Some Much Deserved Mockery

Enjoy:

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.

Has Mr. Harper's Niqab's Misdirection Worked?

You decide.


H/t Michael Nabert

Meanwhile, Bruce Anderson wonders about the implications for our democracy in Mr. Harper's pontifications on what women should and should not wear.

Stephen Harper says covering your face is concealing, not expressing, a “Canadian” identity. He didn’t argue that it was a security threat. He was saying that if this is how you express your personal values, it’s not Canadian enough for his tastes.

Initially his comments were focused on the citizenship ceremony. But he has since wandered further, hazardously afield.

The problem, he says, is that the practice of wearing a niqab is rooted in a culture that is “anti-women.” He appeared to be generalizing about the Muslim faith. His reference was not specific to the Taliban or the Islamic State, or any radical faction.

His point was that those who cover their faces are not making a choice of their own free will – but are victims of subjugation.

You don’t have to be a Muslim to wonder if this line of commentary from a Prime Minister is a healthy development in our democracy.

I Start To Worry

This is, I believe, the second time in recent weeks that I have agreed with Rex Murphy. You see my problem.

About The "Harper Gestapo Act" And Other Prime Ministerial Fear Mongering

I would feel much more hopeful about October's election if I believed this kind of critical thinking were common among our fellow citizens:

Re: Tory rhetoric defies belief, Editorial March 12
Re: Terror a diversionary tactic, Letter March 12

As a Canadian-born Jew I am offended at Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney’s use of the Holocaust to justify his government’s draconian and vicious terror legislation, Bill C-51.
The roots of the Holocaust are to be found in the German government’s manipulation of hatred and fear of an ethic and religious minority that was seen by the government as a threat to the nation’s economic well-being and to the cultural and ethical values of the German people.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government are using words — not only in the media, but in the very laws of Canada — to attack members of a religious minority.
The government’s rhetoric for writing and then defending Bill C-51 by its constant referral to jihadists and now to the Holocaust reeks of the crematoriums and echoes of jackboots smashing a human face.

Howard Tessler, Toronto

Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney has it backwards. The Holocaust was started by casting dispersions on an ethnic minority and blaming them for all the problems in the country and if only they were pure like us we wouldn’t have to rid the country of them; and eventually the world. The propaganda of hate came first and then the Holocaust.

Allan McPherson, Newmarket

Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney is right in his assertion that the Holocaust began with words. However, it began with the Nazi government’s words, with a propaganda campaign of lies about “the threat from within” to the German nation from Jews and other minorities.

Once it had unleashed a torrent of words to divide a fearful nation, it passed legislation that day by day stripped German citizens of basic freedoms, including the right to free speech and equal protection under the law.

When our government resorts to this kind of false analogy in order to promote its proposed security legislation, we have reason to question not only the legislation itself, but also the very assumptions on which these proposals are based.

Let no Canadian be misled by the old bromide: “It can’t happen here.”

Rabbi Arthur Bielfeld, Toronto

I think that it should be called the “Harper Gestapo Act,” because that’s what it simply is.

G. Burns, Oshawa

Harper To Muslims: Prove You Are With Us

That certainly is the implication given the tone that Diane Ablonczy takes with National Council of Canadian Muslims executive director Ihsaan Gardee during hearings on Bill C-51. As you will see, however, the latter eloquently and quite effectively denounces the spirit of McCarthyism behind Ablonczy's question:

Meanwhile, On the Back Nine

When this happens, do you still have to yell "Fore'?

Philip Junop Has An Important Message

If we truly love our country, it is one we all should heed:

Life in Canada has been good to me as I approach my 60th birthday. A loving and carefree childhood in scenic, small town Ontario, a good education that led to a steady, decent paying job and a happy, healthy family I am forever grateful for, are some of the realities responsible for my contentment.

Yet, the one ingredient in my life that has been a constant source of pride and delight is that I am Canadian, living in what I consider to be the greatest country in the world. That was until Stephen Harper came along to obliterate that notion.

Paying a little less in taxes every year as we watch our beloved country slide deeper into a Harper-greased pit of Conservative-style totalitarianism is simply not acceptable.

If you have even a trace of the same sadness in your heart and fear in the pit of your stomach for Canada that I do, this coming election will be the most important you will ever vote in.

Philip Junop, Newmarket

UPDATED: The Latest Example Of Tory Contempt For The Electorate

This is the 'poll' Conservative MP Lawrence Toet is sending out to his Winnipeg constituents:

Federal NDP leader Tom Mulcair said on Wednesday the survey reflects a viewpoint pervasive in Conservative circles.

“It's the same approach as Stephen Harper. It's the same approach as Vic Toews, you know: ‘You're with us or against us; you can stand with us or stand with the pedophiles,’" he said.

“It's the same ludicrous divisive approach that the Conservatives have been taking for years. Canadians deserve better."

For me, what is most noteworthy here is what the tactic says about a government that thinks it can so egregiously, shamelessly and crassly manipulate the public.

UPDATE: It seems many Canadians are outraged, if their reddit mockery of Toet's mailout is any indication. Here are a couple of their suggested poll themes:

Do you believe the Keystone pipeline is in Canada's best interests?

Yes! It will create thousands of jobs.
No! I am an environmental terrorist and should be put in prison.
SkullBat

Will you be voting for Stephen Harper next election?

