Truer Words.....

Can't disagree with this:



H/t The Knowledge Movement

Attention, Young People: Here Is Why You Should Vote

This brief but powerful video should be viewed by all those who are politically disengaged, especially our young citizens:



H/t OperationMaple

Oil Spills And The Harper Brand

Time for a brief follow-up to Elizabeth May's fine dissection of how Harper environmental cuts contributed to the slow response to Vancouver's English Bay oil spill. In today's Star, Tim Harper repeats and reflects upon the facts May addressed.

Denunciations are flying fast and furiously from the likes of May, B.C. Premier Christie Clark and Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson. Of course, predictable denials of culpability are coming from the likes of Industry Minister James Moore (“Politicians piling on by spreading misinformation is unhelpful,’’) and Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford (“I won’t engage in speculation,’’ “it’s not helpful to finger point,” “I think we should all concentrate on the cleanup").

Here are the facts that set the rhetoric into perspective:

The Conservatives closed the Kitsilano Coast Guard station.

The city of Vancouver says it was not informed of the leak until 12 hours after it was detected, but the federal government disputes that.
It took six hours for the Coast Guard to get booms in place in response to the leak, but a former commander of the closed station, Fred Moxey, told the Vancouver Sun the response would have been six minutes if the station was still open.

The closed station was within hailing distance of this leak, something that should have been so easily contained, occurring in calm waters in an urban area.

Conservatives also closed the Vancouver Environment Canada station of Environmental Emergencies and the Marine Mammal Contaminants Program within the department of fisheries and oceans.

Conservatives also closed regional offices of the emergency in Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, Dartmouth, N.S., and St. John’s. It has been replaced by a 1-800 number which rings in Gatineau, Que., and Montreal, says Green Party Leader Elizabeth May.

We can, of course, look forward to a full-court press from the Harper regime in order contain the damage to its brand the anemic and belated response is causing.

One can only assume that will take the usual form: vilification of all Harper critics, the only strategy this hateful regime seems to know.

Got An Oil Spill? Call This 1-800 Quebec Number

Every time I hear Elizabeth May speak, my respect for her deepens. Watch as she explains how the response time to Wednesday's oil spill in English Bay was hampered by Harper cuts and that fact that cleanups has been privatized.

Stephen Harper Is A Real Man

At least someone from this Hour Has 22 Minutes thinks so:



Hope Dear Leader appreciates having such unbridled adoration.

Amanda Lang Interviews Ed Broadbent

If you have as low an opinion of the CBC's disgraced chief business correspondent, Amanda Lang, as I do, watch the following video. I think you will find that, with her absolutist questions typical of the extreme right and the intellectually deficient, she does not exceed expectations.



For Broadbent's thoughts on how Harper has failed this country, click here.

And Speaking Of Harper's Former Friends and Appointees....

Another one sends his greetings from jail in Panama. The disgraced Arthur Porter, the Harper-appointed former Chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee of Canada and alleged fraudster, has a message for his former good buddy:

Porter told The Canadian Press in a recent phone interview from La Joya prison that he wouldn’t mind a visit from Harper while the prime minister is in the region this weekend for the Summit of the Americas.

“If he wishes, he is most welcome to come and see the conditions that I live in now,” Porter said of Harper during the conversation, which was drowned out at times by the shouts of other inmates in the background.

“The [prison] air is the same, the infections are the same, the difficulties in finding water and food are the same. You know, some days are better than others.”

Porter has been detained since May, 2013, in the Central American country as he fights extradition to Canada. He faces fraud charges in Canada related to a $1.3-billion hospital project in Montreal.

Alth0ugh the Prime Minister will likely pass on the invitation, I can't help but think he would find that prison air, shall we say, bracing.

Tells You All You Need To Know, Doesn't It

It is a mental picture I hope all Canadians carry to the polls this October:



“To Duff, a great journalist and a great senator, thanks for being one of my best, hardest-working appointments ever,” reads a photo signed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper entered as an exhibit Thursday.

Just A Reminder Of Some Upcoming Events

And who says there's nothing to look forward to?

Is A Carbon Tax More Effective Than Cap And Trade?

Truthfully, I don't know the answer to that question, although some might say that any action is better than none on the climate-change file. In any event, a Star reader offers his thoughts on the matter:

Provinces can lead the way on global warming, April 7

The fact that the Ontario government’s decision to endorse cap and trade was leaked to Canada’s leading business newspaper confirms my worst fears. This decision is a victory of Bay Street over Main Street.

Clearly, we need a system of carbon pricing if we’re serious about making the polluters pay. Cap and trade offers many benefits for corporations, lawyers and consultants, but there is no evidence that it has been successful at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, whereas there is clear evidence that the carbon tax in B.C. has already resulted in a 10 per cent reduction in GHGs.

Cap and trade is an excuse for inaction that appeals only to those sectors of the corporate community that profit from pollution. It is losing its appeal to the insurance companies and enlightened business leaders who have to pay the price of inaction on climate change.

