment, master puppeteer Harper has essentially told the United Nations to mind its own business about our domestic matters, especially when it comes to the third-world conditions on our Indian reserves.
As reported by The Star's Thomas Walkom,
James Anaya, the UN’s special rapporteur on indigenous peoples ... states the obvious — that conditions at Attawapiskat and many other native communities are “dire.” He expresses the UN’s concern, which is his job. And he asks the Conservative government to comment.
The response of 'our' government could be succinctly, if a bit crudely, summed up as 'the one-finger salute', a figurative gesture that Harper has become quite practiced with, given his disdain for all opinions that differ from his own 'enlightened' view of the world.
I don't pretend to know the solution to the disaster that is so many of our reserves. I do know, however, that ignoring criticism hardly constitutes a constructive path to a solution.
As reported by The Star's Thomas Walkom,
James Anaya, the UN’s special rapporteur on indigenous peoples ... states the obvious — that conditions at Attawapiskat and many other native communities are “dire.” He expresses the UN’s concern, which is his job. And he asks the Conservative government to comment.
The response of 'our' government could be succinctly, if a bit crudely, summed up as 'the one-finger salute', a figurative gesture that Harper has become quite practiced with, given his disdain for all opinions that differ from his own 'enlightened' view of the world.
I don't pretend to know the solution to the disaster that is so many of our reserves. I do know, however, that ignoring criticism hardly constitutes a constructive path to a solution.
Friday, November 11, 2011
A Blow Against Public Morality
Despite the conviction of the Conservative Party of Canada for the illegal financing of its 2006 campaign that brought it to power, a blow has been struck against, not for, public morality.
As reported in The Star, the sophisticated in-and-out scheme, masterminded by the likes of now-Senator Doug Findley, saw the Conservatives shifting "national advertising money, through wire transfers into and immediately out of local riding campaign accounts, in order to claim national ad spending as local." This illegal tactic allowed the party to far exceed legal limits on campaign spending, probably a factor in its electoral victory.
The public immorality resides not just in the act, but also in the punishment, the reason for the punishment, and the spin being placed on that sanction by Conservative Party operatives.
First, the punishment - a mere $52,000 fine.
The reason for that paltry punishment, which made no effort to hold the architects of the fraud, Doug Finley and Irving Gerstein, then-party director Michael Donison, and then-chief financial officer Susan Kehoe. criminally responsible, was explained by Crown attorney Richard Roy. He suggested to Judge Célynne Dorval that it was in the “public interest” to strike the deal that withdrew charges against them. The judge agreed, saying that an expected six-month trial “would not have made any difference” even if there had been convictions because the fines amounted to the maximum penalties that could have been imposed.
Legally, what the judge said may be true, but that failure to prosecute the perpetrators of the crime allows for the following, the spin being placed on the results by the Conservative Party apparatus, who call it a “big victory.”
“Every single Conservative accused of wrongdoing has been cleared today,” said spokesman Fred DeLorey, in a written statement afterwards.
Conservative party lawyer Mark Sandler said the party’s guilty plea is only an admission of “inadvertent negligence” and not an outright or deliberate attempt to flout the law.
The hubris of the Conservatives is such that even this judicial slap on the wrist is contentious as the Conservative party and the Crown still disagree on the exact amount that was involved. The Crown says the national party failed to report $1.24 million spent, while the Conservatives admit only to $680,000.
The biggest victim in all of this sordid mess is the Canadian public, once more being shown by example that immorality and illegality aren't really immorality and illegality, as long as you remain truculent and defiant in legal defeat.
As reported in The Star, the sophisticated in-and-out scheme, masterminded by the likes of now-Senator Doug Findley, saw the Conservatives shifting "national advertising money, through wire transfers into and immediately out of local riding campaign accounts, in order to claim national ad spending as local." This illegal tactic allowed the party to far exceed legal limits on campaign spending, probably a factor in its electoral victory.
The public immorality resides not just in the act, but also in the punishment, the reason for the punishment, and the spin being placed on that sanction by Conservative Party operatives.
First, the punishment - a mere $52,000 fine.