Yes, I want Canadians to be safe.
No, I like ISIS.

Are you: A) Conservative? B) Wrong?

Mary Walsh Shreds Stephen Harper

Really. Literally. But enquiring Conservative minds (if that is not a contradiction in terms) will want to know if she qualifies as a terrorist under Bill C-51:

If Only Our Politicians Felt This Sense Of Shame

Perhaps it's time to send Pamela Wallin and Diane Finley to obedience school?

Human Rights And The Politics Of Fear

When Alex Neve, longtime Secretary General of the Canadian branch of Amnesty International, speaks, people should listen. He and his organization have now weighed in on Bill C-51, the 'anti-terror' bill being promoted with such relish by Stephen Harper and his acolytes. It is a bill, Neve and many others contend, that will seriously erode human rights and freedoms in the name of national security. Its powers will far exceed anything necessary.

Neve's position is best summed up this way:

Human rights do not stand in the way of security that is universal, durable and inclusive. Human rights are in fact the very key.

And it is these human rights that are being most seriously compromised by the terms of the bill.

In C-51 we are faced with a set of brand new and significantly revised national security laws that could undermine human rights more insidiously than at any time since the October 1970 invocation of the War Measures Act.

Among Amnesty's many concerns:

- Bill C-51 authorizes Federal Court judges to approve, in secret hearings, CSIS threat-reduction activities that would violate the Charter of Rights

- [T]hese threat-reduction powers can be carried out anywhere in the world. If outside Canada, the bill instructs judges simply to disregard foreign laws when issuing warrants.

- The bill does not specify what CSIS agents are allowed to do in the name of reducing security threats (notably the definition of threats goes far beyond terrorism to include protests and blockades that are not considered lawful).

- We do know that CSIS agents can’t kill, commit bodily harm, pervert justice or violate sexual integrity. That is reassuring, one supposes. But what of all the human rights violations that aren’t on that no-go list?

When added to all the other warnings sounded about this insidious legislation, it is clear that there is much to be concerned about here. Yet, as with all such dissenting views, expect Stephen Harper to treat Neve's concerns with disdainful dismissal.

For the sake of our basic rights and freedoms, it is an attitude the rest of us can ill afford to embrace.

But Can He Heal Himself?

That well-known metaphysician to the fundamentalist Christian soul, 'Doctor' Pat Robertson, prescribes some strong medicine to combat an infectious workplace agent:

If You Had Any Doubts About The RCMP...

Look no further for confirmation of the federal force's politicization than a piece written by that 'environmental extremist' David Suzuki in the Chronicle Herald.

In the article, Suzuki makes reference to the secret RCMP report, obtained by Greenpeace, that

both minimizes the threat of global warming and conjures a spectre of threats posed by people who rightly call for sanity in dealing with problems caused by burning fossil fuels.

The report echoes the kind of fraught language of Bill C-51, which many allege will intrude upon legitimate dissent, given its own worrisome authorization of CSIS

to prevent any person or group from “undermining the security of Canada,” including “interference with critical infrastructure” and the “economic or financial stability of Canada.”

Note the language of the RCMP report (I have italicized key words):

The RCMP report specifically names Greenpeace, Tides Canada and the Sierra Club as part of “a growing, highly organized and well-financed anti-Canada petroleum movement that consists of peaceful activists, militants and violent extremists who are opposed to society’s reliance on fossil fuels.” The report downplays climate change, calling it a “perceived environmental threat” and saying members of the “international anti-Canadian petroleum movement claim that climate change is now the most serious global environmental threat and that climate change is a direct consequence of elevated anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions which, reportedly, are directly linked to the continued use of fossil fuels.” It also makes numerous references to anti-petroleum and indigenous “extremists”.

One can legitimately ask whether the obvious editorializing in the report is appropriate. As well, one can wonder whether it is mere coincidence that its language of doubt echoes the obdurate climate-change skepticism of the Harper government.

Language in the RCMP report and Bill C-51 leaves open the possibility that the act and increased police and CSIS powers could be used against First Nations and environmentalists engaging in non-violent protests against pipelines or other environmentally destructive projects.

As University of Ottawa law professor Craig Forcese points out, with its reference to “foreign-influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada,” the anti-terrorism law could be used in the case of a “foreign environmental foundation funding a Canadian environmental group’s secret efforts to plan a protest (done without proper permits) in opposition to the Keystone Pipeline Project.” Considering that government ministers have already characterized anti-pipeline protesters as “foreign-funded radicals”, that’s not a stretch. The RCMP could consider my strong support for greenhouse gas emissions reductions and renewable energy as “anti-petroleum”.

None of this is really either shocking or new to those of us who have followed the machinations of the Harper regime over the years. Harper's intolerance of dissenting views, his contempt for democratic principles, and his 'narrowcasting' of policy are all of a piece with the provisions of Bill C-51 and are amply reflected in the doctrinal orientation of our national police force.

We only have one more chance to put Canada on a more balanced keel, and that chance comes in October.