It has no appeal to the rising number of environmentally conscious Canadians who want to see our government regain respect in the world community.
Even those who invented the cap and trade system prefer a carbon tax for curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

Cap and trade works in theory but not in practice — the United Nations says it has worked badly or not at all. It is complex and difficult to co-ordinate across different jurisdictions; it requires constant tinkering, constant political will and a large bureaucracy. It creates synthetic, government-backed assets that are vulnerable to manipulation and speculation. In short, it is a highly indirect, economically inefficient and expensive way of curbing GHGs.

We need a carbon tax. It could be spun as a fee and dividend system in order to gain political support, if done with two caveats.

1) A portion of the revenues should be invested in a climate change fund that would finance mitigation and adaptation. For example, 40 per cent might be invested in renewable energy, rapid transit and energy efficient housing; and another 10 per cent devoted to disaster management — not only here in Ontario but in those countries where climate change will be most disastrous.

2) Rather than give each citizen an equal share of the revenues, with a half-share for children, we need to take special steps to lessen the impact of a carbon tax or fee on low-income households and on rural and remote communities. We can do this via tax credits or lump sum payments that are indexed to match increasing carbon levies.
Opting for cap and trade will clearly be putting Bay Street ahead of Main Street.

David Langille, Toronto

How Do You Define A Threat?

It's all a matter of perspective, I guess:

The Great Thing About the Extreme Right Wing

... is that their egregious stupidity is self-evident:

What A Cynic Might Say

A cynic might say that Joe Oliver's thinly-concealed plan to double the contribution limits of the Tax-Free Savings Account to $11,000, despite the fact that it will benefit only the affluent, will ensure the re-election of the Harper regime. After all, this is a government that has made a virtual art of appealing to the narrow self-interests of people over any concern for the collective.

A cynic might say that even though the majority of people will not benefit, they will think it's a good idea since so many regard themselves, as John Steinbeck so wryly put it, as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

A cynic might say that the Liberals and the NDP will offer only anemic objection to the plan as they cautiously hedge their bets for the October contest.

A cynic might also say that since the young don't vote, Harper and the others are strategically correct in tailoring their policies to those who do: the older and more affluent, or, as all three major party leaders like to call them, 'the middle class.' The young, so the story goes, are engaged in their own world of social media, technology and social life and hence can be dismissed.

While the cynic may be correct in all of the above, it is this last contention that, in the larger scheme of things, perhaps merits the most attention.

In the 2011 election, about 60% of eligible voters turned out at the poll. Among voters under 30, under 40% bothered to cast a vote. Research undertaken last year by Nik Nanos and former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page uncovered some very interesting data guided by this question:

What if 60 per cent of young people had voted?

His answer: Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives likely wouldn't have won a majority.

More importantly, he says the political debate would have been more hopeful and would have revolved around a broader range of issues if young people had been more engaged in the process.

The potential strength of the young vote lies in the fact that their priorities are different from the those of the majority who vote:

"What we find is that their concerns are much more diverse than older Canadians who are fixated on jobs and health care," Nanos said in an interview. "So if you're a younger Canadian, you're twice as likely to say that the environment is a top national issue of concern. You're twice as likely to say that education is a top national issue of concern."

His analysis also suggests older Canadians "are very cynical, they have less confidence in finding solutions" whereas younger people "are actually much more hopeful, have a higher level of confidence in finding solutions."

So why aren't they turning out?

A recent article in The Tyee offers some useful insights. A profile of Julie Van de Valk, a 20-year-old third-year geological engineering student at the University of British Columbia, reveals a young woman passionate about a number of issues, the environment and climate change at the top of her priorities. While she will vote in the upcoming election, she has little enthusiasm for any of the parties:

None of them, in her opinion, "are addressing climate change with the type of leadership that people who understand the issue want to see."

Harper's Conservatives have warned climate action could be "job-killing." But the Liberals and NDP haven't offered Van de Valk a very inspiring alternative. Neither party has clearly articulated to her how it would drastically reduce carbon emissions and shift Canada to clean energy. Meanwhile, both have offered qualified support to the oilsands. "That doesn't do it for me," she said.

So it almost becomes a chicken-or-egg question. Young people are disaffected because their priorities aren't represented by the major parties, and the major parties pay little heed to those priorities because young do not vote in sufficient numbers to command the attention and respect of the parties.

Brigette DePape and others like her are trying to change all that.

The former parliamentary page, you will recall, caused quite a stir in 2011 when she held up a sign in the Senate while David Johnson was delivering the throne speech:


With no regrets about what she did, and with no illusions that such acts change the world, she articulates a vision that will resonate with most progressives:

She wants a government that reflects the values of her generation and future generations. She wants an agenda that includes an equitable, compassionate society; treats the environment as a priceless public asset; addresses youth unemployment and student debt; respects the views of women, workers, indigenous peoples and racial minorities; and brings the nation together.

To those ends, DePape

was in Toronto last week as part of a five-city tour by the Council of Canadians to get out the youth vote. “I understand why most (young people) see voting as futile,” she told her first audience in Winnipeg. “In the 2011 election when I was a University of Ottawa student, someone asked me to go door-knocking. But I really didn’t see the point.