The reason for that paltry punishment, which made no effort to hold the architects of the fraud, Doug Finley and Irving Gerstein, then-party director Michael Donison, and then-chief financial officer Susan Kehoe. criminally responsible, was explained by Crown attorney Richard Roy. He suggested to Judge Célynne Dorval that it was in the “public interest” to strike the deal that withdrew charges against them. The judge agreed, saying that an expected six-month trial “would not have made any difference” even if there had been convictions because the fines amounted to the maximum penalties that could have been imposed.
Legally, what the judge said may be true, but that failure to prosecute the perpetrators of the crime allows for the following, the spin being placed on the results by the Conservative Party apparatus, who call it a “big victory.”
“Every single Conservative accused of wrongdoing has been cleared today,” said spokesman Fred DeLorey, in a written statement afterwards.
Conservative party lawyer Mark Sandler said the party’s guilty plea is only an admission of “inadvertent negligence” and not an outright or deliberate attempt to flout the law.
The hubris of the Conservatives is such that even this judicial slap on the wrist is contentious as the Conservative party and the Crown still disagree on the exact amount that was involved. The Crown says the national party failed to report $1.24 million spent, while the Conservatives admit only to $680,000.
The biggest victim in all of this sordid mess is the Canadian public, once more being shown by example that immorality and illegality aren't really immorality and illegality, as long as you remain truculent and defiant in legal defeat.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
The Toronto G20 and the Vindication of Michael Puddy
Kafkaesque is a term loosely and regularly bandied about, usually denoting a process whereby an innocent person is subjected to unfathomable persecution/arrest. It seems an apt word to describe what Michael Puddy endured in Toronto during the G20 protests of June 2010. Not even a part of the protest, Puddy was swept up in a nightmare that saw him incarcerated for two days and charged with possession of a prohibited weapon.
Despite what was the largest mass arrest and violation of Charter Rights in Canadian history, those chiefly responsible for it, Toronto Chief Bill Blair, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper remain completely unaccountable, refusing to consider a full inquiry into it.
You can read the full story and see a video here.
Despite what was the largest mass arrest and violation of Charter Rights in Canadian history, those chiefly responsible for it, Toronto Chief Bill Blair, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper remain completely unaccountable, refusing to consider a full inquiry into it.
You can read the full story and see a video here.
Monday, September 19, 2011
The Scourge of Phantom Crime
Readers of this blog may know that I place a great deal of stock in critical thinking. Although I am sure that I stray from it on a regular basis, to be a consistent critical thinker is the ideal toward which I strive. It is therefore disheartening, though hardly surprising, that an internal memo circulated Sunday to Conservative Members of Parliament gives insight into a Harper political agenda that seems largely predicated on contempt for the electorate.
An article in today's Star entitled Crime crackdown tops Harper agenda reveals, to no one's surprise, that the Fall parliamentary session is to be dominated by law and order legislation:
While it’s not known for sure what measures will be in the legislation, they could include adult sentences for youths convicted of serious crimes, expanded surveillance powers for police, curbing house arrest for property crimes and ending pardons for serious crimes.
Not to be deterred by the fact of falling crime rates, the government has an interesting, but hardly novel way to justify its promise of more incarceration time for more Canadians, who will need to be quartered in the new prisons that will be built at a cost of over $6 billion:
"Quite simply, people are not reporting to the police that they are a victim of crime,” the memo says. “More needs to be done.”
The key word in the above excerpt is simply, which, in my view, reveals how the Harper government looks at issues, never allowing hard data to get in the way of its ideological imperatives. However, what I do resent is the assumption about the citizens of Canada implicit in such an assertion. Clearly, we are perceived as lacking either the fortitude or the intelligence to collectively challenge groundless claims about issues like phantom crime.
Time will tell whether they are correct in making that assumption.
An article in today's Star entitled Crime crackdown tops Harper agenda reveals, to no one's surprise, that the Fall parliamentary session is to be dominated by law and order legislation:
While it’s not known for sure what measures will be in the legislation, they could include adult sentences for youths convicted of serious crimes, expanded surveillance powers for police, curbing house arrest for property crimes and ending pardons for serious crimes.