We Have The Technology

Outside of politics, my other passion is the environment, something we continue to degrade at unprecedented rates. The biggest threat to humanity's future, of course, is climate change. While the vested interests would have us all believe that there are no practical or large-scale alternatives to our fossil fuel addiction, incrementally we are reaching the stage where it is possible to drastically reduce our carbon emissions if we have the will. Here is one such story:

Normally, landfill sites and paper mills are targets for environmental groups but things are different, in Thorold.
“We really got into it because of odour control. Obviously don’t want to annoy our neighbours any more than we need to” says Mike Watt from Walker Environmental Group. And so what they got into instead was green energy. The huge landfill site generates hundreds of thousands of tons of natural methane gas each year, from decomposing garbage. Almost half of that methane is carbon dioxide – greenhouse gas, that used to go into the environment. Now, a large portion of it, goes into a pipeline instead. “If you eliminated 79 -80 thousand cars that would have the same impact as this project has, so it’s a pretty big impact.” says Mr. Watt

You can watch the video by clicking here.

It Could Happen To You

Although the narration is at times melodramatic, the message of this video is clear: trusting government to respect your privacy is a naive notion.


H/t Occupy Canada and Operation Maple

Rick Mercer On That Fear Thing

Our National Treasure nails it yet again:




And for additional biting commentary, be sure to check out Alison's latest at Creekside.

It's Official: Trying To Protect Your Privacy Can Lead To Criminal Charges

Are Canadians really okay with this?

A Quebec man charged with obstructing border officials by refusing to give up his smartphone password says he will fight the charge.

The case has raised a new legal question in Canada, a law professor says.

Alain Philippon, 38, of Ste-Anne-des-Plaines, Que., refused to divulge his cellphone password to Canada Border Services Agency during a customs search Monday night at Halifax Stanfield International Airport.

Philippon had arrived in Halifax on a flight from Puerto Plata in the Dominican Republic. He's been charged under section 153.1 (b) of the Customs Act for hindering or preventing border officers from performing their role under the act.

According to the CBSA, the minimum fine for the offence is $1,000, with a maximum fine of $25,000 and the possibility of a year in jail.

And the most chilling aspect of this, perhaps, is that it is entirely unrelated to the massive abrogation of privacy and citizen rights that Bill C-51 will make possible.

UPDATED: A Comforting Illusion Shattered

When it comes to massive intrusions by the state, the kind reflected in legislation like Bill C-51, people frequently rationalize their acceptance and passivity by this comforting fiction: "I don't have anything to hide; I'm not a terrorist, so why should I worry?"

A story of one family's unpleasant experience may prove instructional in challenging that complacence.

Firas Al-Rawi, an emergency room doctor at Toronto General Hospital, said he booked the Family Day holiday trip [to Disney World] in early December so his wife and children could join him at a professional conference in Orlando that week. The family had taken numerous trips to the United States by air and car without incident.

"My kids were so excited, and they were counting down the days for the trip,” said Al-Rawi, 48, an Iraqi who immigrated to Canada with his family in 2006 via Qatar, where he and his wife, Asmaa Ahmed, both worked as physicians. They and their children are all citizens who hold Canadian passports.

Alas, the trip was not to be:

The Al-Rawis became part of the 330 or more travellers a day who are refused entry to the United States under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, which gives border officials the right to refuse admission of non-Americans — including Canadian citizens.

The apparent grounds for their inadmissibility appears to be that they are Muslims:

According to the National Council of Canadian Muslims, 14 per cent of the 182 human rights complaints it received between 2011 and 2013 involved travel restrictions to the U.S.

After being fingerprinted and photographed at the check-in counter, Al-Rawi said, they were asked to go for a secondary inspection.

As his family waited in a public area, Al-Rawi said he was questioned about the purpose of his visit, his employment and his family trips in 2014 to Qatar and Dubai.

“We didn’t really mind if it was a random check, given the typical screening with what’s happening with ISIS (the terrorist Islamic State group). We had nothing to hide,” he said. “But we were not prepared for the rest of it. We were stressed, not knowing what was going on.”

After a 10-minute interview, Al-Rawi said he and his family were fingerprinted and photographed again before uniformed officers came to inspect their suitcases.

During the inspection, the family said, their electronics — one iPhone, two MacBooks and three iPads — were confiscated, and they were ordered to provide passwords so officials could unlock the devices.

The reason given to the family for refusal was that U.S. officials did not think they would return to Canada, despite the fact that Al-Rawi spent more than five years working to earn an Ontario medical licence and restart his stalled practice in Canada.

Of course, entry to another country is not an automatic right, but the fact that the refusal amounts to a denial of natural justice is disconcerting:

United States Customs and Border Protection refused to comment on the Al-Rawi incident, but said travellers are responsible for proving their innocence.

Think about that - guilty unless proven innocent.

So what does any of this have to do with legislation that curtails one's civil liberties? It is, I suspect, a peek at what may be ahead for anyone who takes his or her citizenship responsibilities seriously and holds to them tenaciously, despite the kind of conformity that Bill C-51 will promote.

Of course, there will be other comforting illusions we can fall back on to discount the experiences of the Al-Rawi family: I'm a citizen (but isn't the entire Al-Rawi family as well?), I'm not a Muslim (Should that be a barrier?) I don't have a foreign-sounding name (Congrats! You won the birth lottery there).

But how long will it be before we have to come up with additional disclaimers, such as I have never joined an environmental protest, I have never stood up for any cause, I have never written a letter of criticism of my government, etc. etc.