“Since then, I’ve had a change of heart. After four years under the current government (nine counting Harper’s two previous terms), I want to do everything in my power to see a government that reflects our values.”

She offers some sobering statistics to convey the power of the vote:

The Tories won nine of their seats by a margin of less than 1,000 votes. They captured Nipissing-Timiskaming, for example, by just 18 votes. Most of the 5,300 students at Nipissing University stayed home. They won Etobicoke Centre by just 26 votes. Had a few more students from the University of Toronto, York, Ryerson or Humber College showed up at the polls, they could have tipped the balance.

Working with groups such as Shit Harper Did, DePape is intent on changing things by convincing enough young people to make the difference she knows they can make.

DePape’s goal over the spring and summer is to build a team of youth leaders and collect 2,000 vote pledges in strategic ridings. In the fall, she and her associates will pull out the stops to collect on those pledges.

“We’re at a turning point,” she tells audiences. “We can be game-changers.”

For all of our sakes, let us all hope that she is sufficiently successful to convince people of that truth.

UPDATED: The Next System Project: A Practical Example

Yesterday's post revolved around The Next System Project, an initiative committed to exploring replacements for the traditional institutions that are failing our world so badly. One major focus of the project is on expanding business models that grant company ownership to workers.

That goal put me in mind of a documentary I saw a few years back detailing the struggle to achieve worker ownership and control of a bankrupt auto-parts factory in Argentina.

Here is a synopsis of the film:

In suburban Buenos Aires, thirty unemployed auto-parts workers walk into their idle factory, roll out sleeping mats and refuse to leave.

All they want is to re-start the silent machines. But this simple act - The Take - has the power to turn the globalization debate on its head.

In the wake of Argentina's dramatic economic collapse in 2001, Latin America's most prosperous middle class finds itself in a ghost town of abandoned factories and mass unemployment. The Forja auto plant lies dormant until its former employees take action. They're part of a daring new movement of workers who are occupying bankrupt businesses and creating jobs in the ruins of the failed system.

But Freddy, the president of the new worker's co-operative, and Lalo, the political powerhouse from the Movement of Recovered Companies, know that their success is far from secure. Like every workplace occupation, they have to run the gauntlet of courts, cops and politicians who can either give their project legal protection or violently evict them from the factory.

The story of the workers' struggle is set against the dramatic backdrop of a crucial presidential election in Argentina, in which the architect of the economic collapse, Carlos Menem, is the front-runner. His cronies, the former owners, are circling: if he wins, they'll take back the companies that the movement has worked so hard to revive.

Armed only with slingshots and an abiding faith in shop-floor democracy, the workers face off against the bosses, bankers and a whole system that sees their beloved factories as nothing more than scrap metal for sale.

With The Take, director Avi Lewis, one of Canada's most outspoken journalists, and writer Naomi Klein, author of the international bestseller No Logo, champion a radical economic manifesto for the 21st century. But what shines through in the film is the simple drama of workers' lives and their struggle: the demand for dignity and the searing injustice of dignity denied.

A heartening witness to a persistent group of people dedicated to preserving their human and economic dignity, the film embodies what is possible when we shake off the conditioned thinking that our current model of broken capitalism has inculcated in us.

Here is a trailer for the film:



If that interests you, here is the full documentary
:


Until and unless we become bold and critical in our thinking, what the film depicts will remain but a rare exception to the status quo that currently serves the interests of only a small but very powerful minority.

UPDATE: Thanks go to B Caldwell for providing this link offering an update to Argentina's workers' co-operatives:

During 2012, the number of worker co-ops in Argentina increased by 239 per cent.

According to a study conducted by La Nacion, 6,024 new co-operatives were created throughout 2012. This represents an increase of 239 per cent on 2011.

Although most of these new co-ops are in the capital Buenos Aires, other areas have also witnessed an increase in the number of co-operatives, with 367 new co-operatives in José C. Paz, 63 in Córdoba, 110 in Santa Fe, 58 in Mendoza and 125 in Capital.

The same publication mentions that the increase was primarily determined by the support co-operatives have received from the government, particularly from Alicia Kirchner, the Minister for Social Development.

it would appear that good ideas can be suppressed for only so long.

The Next System Project

Bloggers far more skilled and knowledgeable that I have written extensively about how our societal systems are broken. Whether we look at the current model of rapacious capitalism, environmental non-regulation, fraying medical and social support programs, it is obvious that almost everything is largely rigged in favour of the few, not the many, with the profit motive being one of the few arbiters of 'the public good.' One quick example is the record profits that corporations are enjoying, while the standard of living of the average person continues its downward trajectory.

A new initiative has arisen to begin to address these massive inequities. Called The Next System Project, it seeks to disrupt or replace our traditional institutions for creating progressive change.

Brentin Mock writes that historian and political economist Gar Alperovitz

is hoping to shepherd discussions around what new systems and institutions can be created to help heal what political and corporate systems have desecrated. He also seeks to elevate the new systems that are already in place but could use some scaling up.