Not to be deterred by the fact of falling crime rates, the government has an interesting, but hardly novel way to justify its promise of more incarceration time for more Canadians, who will need to be quartered in the new prisons that will be built at a cost of over $6 billion:
"Quite simply, people are not reporting to the police that they are a victim of crime,” the memo says. “More needs to be done.”
The key word in the above excerpt is simply, which, in my view, reveals how the Harper government looks at issues, never allowing hard data to get in the way of its ideological imperatives. However, what I do resent is the assumption about the citizens of Canada implicit in such an assertion. Clearly, we are perceived as lacking either the fortitude or the intelligence to collectively challenge groundless claims about issues like phantom crime.
Time will tell whether they are correct in making that assumption.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Is This a 'Goodbye Charlie Brown' Moment?
Those with long enough memories will recall a famous confrontation that took place in 1986 between Brian Mulroney, then just nine months into his mandate, and Solange Denis, a senior citizen defiant in her resolve to hold the Prime Minister to account.
At the time,
Mulroney [made] a controversial decision to partly de-index pensions. At a protest in Ottawa, an angry woman named Solange Denis [stared] down Mulroney and said: “You lied to us.... You made us vote for you and then goodbye Charlie Brown.”
Response: Mulroney [said] “I’m listening to you, Madame.” Indeed he was. Barely a week later, Mulroney’s government backed down on the plan to de-index pensions.
I'm wondering if we are not reaching another 'Charlie Brown' moment in the case of Michaela Keyserlingk who, as has been widely reported, is being told by The Conservative Party of Canada to stop using its logo in an advertising banner calling on Mr. Harper and his government to stop the deadly export of asbestos.
Like Solange Denis, Ms Keyserlingk is defiant as she confronts power, refusing to stop using the logo even though she admits she is doing so illegally. I suspect a moral victory is in the offing, and a column by Tim Harper in today's Star implies a costly price will be paid by the Conservatives if they seek legal remedy against this still-grieving widow. I hope you will get a chance to check out Harper's column.
Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.
At the time,
Mulroney [made] a controversial decision to partly de-index pensions. At a protest in Ottawa, an angry woman named Solange Denis [stared] down Mulroney and said: “You lied to us.... You made us vote for you and then goodbye Charlie Brown.”
Response: Mulroney [said] “I’m listening to you, Madame.” Indeed he was. Barely a week later, Mulroney’s government backed down on the plan to de-index pensions.
I'm wondering if we are not reaching another 'Charlie Brown' moment in the case of Michaela Keyserlingk who, as has been widely reported, is being told by The Conservative Party of Canada to stop using its logo in an advertising banner calling on Mr. Harper and his government to stop the deadly export of asbestos.
Like Solange Denis, Ms Keyserlingk is defiant as she confronts power, refusing to stop using the logo even though she admits she is doing so illegally. I suspect a moral victory is in the offing, and a column by Tim Harper in today's Star implies a costly price will be paid by the Conservatives if they seek legal remedy against this still-grieving widow. I hope you will get a chance to check out Harper's column.
Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Vindication For Those Abused By G20 Police Forces
The vast majority of the 1100 people abused, assaulted and arrested as a result of the thuggish actions of the G20 police forces, apparently intent on suppressing Canadians' Charter Rights last June in Toronto, must be feeling a deep measure of vindication today, this despite the fact that Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair have never acknowledged that anything wrong transpired and, of course, have blocked any attempts to hold an inquiry to begin to heal the damage done to our democratic traditions and our trust in the police.
The Toronto Star headline, Aggression during G20 rally ‘perpetrated by police,’ judge rules speaks a truth long evident to those who were either present at the demonstrations or saw a wealth of video evidence depicting an out-of control constabulary wilfully suppressing our democratic right to protest last year in Ontario's capital.
Justice Melvyn Green made his comments after dismissing the charges against a 32-year-old bricklayer from London, Ontario, Michael Puddy, whose only 'crime' seems to have been wearing a T-shirt that offended police sensibilities, leading to his being arrested and charged with obstructing police, concealing a weapon and possession of a prohibited weapon, a pocket knife that he uses in his trade.