Congratulations, Unknown Citizen, for living what will have been a wholly unexamined life.

UPDATE: if you think Canadian Border Services is more respectful of privacy, think again and click here.

A Little Perspective, Please

Are we losing all perspective on the threats posed by terrorism? While there is no doubt that all perils to public safety need to be taken seriously (yes, even those posed by pipeline ruptures that Enbridge seems to treat as state secrets), one cannot escape the conclusion that the Harper regime sees it in their best electoral interests to convince us that we cannot go about our daily lives without a massive surrending of freedoms, à la Bill C-51.

Edward Snowden, the NSA contractor who leaked classified information, suggests we need to get a little perspective.

In an online chat with Ryerson students yesterday, he had this to say about the Harper bill:

The former National Security Agency employee said only Canadians can decide on whether C-51 is a good or bad bill, but “Canadian intelligence has one of the weakest oversight frameworks out of any western intelligence agency.”

In Canada, terrorism kills fewer people than lightning strikes and it is extraordinarily rare, Snowden said.

“No matter what we do, no matter what laws we pass, we cannot throw away all of our rights, all of our liberties, all of our traditional freedoms because we are afraid of rare instances of criminal activity,” he said.

Snowden sees Canada going down the same pernicious route as the United States, asserting that C-51 is

just like the U.S. Patriot Act, the law passed following the 9-11 terrorist attacks to bolster the powers of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency.

Under Bill C-51, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service would gain police-like powers to “disrupt” threats to Canada — including, but not limited to, terrorist threats.

Despite the fact that most people are innocent,

the freedoms and liberties people enjoy are being changed without their consent, Snowden added.

I think we can all rest assured that Snowden's warnings will go completely unheeded by the Harper regime.

The Salamander Has Some Questions

The Salamander has been doing a lot of thinking, and has some questions. Read his post, and feel free to weigh in:

.. the other day, I was thinking about 'the Base' ..
that unusual group of committed voters for Stephen Harper..
plus truly fervent media.. Lilley, Levant et al
wondering what caused their odd shrill partisan malady

And I was also thing about the Harper apparatus - Party & Government
and the retinue of PMO, lawyers, RoboCall vendors, pollsters etc etc
and beyond belief wealthy corporate partners & think tanks
you know, the folks that truly benefit from their complicity

And then I thought about the rest of Canada.. voters, people, kids, elders etc
and within that group I guess falls Trudeau & Mulcair, May et al
all with some sort of perspective or belief in what exactly Canada stands for
province to province, urban rural, young old, employed or unemployed etc

I can't claim any blinding insight came from that particular thinking session
it was really just musing to myself on how laughable or insane the reality is..

I asked myself some simple questions though.. about what defines Canadians
now.. like right now.. A majority of Canadians.. and to a certain extent..
eligible voter Canadians.. When they vote.. what drives that decision?
Or even if not voting, what drives their perception of Canada
and their perception of the politics or politicians currently serving Canadians..
You know.. as elected public servants.. or paid public servants ?

I plan to write a 'rant' .. like the 'I am Joe' kind of rant..
and I want to write it correctly.. because I'm not Joe.. I'm me
and I want the rant to speak to and speak for current Canadians

And if I can't exactly put my thumb on what describes all Canadians
or what the particular dreams, needs or wishes of each or all Canadians are ..
I certainly want to identify what I'm certain they do not want or believe in..
as well as the issues or action or realities that give them pause, fear & doubts

I get that Canadians may not support Trudeau, Mulcair, Ms May etc
as being a clear improvement over Mr Harper & his record or promises
and that bothers me.. It really truly scares me, as a Canadian..
That we have no obvious and clear alternative to a despicable flailing government

How can this be? That we must even contemplate such a catastrophic failure?

I'll think on this some more.. work on my rant..
and hope Duffy & Harper's key associates' testimonies
at the very least send the toxic government, party and apparatus packing

Details. Mere Details

H/t We Don't Want This

The most egregious, anti-democratic elements of Harper's terror Bill C-51 are the following:

-jail for 5 years if someone posts anything counter to the government and that could be interpreted as a terrorist posting in general;

-secret trials;

-indefinite detention without charge;

-sharing of information between all departments of government without concern for privacy;

-secret police;

-no civilian oversight;

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I see that the Commons anti-terror committee, a majority of whom are Conservatives, will not be permitting testimony from Joe Clark, John Turner, Jean Chrétien or Paul Martin, all four former prime ministers who have publicly criticized Bill C-51. Some things (actually, many things) are unforgivable in Harperland, I guess.

And Speaking Of Profound Stupidity

...not to mention rabid partisanship, watch another Harper MP disgrace herself:



I wonder how well any of this sits with Cheryl Gallant's riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. Don't those constituents, like the ones living in James Lunney's riding, deserve better?

Could It Be A Virus?

Stupidity, it has been said, is contagious, and one has to wonder whether a particularly virulent virus is running through the Conservative tent these days. First there was Ontario Progressive Conservative MPP Rick Nicholls suggesting that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, as he doesn't believe in it. Now comes word of similar sentiments on the part of one of his federal cousins, B.C. Conservative MP James Lunney.

Coming to the defense of his fellow fundamentalist, Lunney tweeted:

"[Just] stop calling #evolution fact!" tweeted Lunney, who said he had no problem calling it a "theory."