One major focus of the project is on expanding business models that grant company ownership to workers. It’s actually similar to the kind of thinking behind what Jay-Z is seeking for Tidal: granting musical artists the opportunity to help generate more wealth for themselves, rather than companies, when we stream their music online. It’s a sign that people aren’t only waking up, but are also trying to do something about the fact that current business models aren’t empowering laborers.

If millionaires like Jay-Z are the wrong example for this, then consider instead what Cesar Chavez sought to achieve for farmworkers: more rights, better compensation, ownership. These are the kinds of discussions Alperovitz wants to build upon through the Next System.

The Next System Project has signed on some impressive individuals and organizations. The following video will give you a sense of what they are about:



Although this is an American-based initiative, we would be indeed naive not to realize it seeks to address world-wide issues. Time for a revolution in thinking and doing, perhaps?

Jesse Brown Was Right: The CBC Did Cave

A week ago I wrote a post based on a report by Canadaland's Jesse Brown asserting that pressure had been exerted by the Keilburger organization over a documentary from the CBC's Doc Zone exploring the dark side of 'voluntourism.' Originally scheduled to air in March, it was pulled from the lineup due to what the Corporation called 'copyright issues.' It was Brown's contention that a Keilburger threat to sue CBC led to the some self-censorship.

Last night an edited version of Volunteers Unleashed aired, minus any critical references to 'Me to We,' the Keilberger movement that has blossomed into a very profitable industry.

Here is one of the original clips that was subsequently doctored:



I can only describe the revised version, as the show doesn't not seem to be play on the Doc Zone website. The above clip cuts out the appearance of the Keilburgers onstage, showing only, from a high angle, and without identification, an electronically blurred-out figure onstage that one would only know is Keilburger if one saw the original clip. As well, the narration adds that Pippa Biddle, (originally disdainful of Me to We,) says that Biddle is critical of some voluntourism organizations, but not Me to We.

Here is the second clip from the original version:



In the censored version from last night's show, the reference to the fact that the young people depicted "are about the 40th group from Me to We to arrive in Quito this summer" was removed.

So why is any of this important? First of all, let me say that I have nothing against organizations that try to motivate young people to rise from their quotidian and often selfish concerns to recognize and embrace the larger world. The problem is that excursions promoted as voluntourism, of which Me to We is a big part, often cause more harm than good to the people such volunteers are supposed to be helping. Last night's program made that abundantly clear.

However, by removing the Keilburger organization from that critical view, the CBC succumbed to threats from an entity what has become a huge machine, and has therefore betrayed both the public trust and the public good. While the same has happened with private broadcasters, I, and I'm sure countless other Canadians, expect more spine and integrity from the national broadcaster.

Finally, the kind of alleged bald threats wielded by the Keilbergers suggests to me that they are more interested in protecting and promoting their 'brand' than they are in achieving philanthropic goals.

That's my view. Anyone else care to weigh in?

Details, Details, Details

Details. It seems that Conservative MP Diane Ablonczy finds them irksome impediments to action.

Details like objections to violations of our Charter Rights:

During the final day of parliamentary hearings into the government's controversial anti-terrorism bill, Conservative MP Diane Ablonczy used air quotes to dismiss an amendment, first proposed by the Canadian Bar Association, that would have put into writing that Canadian judges can't authorize violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

The arrogance of the Harper regime seemingly knows no bounds. Can you imagine what Canada will become if they win another election?

A Very Sobering Message

A friend sent this to me yesterday. I am not using any tags for this post in order to conceal the true subject matter. Please make sure you watch the video to the very end so as not to miss a very sobering message.

Hither And Thither

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surely heads will roll.

Another Route To Justice

Those that follow such things will know that proving police brutality is very difficult. Absent video evidence, the police narrative usually is that the one claiming to have been brutalized was in fact the perpetrator, and charges of assault on police almost invariably result.

Such was the situation that Toni Farrell faced when she was viciously assaulted by OPP Sgt. Russell Watson in 2013, a situation I wrote about in January. Russell's 'crime'? She tried to help police find the three men who had viciously assaulted a woman.

Happily, the charge that she assaulted Watson was tossed out by Ontario Court Justice George Beatty, who ruled that she was only being a Good Samaritan. The SIU chose not to investigate Watson, but relented when the story hit the media.

Knowing that if justice is to be achieved, she must pursue it herself, Farrell is suing Watson, the police force and the local police services board for close to $4 million.

Tonie Farrell, 48, “has sustained permanent and serious injuries including, but not limited to, a fractured leg, crushed knee, lost tooth, as well as bruising, spraining, straining and tearing of the muscles, tendons, ligaments and nerves throughout her body including her neck and back,” alleges the statement of claim, filed in Newmarket Superior Court in January.

The OPP “knew or ought to have known that Sgt. Watson had a history of using excessive or unwarranted force but failed to take appropriate steps to address the issue,” the statement alleges. “It continued to employ Sgt. Watson when it knew or ought to have known that Sgt. Watson was a danger to the public.”