As reported in the Star,
The London, Ont. bricklayer was on his way to a concert downtown when he joined the front line of the late-night Saturday rally. Puddy was wearing a “Police Bastard” T-shirt named after a punk band, when he was pushed to the ground and cuffed.
Puddy was shuffled from officer to officer and eventually transported to the temporary Prisoner Processing Unit on Eastern Ave. He spent two days behind bars and was forced to sleep on a concrete floor and use a toilet without a door before he was released on $25,000 bail.
Justice Green made the following comment which, to me, reflects the most serious implications of the unwarranted police actions:
“The zealous exercise of police arrest powers in the context of political demonstrations risks distorting the necessary if delicate balance between law enforcement concerns for public safety and order, on the one hand, and individual rights and freedoms, on the other.”
How do we calculate the true cost of police actions that one normally associates with non-democratic states? How many people, for example, will choose to never (again) take part in a public demonstration or otherwise stand up for their beliefs because of what happened in Toronto?
Even if it is only one person, the cost of the G20 will still have been too high.
The Toronto Star headline, Aggression during G20 rally ‘perpetrated by police,’ judge rules speaks a truth long evident to those who were either present at the demonstrations or saw a wealth of video evidence depicting an out-of control constabulary wilfully suppressing our democratic right to protest last year in Ontario's capital.
Justice Melvyn Green made his comments after dismissing the charges against a 32-year-old bricklayer from London, Ontario, Michael Puddy, whose only 'crime' seems to have been wearing a T-shirt that offended police sensibilities, leading to his being arrested and charged with obstructing police, concealing a weapon and possession of a prohibited weapon, a pocket knife that he uses in his trade.
As reported in the Star,
The London, Ont. bricklayer was on his way to a concert downtown when he joined the front line of the late-night Saturday rally. Puddy was wearing a “Police Bastard” T-shirt named after a punk band, when he was pushed to the ground and cuffed.
Puddy was shuffled from officer to officer and eventually transported to the temporary Prisoner Processing Unit on Eastern Ave. He spent two days behind bars and was forced to sleep on a concrete floor and use a toilet without a door before he was released on $25,000 bail.
Justice Green made the following comment which, to me, reflects the most serious implications of the unwarranted police actions:
“The zealous exercise of police arrest powers in the context of political demonstrations risks distorting the necessary if delicate balance between law enforcement concerns for public safety and order, on the one hand, and individual rights and freedoms, on the other.”
How do we calculate the true cost of police actions that one normally associates with non-democratic states? How many people, for example, will choose to never (again) take part in a public demonstration or otherwise stand up for their beliefs because of what happened in Toronto?
Even if it is only one person, the cost of the G20 will still have been too high.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Revelations Of Further Charter Rights' Violation At G20 Summit
In what has become almost a routine posting to my blog, the Toronto Star has revealed yet another violation of rights arising from last year's federally and provincially supported G20 Summit. An article entitled Police wrong to question man with crossbow near G20 fence, judge rules, a few quotes will be enough, I hope, to persuade readers to peruse the article:
“The law makes clear that an investigative detention of that kind gives rise to a right to counsel,” provincial court Justice David Fairgrieve said Wednesday.
The judge also agreed with defence criticisms of Toronto police for continually denying McCullough’s rights to counsel while he was held at the Eastern Ave. detention centre for G20 detainees.
Just a timely reminder to all of us before we cast our vote in the Ontario election to carefully consider which political leaders have told us an inquiry is not necessary into what was the biggest breach of Charter Rights in Canadian history. No amount of political posturing diminishing its significance can alter the truth.
“The law makes clear that an investigative detention of that kind gives rise to a right to counsel,” provincial court Justice David Fairgrieve said Wednesday.
The judge also agreed with defence criticisms of Toronto police for continually denying McCullough’s rights to counsel while he was held at the Eastern Ave. detention centre for G20 detainees.