A man clearly comfortable in his own skin and not afraid to parade his profound ignorance, Lunney made this statement to the House in 2009:

"Any scientist who declares that the theory of evolution is a fact has already abandoned the foundations of science. For science establishes fact through the study of things observable and reproducible. Since origins can neither be reproduced nor observed, they remain the realm of hypothesis," he said then.

"The evolutionist may disagree, but neither can produce Darwin as a witness to prove his point. The evolutionist may genuinely see his ancestor in a monkey, but many modern scientists interpret the same evidence in favour of creation and a Creator."

Like many of his benighted ilk, Lunney is also deeply suspicious of claims made about climate change:

Last year he tweeted "Science settled? Think again!" and posted a link to an article by a University of Guelph economist who is one of the signatories of a declaration disputing climate change.

But wait! As they say, there's more!

As reported last year in The Huffington Post, Linney signed An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."

The declaration went on to say,

We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits."

Oh, and one more thing. Lunney's disdain for science extends to vaccines with this discredited notion:

In a 2004 speech in the House of Commons, Lunney cited figures he said showed a tenfold increase in the incidence of autism and said Canada should explore a link to vaccines.

It is said that people get the government they deserve. Somehow, I can't help but think that the residents of Nanaimo—Alberni deserve much, much better than what this man has to offer.

Why Would You Be Enslaved To A Vegetable?

Vegetable, get behind me! So intones Pastor Pat Robertson in one of his finest hours. Watch and be saved, brothers and sisters!

Too Good Not too Share

Although I'm not sure that the benighted Progressive Conservative MPP Rick Nicholls will completely get it:


H/t The Toronto Star

On The Politics Of Fear

Regular readers of this blog will have noticed the relative frequency with which I provide links to and samples of Star readers' letters. One of the obvious reasons is that they tend to have the same political sensibilities as all progressive bloggers, i.e., they are acutely aware of the ongoing damage to our country that Mr. Harper and his acolytes are the engineers of. The other reason is the hope that these missives will be disseminated as widely as possible on others' social networks, be they Facebook, Twitter, or whatever. It is only by spreading the word on networks of friends and associates who may not be especially interested in politics that we have a chance of ousting this hateful regime in the upcoming election.

Right now we are living in politically perilous times, of course, owing to the fact that the regime has gotten a boost from people's fear of terrorism, a fear that Harper is exploiting to maximum advantage. Here is what a few readers have to say about this morally reprehensible tactic. You can see the entire set of letters, all excellent, here.)

Re: Leader’s words should strengthen, not scare, the nation, Opinion Feb. 25

Having watched the deplorable performance of Stephen Harper in regard to Bill C-51, culminating in a disgraceful motion to limit debate, I share the following: Wikipedia defines “demagogue” as: a political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance of the lower classes in order to gain power and promote political motives. Demagogues usually oppose deliberation and advocate immediate, violent action to address a national crisis; they accuse moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness. Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.

Michael Hayes, Victoria, B.C.

I am stunned that over 80 per cent of Canadians would back Bill C-51. Obviously, these Canadians have not studied what is in this bill. Why would we give up close to 150 years of freedoms over two mentally imbalanced people killing three Canadians?

I notice when Robert Pickton was arrested in 2007 for the murder of close to 50 women no laws were forthcoming to protect the aboriginal women or the prostitutes involved. For that matter, Harper still seems to be refusing to do much regarding the safety of aboriginal women or prostitutes.
CSIS actually seems to be doing a good job of infiltrating these cells of disaffected Canadians, so why should we give up any freedoms? I believe Harper should be doing more to help create good jobs for young people instead of taking our freedoms away.

Looking at history, the last group of people who gave up their freedoms were the German people in the 1930s. We all know how that turned out.

Gary Brigden, Toronto

Do we never learn?

Its saddening that the majority of Canadians aren’t even following the recent attempts by the Harper government to pass Bill C-51 without any public debate. However, it shouldn’t come as a surprise, considering Prime Minister Harper’s noted stance against freedom of the press. However, this begs the question: considering that a large portion of Canadians came to Canada to avoid oppressive dictatorial regimes elsewhere, why are these same Canadians so eager to go back to such a “nanny state”?

Hussein Mohamedali, Vaughan

The big question I think Canadians deserve answers to is this — why is the Conservative Party afraid to add oversight to its anti-terror bill?

Such oversight will not affect the terms of the bill. It will just give each and every Canadian the assurance that CSIS or the government will not be allowed to break Canadian laws and the terms of our Constitution.

The prime minister and his spokespeople have succeeded in scaring many Canadians; making them fear that the hordes are at the gate and only the CPC and Bill C-51 can save us.
Fear is a great motivator and Stephen Harper trots it out at every opportunity. I don’t care if you are left, right or centre. It is disgraceful conduct on the part of any politician to try to use power through fear.

American president Franklin D. Roosevelt said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” He said this in reference to America being struck at Pearl Harbour on Dec. 7, 1941. He didn’t tell Americans to be afraid as our government is now telling us we should be. Roosevelt said don’t be afraid.

Canadians are good strong people; we are not fearful people and it’s time politicians stopped using fear as a policy.