Farrell's list of grievances is long:

Farrell is demanding $4 million in general, aggravated and punitive damages, and $100,000 in Charter of Rights and Freedoms damages. Her family members are each asking for $100,000 in damages.

The statement alleges Watson “is liable for the tort of battery,” saying he “owed a duty to the plaintiff . . . not to make harmful or offense (sic) physical contact with her in the absence of legal justification or authority.”

It also alleges that he wrongfully arrested Farrell, that he was “negligent in failing to carry out a reasonable investigation,” and was “actively involved” in the “malicious prosecution” of Farrell.

The statement of claim goes on to allege that Watson “caused and continued prosecution against the plaintiff in order to conceal or obfuscate his misconduct; he deliberately misstated the events in his notes in hopes of securing a conviction; he counseled fellow officers to misstate evidence to the court in order to secure a conviction.”

If anyone is able to break through that thick 'blue wall' the police regularly hide behind, I suspect it will be Toni Farrell.

Some Inspiration From A Clear-Thinking Citizen

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

Increasing risk of terror in Canada

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

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

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

David Crump, Toronto

The Quiet Eloquence Of Harry Smith

His is a quiet eloquence that speaks far louder than all the braying our political 'leaders' engage in with abandon. Harry Smith, about whom I previously posted, is a man who has seen much during his long life. He has seen the worst that happens when society treats the majority of its people with contempt, condemning them to short lives of poverty, illness, and despair. He has also seen the best when society recognizes the obligations government has to the less advantaged through the construction of a comprehensive social safety net. It is the latter that he now sees being steadily eroded, as the neoliberal agenda works hard to return us to that earlier time when only the relatively few mattered, the vast majority abandoned to only their own devices and the charity of individuals to sustain them.

The first video is a trailer for his memoir, Harry's Last Stand, which he describes as

"a rallying cry to a younger generation" to fight for a social safety net "that allows every citizen the right to decent housing, advanced education, proper health care, a living wage, and a dignified old age free of want."

Many of these post-war gains, achieved by his generation after the Second World War, are being clawed back, with the poor and middle class losing more and more ground in the face of growing inequality, says Smith.

The second brief video is a stinging indictment of Stephen Harper's agenda which, despite political rhetoric to the contrary, favours the few while disdaining the majority.

In a blistering attack on the Prime Minister, broadcast Saturday at the Broadbent Institute's Progress Summit 2015, the 92-year-old Smith said Harper "has treated veterans with disdain, intimidated scientists, environmentalists, and most importantly the poor," "robbed the vulnerable" and "enriched the 1% at the expense of the 99%."

All disengaged citizens, especially the young, need to hear Harry Smith's message and act upon it.

Mandatory Church Attendance?

I'm sorry. As Johnny Carson used to say, "I do not make these things up, folks, I merely report them."

Click here to play the video.

Perhaps Americans have far more in common with that theocracy in Iran than they realize?

Penetrating The Fog Of War

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

No ‘middle’ in Mideast war debate, March 25

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

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

Lloyd Atkins, Vernon

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

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

Peter Keleghan, Toronto

CBC: The Appeasement Continues*

Those who read my blog on a regular basis will know that I have felt disaffected from the CBC for some time. While I am a supporter of public broadcasting and believe in its adequate funding, the CBC's futile policy of appeasing its Conservative overlords has eroded my respect for the institution. As well, the recent imbroglio over Amanda Lang's clear conflict of interest and the Corporation's subsequent whitewash has earned it no brownie points with me.

Over at Canadaland, investigative journalist Jesse Brown has uncovered more damning evidence of decline and rot at the Mother Corp. This time, it has apparently succumbed to outside pressure and scratched from its lineup a documentary entitled Volunteers Unleashed, a program critical of 'voluntourism' that my wife had intended to watch earlier this month. While no explanation was offered, Brown has uncovered that

the reason Volunteers Unleashed was pulled was due to "concerns" raised by Craig Kielburger's Me to We, the for-profit sister company to his Free the Children charity. Me to We pops up a couple of times in Volunteers Unleashed. Kielburger happened to be wrapping a stint as a CBC Canada Reads panelist on the day the doc was set to air.

Officially, CBC says the doc was temporarily pulled due to a "copyright issue" and will be "re-edited and re-scheduled". [In fact, it is rescheduled for April 2] Free the Children similarly told us that it was the CBC's use of "unauthorized footage" that led to their complaint.

Brown also alleges

that Me to We may have also raised the spectre of libel with the CBC over how they were portrayed in the documentary. Kielburger has sued journalists for libel before. We asked both parties if libel came up in this case. Neither answered the question.

The larger issue here, of course, is the very real question of how independent our journalism is.

Free the Children spokesperson Angie Gurley was nevertheless quick to dispel any suggestion that her organization tried to kill a documentary because they didn't like how they came across in it. In fact, she asked us to remove our description of the doc as being critical of their organization.

"No Critical Coverage"

Though Gurley admitted that her camp had not seen the doc, they trusted that "there is no critical coverage of Me to We or We Day in the film" because that's what the CBC told them.