Just a timely reminder to all of us before we cast our vote in the Ontario election to carefully consider which political leaders have told us an inquiry is not necessary into what was the biggest breach of Charter Rights in Canadian history. No amount of political posturing diminishing its significance can alter the truth.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
the Real News Asks Some Important Questions About The G20 Secret Law
Although hardly the best interview I have seen, the following is worth viewing inasmuch it raises real questions about credibility regarding who the driving force was behind requesting the Public Works Protection Act invoked during the G20 Summit. Was Bill Blair acting on his own initiative, or was it at the behest of the RCMP? Just one of the many questions that only a public inquiry can answer, an inquiry that both Dalton McGuinty and Stephen Harper are steadfast in their refusal to call.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Banishing The Dark Spirits
By attending the advance poll, we did our part yesterday in what one hopes will be the beginning of a collective exorcism to banish the dark spirit of Stephen Harper and his acolytes from the political landscape.
By media reports I have read, turnout was strong, with some lineups lasting well over an hour. We voted in the late afternoon, completing the process in under 10 minutes, but were told that earlier in the day the lineups were out the door.
This early sign perhaps suggests that people are not so willing to accept the dark prince's contention that this is an unnecessary election.
By media reports I have read, turnout was strong, with some lineups lasting well over an hour. We voted in the late afternoon, completing the process in under 10 minutes, but were told that earlier in the day the lineups were out the door.
This early sign perhaps suggests that people are not so willing to accept the dark prince's contention that this is an unnecessary election.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Harper's Uncanny Ability to Maintain his Political Fortunes
In reading Lawrence Martin's Harperland, I was struck by how many times Prime Minister Harper and his operatives have had their political skins saved, not just by their own Machiavellian machinations, but by external events.
Take, for example, Harper's first unnecessary prorogation of Parliament in order to avoid a confidence vote that would have surely toppled his government. Having badly miscalculated the political opposition to ending public subsidies for all parties, a measure he included in Finance Minister Jim Flarherty's 2008 economic update, he faced the prospect of a coalition of the Liberals and the NDP, with a promise of support for at least 18 months from the Bloc Quebecois, to form a new government after a confidence vote in the House. According to Martin, Harper was ready to concede defeat having made a rare but huge tactical error. But fate intervened to save him.
Although not part of the coalition, the Bloc Quebecois leader, Giles Duceppe, was invited by Dion and Layton to take part in a public signing to demonstrate their ability to work together and thus form a replacement government without an election, something quite constitutionally legitimate. However, the inclusion of Duceppe gave Harper the opening he needed, whereby he went on a campaign to denounce this unholy alliance with 'separatists' as an attempt to 'highjack democracy.'
Harper was successful in his propaganda blitz and the rest, as they say, is history. His visit to Governor General Michelle Jean secured him the intended result: a prorogation of Parliament, during which the idea of a coalition lost its momentum, largely due to the public outrage against it that Harper had fuelled.
Similarly, in 2010, to avoid a showdown in Parliament over his refusal to turn over Afghan detainee documents that many believe would have shown that his Goverment had known that those Afghans turned over to the authorities by the Canadian military faced torture, he once more prorogued Parliament, this time on the pretext of 'recalibrating' his Government's agenda. Initially, this backfired on the Prime Minister, as Canadians expressed their outrage through protests, Facebook petitions, etc. But then two things happened: the devastating earthquake in Haiti, and the opening of the Winter Olympics in B.C. The ensuing public diversion of attention allowed the Harper regime to dodge another bullet.
There are numerous other examples in the book, but what does all of this suggest? That Harper is capable of using any opportunity for political benefit, which leads me to predict the following:
Given that he has already used the terrible recent tragedy in Japan to suggest now is not the time for an election, there is little doubt in my mind that he will use Canada's entry into the Libyan conflict to do two things. He will again suggest that a time of war, as he has called it, is not the time for political games by the opposition parties in trying to engineer an election; experienced and stable leadership in paramount in these perilous times. Also, he will take the opportunity to talk about how this sudden incursion into Libya demonstrates the need for up-to-the-date military aircraft, and so his Government's decision to spend untold billions on the 65 F-35 jets is yet another example of his wise and prescient leadership.
Once more, external events will likely save this Prime Minister's hide.
Take, for example, Harper's first unnecessary prorogation of Parliament in order to avoid a confidence vote that would have surely toppled his government. Having badly miscalculated the political opposition to ending public subsidies for all parties, a measure he included in Finance Minister Jim Flarherty's 2008 economic update, he faced the prospect of a coalition of the Liberals and the NDP, with a promise of support for at least 18 months from the Bloc Quebecois, to form a new government after a confidence vote in the House. According to Martin, Harper was ready to concede defeat having made a rare but huge tactical error. But fate intervened to save him.