Joe Spence, Kanata

A Worrisome Trend

Thursday's post lamented the fact that opinion and personal beliefs are increasingly being regarded as legitimate challenges to facts. As was noted, accepting the facts of evolution and climate change are now often presented as a matter of choice. If the signs are any indication, these worrisome affronts to critical thinking are likely only to grow.

Toward the end of the post, I offered several possible contributing factors to this elevation of irrationality. One of them was this: Perhaps people take living in a supposedly democratic age as license to suggest that any view is valid.

Two columns by The Star's Katherine Porter suggest that this wrongheadedness may, in fact, be aided and abetted by the education system, at least here in Ontario. Her first column, entitled My kids' report cards get failing grade, criticized the increasingly cryptic and euphemistic nature of the report card comments that teachers are currently forced to use:

My son “has demonstrated having had some difficulty following a series of specific instructions or steps to establish priorities and manage time to achieve goals.”

I think that means he’s unfocused.

“At times,” my daughter “is reminded to stay on task, particularly for literacy centres, so that other peers also benefit from this work time.”

Does that mean she chats too much during reading time?

There is a simple and perhaps obvious explanation for such obscure and at times impenetrable language. They are designed not to offend parents who, over the years, have become increasingly confrontational and reactionary about their dear ones' academic and behaviourial shortcomings:

“I was reduced to tears,” said one primary school French teacher, describing the call she had with an irate father. She had phoned to say his daughter was coming home with a D on her latest test. She had wanted to talk about what they could do to help her. I’d call that awesome.He screamed at her. “He accused me of not helping her and said I wasn’t doing my job,” she said.

While it has been almost a decade since I left the classroom, I remember the kinds of computer report comments that were coming into play at the high school level, and they were of a similar ilk, causing teachers much consternation for their opacity. And those comments were motivated for the same reasons that Porter identifies thanks to emails from irate teachers:

conflict-averse principals, school board policies and angry mother-hen parents.

Contrast this with 'the old days,' as recalled by Porter:

When I was in middle school, I spent a year warming the bench before I’d proven my volleyball skills were worthy of playing time. Now, every kid gets equal time. Every kid gets a soccer trophy, no matter how much time they spend picking dandelions on the field.

'Better a bitter truth than a sweet lie' is the philosophy by which I have conducted my life, but it is not one shared by all.

I won't launch into a tirade here with personal stories about the careerists in education whose sole motivation these days seems to be their personal advancement at the expense of educational principles, but rest assured they were much in evidence in the latter part of my career. Unfortunately, the advancement they seek often involves shielding parents from the truth, while upbraiding teachers for their candour. The effects, however, are and will be pernicious.

Which brings me back to my earlier post and my concluding statement. If people are now being inculcated with the idea that they are special, that the world revolves around them and what they think, how will we ever achieve a society that prizes objective and critical thinking over self-centred indulgences?

I suspect you know what my answer is.

Something All Canadians Need To Hear

Many thanks to The Salamander for alerting me to this video, which Richard Hughes posted on his blog, Cowichan Conversations. I am reposting it here, and encourage all progressive bloggers to consider doing the same on their sites.

This eloquent message by Sandra Harris reminds all of us of the myriad failures of the Harper cabal, and gives voice to all who are striving for regime change.

Who's Watching The Spies?

This from the folks at leadnow.ca:

Something For The Winter Weary

WARNING: SOME MAY FIND THE LYRICS IN THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIONABLE

Others may find find they speak precisely for them:

Why Has Accepting Scientific Fact Become A Matter Of Choice?

Science takes things apart to see how they work. Religion puts things together to see what they mean. They speak different languages and use different powers of the brain.

-Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, The Great Partnership

As the quotation above suggests, the schism between scientific fact and religious belief is, in fact, one that shouldn't exist. Yet, given the kinds of absolutist thinking that permeate the world today, demagogues and zealots suggest the two are mutually exclusive, an invalid proposition if one's belief in transcendent truth manages to rise above seeing the narratives of the world's religions as literal truths.

It is always unseemly when people parade and exult in their intellectual limitations, often presenting them as virtues. For example, in Ontario, people like Progressive Conservative MPP Rick Nicholls has suggested that evolution should not be taught in schools, as he doesn't believe in it.

Sadly, such benighted positions, masquerading as informed opinion, do a disservice both to science and religion, not to mention public discourse in general. And it seems to be spreading, despite the fact that we live in an age unprecedented in its access to knowledge. Consider the almost religious fervour with which people disavow climate change, despite these facts:

The debate over climate change is over. The U.N.‘s Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report, written by 800 scientists from 80 countries, that summarized the findings of more than 30,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers and concluded: “Human influence on the climate system is clear; the more we disrupt our climate, the more we risk severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts; and we have the means to limit climate change and build a more prosperous, sustainable future.”

Like the facts that make evolution irrefutable, the facts of climate change are treated by some as optional, a matter of belief, based on all kinds of specious reasoning, including religious ones such as asserting that God is in control of the planet. Perhaps people take living in a supposedly democratic age as license to suggest that any view is valid. Perhaps the right wing, emboldened by their ability to stir up emotion and hysteria, and enjoying so much influence in North America, feel that they have the politicians cowed. Perhaps the truly rational see little profit in getting down to their level to dispute with them. Perhaps it is because the uninformed and unsophisticated comprise such a large part of our population and show no interest in learning how to think critically, dismissing those who do as elitist leftists and alarmists.