Here is the "unauthorized" footage in question, which we present here under the Fair Dealing exceptions for news reporting and criticism in the Copyright Act. You can judge for yourself if it's critical coverage of We Day or not.

Also, Free the Children's Angie Gurley also told us that the CBC assured her that Volunteers Unleashed "did not include footage of Me to We Trips".

You can see here that this is not true:



Brown asks these pertinent questions:

Exactly how is the footage of We Day or the We to Me Ecuador trip "unauthorized"? CANADALAND has learned that the rights to the We Day footage were licensed from Global TV, and does not belong to Me to We/Free the Children.

Is the CBC going to remove footage of a company scrutinized in their journalism because that company asked them to?

That second question should be answered on April 2. As they say, stay tuned.

* Many thanks to my friend Dave for alerting me to this story.

An Instructional Video

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

Reza Aslan killed these two "journalists"

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

Posted by Issam Bayan on Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Apparently, The Proof Is Not In The Tasting

Dr. Patrick Moore, a shill lobbyist for Monsanto, refused to put his mouth where his money is when offered the opportunity to prove his claim that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, has nothing to do with increasing cancer rates in Argentina:

“You can drink a whole quart of it and it won’t hurt you,” Moore insists.

“You want to drink some?” the interviewer asks. “We have some here.”

“I’d be happy to, actually,” Moore replies, adding, “Not really. But I know it wouldn’t hurt me.”

“If you say so, I have some,” the interviewer presses.

“I’m not stupid,” Moore declares.

“So, it’s dangerous?” the interviewer concludes.

You can watch the testy exchange below:

Extrait : Bientôt dans vos assiettes... - Interview de Patrick Moore

UPDATED: Meanwhile, South Of The Border

Ah yes, that land whose political representatives make our elected reprobates look like shining exemplars. For this edition of The Dark Side, we return to the ongoing saga of Gordon Klingenschmitt (a.k.a. Dr. Chaps), recently elected as a Republican State Legislator in Colorado.

A man with many demons (which he regularly exorcises), in this edition he exploits explores a tragedy wrought by the 'demonic spirit of murder' that, it seems, has provoked God's judgement:



UPDATE: It appears that many Republicans and other right-wingers are disassociating themselves from this crazed evangelical:

“God did not will for this horrific tragedy to happen,” said Sarah Zagorski, who leads the anti-abortion group. “Sadly, Rep. Klingenschmitt’s comments take away from the seriousness of this tragedy and the aftermath Michelle and her family are facing.”

“Gordon does not speak for his caucus,” said Rep. Polly Lawrence, the House assistant minority leader.

“He does not represent the Colorado Republican Party,” said Steve House, chairman of the state GOP, although he pointed out that Klingenschmitt had a First Amendment right express his beliefs.

Several other leading GOP members denounced the lawmaker’s comments, including Laura Carno – who started a Facebook page in January called “Conservatives against Gordon Klingenschmitt” – and former state Rep. Mark Waller, who previously held the same House seat, reported the Denver Post.

I guess you know you are in trouble when even fellow-travellers repudiate you.

Meanwhile, In Canada

H/t Anne Montgomery


H/t Michael Nabert

A Solution Lacking Political Will

While reading the following, I found myself pining for the kind of scenario Jerry Ginsburg adumbrates. Then I had my second cup of coffee and reawoke to the prime motivation enveloping our current crop of 'leaders (excepting Elizabeth May): the bald and venal pursuit of power.

Stephen Harper’s Canada is not my Canada. More importantly, it’s not the Canada desired by most Canadians. Two-thirds of us, judging from polls and the last election, don’t want a Canada where policy-making relies on bullying and the suppression of dissent, where military intervention and one-sided bluster have replaced peacemaking as our foreign policy, where core issues like the environment are totally ignored, and where minorities in our community are stigmatized and mocked rather than welcomed into an inclusive, diverse whole.

Many of us are “mad as hell and don’t want to take it anymore.” But unless something changes, Harper’s Canada is the one we’re going to end up with after the next election. Once again the Liberals, NDP, and Greens will divide the opposition vote, and once again the Conservatives will sweep into power with a “majority” representing less than 40 per cent of us. This must not happen again. But how can it be avoided?

Both Tom Mulcair and Justin Trudeau suggest the answer is obvious: just vote for us. Says Mulcair: “We’re already the Opposition; give us a few more seats and we’ll form the next government.” Says Trudeau: “Look at the polls since I became leader. We’re on our way back, and we’re the only party that can defeat Harper.” The hubris is impressive, but we know where this is headed. Mulcair is not going to be the next PM; he’ll be lucky not to end up third. Trudeau may come closer, but he’s been bleeding support for months, and this trend will, if anything, accelerate once he’s exposed to the harsh light of the campaign. Nonetheless, both men, pushed along by their self-interested party organizations, will valiantly soldier on, pretending mightily that success is imminent. The result will be exactly what the majority of us dread: a split vote leading to the re-election of Harper.