Although not part of the coalition, the Bloc Quebecois leader, Giles Duceppe, was invited by Dion and Layton to take part in a public signing to demonstrate their ability to work together and thus form a replacement government without an election, something quite constitutionally legitimate. However, the inclusion of Duceppe gave Harper the opening he needed, whereby he went on a campaign to denounce this unholy alliance with 'separatists' as an attempt to 'highjack democracy.'
Harper was successful in his propaganda blitz and the rest, as they say, is history. His visit to Governor General Michelle Jean secured him the intended result: a prorogation of Parliament, during which the idea of a coalition lost its momentum, largely due to the public outrage against it that Harper had fuelled.
Similarly, in 2010, to avoid a showdown in Parliament over his refusal to turn over Afghan detainee documents that many believe would have shown that his Goverment had known that those Afghans turned over to the authorities by the Canadian military faced torture, he once more prorogued Parliament, this time on the pretext of 'recalibrating' his Government's agenda. Initially, this backfired on the Prime Minister, as Canadians expressed their outrage through protests, Facebook petitions, etc. But then two things happened: the devastating earthquake in Haiti, and the opening of the Winter Olympics in B.C. The ensuing public diversion of attention allowed the Harper regime to dodge another bullet.
There are numerous other examples in the book, but what does all of this suggest? That Harper is capable of using any opportunity for political benefit, which leads me to predict the following:
Given that he has already used the terrible recent tragedy in Japan to suggest now is not the time for an election, there is little doubt in my mind that he will use Canada's entry into the Libyan conflict to do two things. He will again suggest that a time of war, as he has called it, is not the time for political games by the opposition parties in trying to engineer an election; experienced and stable leadership in paramount in these perilous times. Also, he will take the opportunity to talk about how this sudden incursion into Libya demonstrates the need for up-to-the-date military aircraft, and so his Government's decision to spend untold billions on the 65 F-35 jets is yet another example of his wise and prescient leadership.
Once more, external events will likely save this Prime Minister's hide.
Friday, March 18, 2011
The Dark Shadow of Stephen Harper
The dark presence of Stephen Harper loomed heavily today during the Parliamentary Committee hearing into whether International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda should be held in contempt of Parliament for her earlier misleading and evasive answers regarding her department's defunding of KAIROS.
While the evaluation of her testimony will undoubtedly split along party lines, her 'answers' to the Committee's questions, in which she frequently simply proclaimed her probity, had all of the earmarks of a carefully scripted and carefully rehearsed performance, doubtlessly orchestrated by the Prime Minister's minions (a.k.a. The PMO). Her inability or unwillingness to answer questions with either a 'yes' or a 'no' without very animated prompting by M.P. Pat Martin bespoke the evasiveness of someone with something to hide. While watching this performance, I was reminded of all the evidence Lawrence Martin brings forth in Harperland that nothing happens in the Harper Regime without the explicit approval of Mr. Harper or his operatives.
Let the spin begin.
While the evaluation of her testimony will undoubtedly split along party lines, her 'answers' to the Committee's questions, in which she frequently simply proclaimed her probity, had all of the earmarks of a carefully scripted and carefully rehearsed performance, doubtlessly orchestrated by the Prime Minister's minions (a.k.a. The PMO). Her inability or unwillingness to answer questions with either a 'yes' or a 'no' without very animated prompting by M.P. Pat Martin bespoke the evasiveness of someone with something to hide. While watching this performance, I was reminded of all the evidence Lawrence Martin brings forth in Harperland that nothing happens in the Harper Regime without the explicit approval of Mr. Harper or his operatives.
Let the spin begin.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Ethical Politicians – A Contemporary Oxymoron
While I know that I am hardly alone in harbouring a deep cynicism about almost all politicians, sometimes their lack of moral fibre is made apparent, not by way of spectacular revelations, as in the Liberal sponsorship scandal or the sordid Mulroney-Schreiber affair, but in much more subtle ways, such as the personal choices they make.