I really have no answers here, but to countenance ignorance in any form, in my view, is to abdicate our responsibilities as both human beings and as citizens, and these are obligations we cannot afford to shirk.

Where There's Smoke....

H/t Mary Ellen Davis

On Hatred And Fear

Those of us who follow Canadian federal politics with a critical eye and mind will likely glean nothing new from Carol Goar's article in today's Star, yet it is nonetheless comforting to know that the depredations and demagoguery of Stephen Harper et al. are not being lost on the national press stage.

They hate our values, Goar notes, has become a new tagline in the Harper narrative. He used it on a Richmond Hill audience when talking about terrorists.

He used it when talking in Quebec about employees of Radio Canada.

He had his pull toy, Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney, use it in Washington.

As Goar points out, the language is all of a piece, to be placed alongside of past gems used against those who dare question Harper policy: imprecations such as 'soft on terrorism,' 'Taliban Jack', 'siding with child pornographers' all attest to the manifest unworthiness of this regime to lead Canada.

The sinister effect of such language is extensive, as Goar points out:

It has already migrated from the realm of terrorism to the practice of journalism. It could easily be applied to pipeline opponents (already branded “environmental terrorists”). It could be used to deport unwanted immigrants or foreign-born citizens (already warned “citizenship is not a right; it’s a privilege”). It could be employed against parliamentarians who challenge the scope and constitutionality of government legislation (already labelled the “black helicopter brigade”).

Such demagoguery has other effects as well:

-It yanks out a piece of the national mosaic, subjecting Canada’s 1.1 million Muslims to unwarranted suspicion and drawing a direct link between their religion and terrorism.

-It lowers the standard of political discourse. Canadians don’t normally use words such as hate, despise and abhor in the public arena.

-It precludes rational debate. It is entirely possible that ISIS and its followers are targeting Canada because its warplanes are bombing them in Iraq, not because of its values. But who would dare suggest that in the current us-versus-them atmosphere?

-It legitimizes the kind of discrimination that is surfacing at lower levels of government. In Shawinigan, city councillors blocked an application by local Muslims to build a cultural centre .... Across the country, people who know little about Islam are angrily impugning Muslim women who cover their faces.

Being a demagogue is easy. History amply demonstrates this. Real leadership, cultivating the best in people's natures, is long and hard work. The Harper regime is clearly not up to the latter, as it has amply demonstrated time and time again.

Harper's Contempt For Thinking Canadians Is Egregious

That is the only conclusion I can draw, based on the unseemly hurry the regime is in to pass its 'anti-terror' bill:

The Conservatives are pushing to devote just three meetings to hearing expert testimony on the government's proposed anti-terrorism bill when it goes to the public safety committee for review, CBC News has learned.

Sources say that one of those days would be taken up by Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney and departmental officials, leaving just two meetings to hear from outside experts.

For obvious reasons, the Harperites want nothing to do with the witness list the NDP wants to put forward, which includes former prime ministers Jean Chrétien, Joe Clark, Paul Martin and John Turner and six retired Supreme Court justices. As well, they

also want to hear from three former members of the secretive Security Intelligence Review Committee that oversees CSIS operations: Bob Rae, Roy Romanow and Frances Lankin.

The depth of Harper contempt for thought, reflection and reason, as opposed to his preferred method of reflexive campaigning and reactionary legislation, is evident in his response to Thomas Mulcair during question period:

Tom Mulcair challenged Prime Minister Stephen Harper to commit to a full review at committee — one in which, he said, "security experts and human rights experts [will be] not only heard, but listened to."

In response, Harper called Mulcair's criticism of the bill "ridiculous."

Precisely the reaction I have when anyone suggests our Chief Demagogue has been good for Canada.

More Warnings About Bill C-51

H/t The Globe and Mail

Increasingly disenchanted Globe readers weigh in with their thoughts:

Re Kenney Spurns Calls To Increase Security Oversight (Feb. 23):

The Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) only reviews security-agency operations after the fact. Defence Minister Jason Kenney and the Prime Minister maintain that we don’t need oversight of the agencies’ day-to-day operations. That’s like saying we don’t need referees in professional hockey, it’s sufficient for someone to review the tape after the fact and penalize the players if they broke the rules. Does anyone seriously think the players wouldn’t behave differently without referees?

The PM says judges will provide the necessary oversight, but that’s only required if the security agencies plan something illegal. Continuing the analogy, it’s like expecting the players to check in with the referee before the hit.

National security shouldn’t be a self-policing game of shinny. This is serious.

Jason Scott, Ottawa

.........

Once lost, freedom is hard to regain. As Canadians, we must demand that our politicians protect our society – not just from the threats of the few, but most importantly from the threat we impose on ourselves when we give too much power to too few people, with too little oversight and too little accountability.

John Rudan, Kingston

.........

Stephen Harper wanted to run on his economic record, but the economy is heading south. So the new anti-terror legislation will have to do. He just has to convince enough people he can protect them. Then they’ll not only accept giving up their Charter rights, but will vote for his party.

Almost anything can qualify as terrorism under Bill C-51, especially now that the RCMP has set its sights on environmentalists (RCMP Express Alarm Over ‘Anti-Petroleum’ Ideologists – Feb. 17).