I believe most Canadians would prefer to have our opposition parties come together and form a mature, responsible coalition, one that could compete effectively in the election and govern effectively thereafter. Such a coalition would not necessitate the dismantling of the Liberals, NDP and Greens. Each party could continue to advocate for the policies it views as crucial. But each would also have to make significant compromises in the interest of maintaining a functioning coalition. If such compromises were openly negotiated and clearly explained to the electorate, they would not be vilified but respected as examples of the give-and-take necessary for genuinely democratic government to work.

This might seem hopelessly naive and idealistic. But in fact it’s a reasonable description of how our system could function under proportional representation. No party or coalition of parties with less than 50 per cent popular support would have the power to make policy. Can you imagine it: a Canada where legislation actually reflected the wishes of the majority?

Is it possible a unifying coalition could come about before the next election and allow the majority of Canadians finally to rule? It all depends on whether the Liberals, NDP and Greens can be weaned away from the selfish pursuit of minority power to give voice to an electorate with more parties than its current electoral system can accommodate.

Jerry Ginsburg, Thornhill

Harry Smith Has Stephen Harper In His Sights

Harry Smith is a man on a mission, one that should put disengaged Canadians to shame.

The 92-year-old long-time activist, who splits his time between Canada and England, is ashamed of what has happened under the rule of Stephen Harper, and plans to make a difference as soon as he returns from the United Kingdom, where he is currently on an extensive speaking tour for Britain's Labour Party, which asked him to be a spokesman in the campaign for the May 7 election.

Smith has become a sensation

for his opinion pieces and memoir Harry's Last Stand, in which he draws parallels between his brutal childhood in the U.K. and where the western world is headed today as government austerity grips many of its countries.

Those experiences, and his memory of what Canada was like in the 1950's when he came here with his family to pursue a better life, have informed a life of activism which now takes the form of opposing austerity and corporate greed.

Here is a brief sample of Smith's early years in Britain in a moving speech he gave last year:



When the British election is over, he plans to replicate his tour in Canada,

in a ''full-tilt'' effort on his part to help oust Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

''He is really, to me, the worst prime minister that ever existed,'' Smith said over the phone from Manchester, pausing for a drink of water. ''Since Harper has come into power, everything has gone downhill. He has one consideration, and that is to let the rich get richer and the poor fend for themselves.''

Smith said the ''epidemic'' of child poverty in Toronto, government service cutbacks, and tax loopholes used by corporations are some of the most concerning threats facing the country today.

The Canada he sees today presents

a stark difference from when he first arrived in Ontario in the 1950s to start anew after serving in the Royal Air Force during the Second World War.

''I've seen this province and the rest of the western world slip back to a society that reminds me of my boyhood,'' Smith said. ''Today is starting to have that same edge -- the same cruelty, the same divisions between those that have, and those that have not, that polarized the 1920s.''

When he arrived here, he saw a country offering people real opportunities for establishing themselves, a country where

none of his friends or neighbours had a problem with paying taxes. Most of them, having grown up in the Depression, thought services paid for by taxes were what made the country a safe and good place to live.

That has all changed now,

as corporations and politicians robbed the public of its social safety net, he said.

With that has come a loss of faith in our political institutions.

Smith said he will tour the country in the run-up to the Canadian election, delivering speeches aimed at youth about the perils of austerity and attacks on government services.

He said young people in Canada need to realize their futures are at risk if they don't oust Harper and vote in someone with ''compassion'' who cares about them.

Smith has an especially sharp warning for the young, disengaged among us:

[Y]oung Canadians must be warned their inaction risks the return to an uncivilized, brutish reality -- one festering with poverty and indifference to those drowning in it.

Harry Smith will be returning to Canada soon and

he said he's ''looking forward to seeing the back of that monster,'' Harper.

I, and millions of other Canadians, wish him every success in his campaign.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denise Irvine-Robertson, Toronto

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

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

Randy Gostlin, Oshawa

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

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

Keith Parkinson, Cambridge

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

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

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

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

David Keystone, Toronto

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

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

Paul Collier, Toronto

Fear In The Streets? It's What He Wants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Understanding Climate Change And Its Impacts In Two Minutes

This two-minute primer shows us how the science of climate change is not, well, rocket science.

An Imperiled Democracy: Civic Illiteracy In Canada

I imagine that bloggers have any number of reasons for doing what they do, ranging from writing as catharsis to sharing information and insights in the hope of informing and/or changing people's views. And while I read a number of blogs on a daily basis that further inform my worldview, I am under scant illusion that our collective efforts have much chance of altering people's perspectives, largely due to the self-selection involved in the reading process. In other words, progressives tend to read progressives' blogs, while regressives reactionaries read the scribblings of fellow travellers. Rarely do the twain meet. The only audience that is 'up for grabs' is the 'mushy middle' and the politically disengaged, neither of whom are likely to be taken with a sudden passion for reading political viewpoints.

So what is the key to having a better-informed citizenry?