This occurred to me last evening while I continued to digest in small amounts, as mentioned in a previous post, Lawence Martin's Harperland. The passage pertained to the televised debate in 2008 between Harper, Dion, Duceppe and Elizabeth May. The rules stipulated that participants could not bring notes for the exchange, although they were permitted to write down notes during the debate. During both the French and English debates, Green Party leader May, seated beside Harper, noticed the Prime Minister, below table level (doesn't that bring back memories of less than apt high schoolers?) using 'cheat sheets,' describing them as “small index cards with reprinted font all over them.” Because she lacked the confidence to confront Harper, she said nothing.
After stepping down as Harper's communication director, the sometimes ethically-challenged Kory Teneycke, in reference to the cheating, responded with the kind of misdirection we've come to expect from the Conservatives: ”...who cares? ...She's just lucky she was in the room.... The process was poorly served by her presence.”
Both Harper's dishonest behaviour and Tenecke's dismissal of its significance reveal much about the kind of government operated by the Harper regime.
This occurred to me last evening while I continued to digest in small amounts, as mentioned in a previous post, Lawence Martin's Harperland. The passage pertained to the televised debate in 2008 between Harper, Dion, Duceppe and Elizabeth May. The rules stipulated that participants could not bring notes for the exchange, although they were permitted to write down notes during the debate. During both the French and English debates, Green Party leader May, seated beside Harper, noticed the Prime Minister, below table level (doesn't that bring back memories of less than apt high schoolers?) using 'cheat sheets,' describing them as “small index cards with reprinted font all over them.” Because she lacked the confidence to confront Harper, she said nothing.
After stepping down as Harper's communication director, the sometimes ethically-challenged Kory Teneycke, in reference to the cheating, responded with the kind of misdirection we've come to expect from the Conservatives: ”...who cares? ...She's just lucky she was in the room.... The process was poorly served by her presence.”
Both Harper's dishonest behaviour and Tenecke's dismissal of its significance reveal much about the kind of government operated by the Harper regime.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
A Refresher Course in Harper's Disdain for Democracy
I am currently reading Lawrence Martin's book Harperland, which anecdotally confirms some of our worst fears and suspicions about Stephen Harper and the Harper Government (see, even I've taken to referring to our government that way), and even though I no longer subscribe to The Globe and Mail, I do check it regularly for columns by Martin.
Today's piece, entitled On the road to the Harper government's tipping point, is a reminder of the myriad abuses of democracy that the Prime Minister is responsible for. At a time when many of us despair of the possibility of any change in the next federal election, it is useful to remember that the fate of our democratic traditions and institutions ultimately does reside in our hands, no matter how much the government seeks to undermine those traditions and institutions.
Today's piece, entitled On the road to the Harper government's tipping point, is a reminder of the myriad abuses of democracy that the Prime Minister is responsible for. At a time when many of us despair of the possibility of any change in the next federal election, it is useful to remember that the fate of our democratic traditions and institutions ultimately does reside in our hands, no matter how much the government seeks to undermine those traditions and institutions.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Harper's Orwellian Use of Language
One of the greatest pleasures I derived as a teacher was doing a unit on language as part of the Grade 12 English course that I regularly taught. At the beginning of that unit, we read George Orwell's seminal essay, Politics and the English Language, which offered a trenchant, if at times challenging analysis of how language can be used to curb freedom and undermine free and critical thought. It was a theme that later formed the basis of his most popular novel, 1984.
After further study which included exploring fallacies of logic, I would give students an assignment requiring them to analyze the misuse of language and logic in our society today, which invariably led them to look at the pronouncements our politicians make. I was reminded of those times yesterday morning as I read Heather Mallick's amusing yet perceptive column in The Toronto Star on the Harper Government's manipulation of language. I would encourage everyone to read it.
After further study which included exploring fallacies of logic, I would give students an assignment requiring them to analyze the misuse of language and logic in our society today, which invariably led them to look at the pronouncements our politicians make. I was reminded of those times yesterday morning as I read Heather Mallick's amusing yet perceptive column in The Toronto Star on the Harper Government's manipulation of language. I would encourage everyone to read it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)