I’m scared, but it’s not terrorism in Canada that scares me.

Tia Leschke, Sooke, B.C.

Canadian Political Reporting Suffers Another Blow

But this time, the blow comes from within.

Thanks to Ed Tanas for bringing the following to my attention:

Ottawa reporters, photographers and cameramen face expulsion from Parliament Hill on the complaint of any politician or federal employee, with grievances to be heard at closed-door disciplinary hearings. The unprecedented measures are proposed by the Parliamentary Press Gallery, a volunteer group representing media.

“We thought we’d bring the proposal,” said Laura Payton, Gallery president, a CBC writer; “We’re leaving it quite open because the executive needs some discretion.”

On first blush, the proposals might seem reasonable, given the prevalence of harassment claims these past many months:

Under proposed amendments, members may be expelled for a range of new offences including:

•“personal harassment”;
•“sexual harassment”;
•“violence”;
•“threats of violence”;
•“intimidation”;
•“a criminal offence that was or could have been tried by way of indictment and for which the member has been found guilty”.

But, as the hackneyed saying goes, the devil is in the details. Perhaps the most telling detail:

The Gallery proposed to amend its own constitution, with the approval of Industry Minister James Moore, [emphasis mine]to suspend or banish media from Parliament Hill for a range of new offences including “harassment” and “intimidation”.

A reasonable person will immediately see that any involvement, let alone approval, of a politician cannot bode well for freedom of the press. Consider, for example, Herr Harper's recent inflammatory remarks about Radio Canada employees hating conservative values. Consider his government's egregious contempt for the media and the fact that the only time Harper seems even remotely accessible is when he is outside the country. Consider the fact that we are groaning under the most vindictive and paranoid prime minister this country has ever known.



So what do the experts think of these proposed amendments?

“The press should be held to account, but is this the instrument?” said Prof. Sean Holman, of Mount Royal University’s school of journalism. “I think it’s open to abuse.” Holman, a former member of the British Columbia Press Gallery, said he was unaware of any Canadian gallery with such an enforcement code.

“Reporters covering legislatures are often treated like parasites and barely tolerated by the administration,” Holman said. “The administration has enormous power. We should really think about that. How is it that this space that is supposed to be a public space is so often treated as anything but? That is troubling.”

Especially worrisome is the readiness with which the Press Gallery will cede authority to the politicians it is charged with covering:

The amendment also states the Gallery may defer to “House administration” if complaints against a journalist are deemed a “security concern”. The head of House administration is Conservative MP Andrew Scheer (Regina-Qu’Appelle), Speaker of the House of Commons.

In the past, parliamentary journalists never deferred to the Speaker and operated as a self-regulating association in a custom dating from 1867, noted Mark Bourrie, a 21-year gallery member and author of the bestseller Kill The Messenger: Stephen Harper’s Assault On Your Right To Know.

I am completely dumbfounded by this development. The amendments go to a membership vote February 27. Let us hope that they will act accordingly against this unprecedented assault on their independence.

Thomas Mulcair And Joe Clark On Bill C-51

H/t The Toronto Star

Yesterday, Tom Clark on The West Block asked both Mulcair and Clark for their thoughts on Harper's 'anti-terror' legislation. You will note that by the end of the interview, it would seem that Mulcair's 'principled' stand against the bill is perhaps less than what it seems as he hedges his political bets:

More On The Harper Record Of Contempt

H/t Peter Ormond

I've Made My Decision. What More Is There To Discuss?

H/t Occupy Canada

It would seem that our supremely arrogant confident demagogue, Dear Leader, feels little need to waste his time in the House of Commons talking about a bill (C-51) that represents a substantial threat to the rights of all Canadians. That, apparently, is a task for lesser mortals, but only if they can talk fast.

The Ottawa Citizen reports the following:

Despite hailing new anti-terror legislation as fundamental to the fight against “the most dangerous enemies our world has ever faced,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper did not attend either of two days of debate on the bill in the House of Commons this week.

Bill C-51 is expected to head to committee Monday after the Conservative government voted to limit the hours allotted in the Commons on what Justice Minister Peter MacKay called an “important debate (over) …. extraordinary powers.”

For anyone who might be puzzled, even outraged over Stephen Harper's absence from this “important debate (over) …. extraordinary powers”, these reassurance came via email from PMO spokesman Carl Vallée:

“The prime minister has spoken at length with regards to the bill when it was announced and in the House during Question Period.”

But what about the curtailment of debate, also known as closure?

I suppose a couple of considerations influenced the Great One there. First, of course, is the fact that Justin Trudeau, no doubt influenced by the polls, is supporting the bill, and really has nothing to add to the 'debate.' And then there is Thomas Mulcair, who, now that he has rediscovered some principles and found out he is opposed to the bill, has much to say. However, as Mr. Harper observed in his usual style when presented with a substantive question about whether the bill could be used against the government's political enemies, employed his usual contemptuous denigration by characterizing the NDP as 'the black helicopter crowd' always game for conspiracy theories:



And so Canada's very own Ozmandias continues on his merry way, content in his belief that his personal vanity production, the Government of Canada, will continue far into the future under his mighty vision.

A shame that Stephen Harper is not a reader of poetry.