In a thoughtful piece at rabble.ca entitled Civic literacy and the assault on Canadian democracy, Murray Dobbins looks back to the time when there was a real appetite for activist governments, a time when people expected government to be a force for the collective good:

That was the so-called golden age of capitalism and it wasn't just because of expanding government services. It was so-called because of a much broader and well-informed citizen engagement -- both through social movements and as individual citizens.

That time, of course, has been replaced with one that emphasizes fear and economic insecurity, ably stoked by a regime that pays little but lip service to the notion of citizenship while systematically dismantling the very underpinnings of what makes a democracy healthy, even vibrant.

It's not just the institutions that are vulnerable, though they certainly are. It's a familiar list, including Harper's bullying of Governor General Michaëlle Jean to force the proroguing of the House, his guide book on how to make parliamentary committees ineffective, the use of robo-calls and other election dirty tricks, his attempt to break the rules in appointing a Supreme Court judge and his neutering the House of Commons question period through a deliberate strategy of refusing to answer questions -- a practice that institutionalizes a contempt for Parliament that spreads outward to the general public. At a certain point it doesn't matter who is responsible -- the institution itself becomes risible and irrelevant to ordinary citizens. Which is, of course, exactly what Harper intends.

But, Dobbins points out, such nefarious actions do not take place in a vacuum. At least in theory, democracy

rests on the foundation of the voting public. The extent to which the institutions of democracy can be assaulted and eroded with impunity is directly proportional to the level of civic literacy. The lower it is, the easier it is for malevolent autocrats like Harper to abuse his power.

"I'm not interested in politics" is indeed sweet music to the ears of autocrats like Harper.

The growing basis for our culture is not community or co-operation but conspicuous consumption and possessive individualism, asserts Dobbins, making Harper's dismantling of our institutions all the easier.

So what is to be done? When we could trust government to do the right things, we could afford to be minimally engaged. That time is long gone.

But when a politician suddenly appears on the scene willing to systematically violate democratic principles as if they simply don't apply to him, then the demand for increased civic literacy is just as suddenly urgent and critical. Yet it is not something that can be accomplished easily or quickly. Three sources come to mind: schools, the media and civil society organizations and activity.

Education

Despite the best efforts of teachers and their unions over the decades, civic literacy is extremely low on the curriculum totem pole in Canadian schools. Provincial governments have resisted such pressures, which should hardly come as a surprise. There is a built-in bias in a hierarchical, capitalist society against critical thinking -- precisely because in liberal democracies the over-arching role of government is to manage capitalism with a view to maintaining it along with all its inherent inequalities. Having too many critical thinkers is not helpful.

The Media

The media, of course, are largely responsible for helping put Stephen Harper in power. Ever since the Machiavellian Conrad Black bought up most of Canada's dailies, they have been used (by him and his successors) as an explicit propaganda tool for the dismantling of the post-war democratic consensus. While there are some tentative signs that they now recognize they've created a monster (Globe editorials criticizing the PM on a number of issues like C-51) it's a little late. Twenty-five years of telling people there is no alternative to unfettered capitalism has had a pernicious effect on both democracy and civic literacy.

Civil Society Oragnizations

...despite their objective of informing people about the myriad issues we face, here, too, the model falls short of significantly expanding the base of engaged, informed citizens. Ironically, much of the defensive politics of the left are the mirror image of Harper's reliance on fear (of Muslims, criminals, niqabs, terrorists, environmentalists, unions, the CBC) to energize his base. We peddle more mundane but substantive fears -- of losing medicare, of climate change, of higher tuition fees, of unprotected rivers and streams and dirty oil.

Dobbin concludes that we must look elsewhere for inspiration, specifically to the Scandinavian countries, where informed citizens are not easily manipulated by fear and their level of trust in government remains high.

"Swedish prime minister Olof Palme once said that he preferred to think of Sweden not as a social democracy but as a 'study-circle democracy.' The idea … is associated most of all with the efforts of the ABF (the Workers' Educational Association). …The ABF offers courses in organizing groups and co-operatives, understanding media, and a broad range of contemporary issues, as well as languages, computers, art, music, and nature appreciation."

There were 10 other groups doing study circles -- many of them subsidized by the government. Half of all Swedish adults were involved in them.

Much work needs to be done to reinvigorate our democracy and reengage our citizens. Articles such as Dobbin's only represent the start of what will be a long and very difficult process.

And time is very short.

More About That Gun Thing, Mr. Harper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attention, Shoppers: Don't Let The Terrorists Win!

An important message to all Canadians from Stephen Harper:

A Work In Progress

The website SHD (Shit Harper Did) is currently completing a documentary looking into Canada's surveillance programs. Now in post-production, it is seeking donors to help complete the process. If you would like to contribute, you can click here.

Following is a trailer of their work:

About That Gun Thing, Mr. Harper

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

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

PM, gun control

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

Jeff Spooner, Kinburn, Ont.

.........

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

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

Jerry Thompson, Ottawa

There Is No Depth To Which He Won't Sink

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fortunately, not everyone embraces the concept of vigilante justice:

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

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

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

Others weighed in as well:

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

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

Wayne Easter, Liberal public safety critic,

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

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

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

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

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

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