Reflections, Observations, and Analyses Pertaining to the Canadian Political Scene
Thursday, December 12, 2013
The Good Lord Gets His Comeuppance
Those who, over the years, have grown weary of the pretentious blather of Conrad Black, the lord and baron much put upon by the requirement that he be subject to the same laws that bind mere mortals, may take some delight in the lesson in real journalism given him by As It Happens' Carol Off.
The former Lord Tubby, much slimmed down following his six-and-a-half years as a guest of the U.S. justice system (prison, I guess, imposes all kinds of disciplines including, one assumes, those of a dietary nature) received his rebukes as Off took him to task for his softball interview of Toronto Mayor-in-name-only Rob Ford in which he permitted the offish civic embarrassment to imply that The Star's Daniel Dale is a pedophile and that Chief Blair has orchestrated a massive conspiracy against him because of police budget restrictions led by the gravy-train foe.
Taking exception to having his talents called into question by a mere public servant, Black grew somewhat testy as the interview proceeded. Clearly, Ms Off doesn't know her place in the world of the gods.
If, like me, you take a certain delight in seeing the arrogant chastised, you can enjoy a transcript of the interview here or listen to the actual interview here.
P.S. No word on how Black is able to work and be paid by Zoomer for his interview work, given his temporary residence status. Then again, perhaps he is part of some kind of work-release program, given the $3 million that he owes Canada Revenue.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Not In My Name, Please
In a regime rife with duplicity, one of the most dishonest aspects of the Harper cabal is its endless capacity to pretend that the decisions it makes and the legislation it enacts are being done 'for the people'. One of most recent examples of this egregious misrepresentation is the decision by the federal government last year to cut off medical care for failed refugee claimants when
it amended the interim federal health program to reduce coverage for most refugees and discontinue basic care to asylum seekers from so-called “safe countries, failed refugees and others sponsored by community groups such as churches to resettle here from overseas camps.
The federal government said the cuts could save taxpayers $100 million over five years and genuine refugees continue to receive comprehensive health care coverage on par with what Canadians receive.
Not only was this an anti-humanitarian measure wholly at odds with our country's former and proud tradition of helping the disadvantaged, it was done dishonestly, the Harper cabal employing the fiction that it was simply responding to public demand:
“Canadians have been clear that they do not want failed asylum claimants and asylum claimants from safe countries receiving better health-care benefits than Canadian taxpayers,” Alexis Pavlich, spokesperson for Immigration Minister Chris Alexander, said in an email.
“Our government listened and acted with regard to Canadian taxpayers’ concerns on this issue, and we remain committed in our effort to preserve the integrity of our immigration system.”
I don't recall being polled on such an issue. Was the government deluged with demands that we enact such an odious measure? I would like to see the statistics behind this alleged demand.
That of course is not going to happen because, in all likelihood, it is like the 'thousands' the Tories claimed complained about the privacy intrusions posed by the mandatory long-form census questionaire that led to the decision to kill it. In truth, there was little more than a handful who objected.
By claiming to act in our name, this government is slandering all of us in its attempt to remake Canada into a leaner, meaner, and more American environment where individualism reigns surpreme. Fortunately, the provinces are fighting back. Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Quebec have all stepped up to provide coverage, with Ontario vowing to send the bills to Ottawa.
It would seem that Canadians' characteristic compassion is not yet dead despite the ongoing and concerted efforts by the neoconservatives to kill it.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Monday, December 9, 2013
When The Elites Aren't Happy
I will readily admit that political perturbations abroad command much less interest from me than those that occur domestically on both the federal and provincial level. Nonetheless, the upheavals currently underway in Thailand provide a rather fascinating lesson into what can happen when the elites (aka the rich) experience a democratically-elected government that does not do their bidding. They simply declare it 'illegitimate.'
A story in today's Star reveals that Thailand’s prime minister, Yingluck Shinawatra, has announced her intention to dissolve the lower house of Parliament and call a snap election, the decision precipitated by increasingly restive protests in the street and the fact that the Democrat party, led by a former premier, Abhisit Vejjajiva, has pulled out of the lower house. The reason, according to Vejjajiva, is that Yingluck’s government has become illegitimate, this despite the fact that her party came to power in a landslide vote in 2011 that observers said was free and fair.
So what is the problem? The official reason is that she tried to obtain amnesty for her brother, the former prime minister, but the real catalyst is something much darker, and has nothing to do with the legitimacy of her reign. The truth is, the elites of the country don't like the fact that too much has been given to the country's poor.
An analysis by Gwynne Dyer establishes some inconvenient truths that few in the mainstream media seem willing to address. Entitled The war on democracy in Thailand, the article reveals the true nature of the protestors' discontent:
The main thing that distinguishes the Civil Movement for Democracy is its profound dislike for democracy. In the mass demonstrations that have shaken Thailand since November 24, its supporters have been trying to remove a prime minister who was elected only two years ago—and their goal is not another election.
“We don't want new elections because we will lose anyway,” one protester told Reuters. “We want (the prime minister’s family) to leave the country.” If they succeeded in driving Yingluck from power, they would skip the whole business of elections and hand the country over to an appointed “People’s Council” made up of “good men”.
What is the source of their disdain for democracy? According to protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban, the majority of the Thai people are too ignorant and flighty to be trusted with the vote. The basis for this distrust of democracy, he says, is that elections in Thailand do not represent people’s (real) choices because their votes are bought.”
It is important here to note, as Dyer points out, that there is no bribery or corruption involved here. No, the truth is votes were 'bought' by Thaksin Shinawatra, the current Prime Minister's brother, through policies that most would deem progressive:
He set up programs like village-managed micro-credit development funds and low-interest agricultural loans.
He created a universal healthcare system and provided low-cost access to anti-HIV medications.
Between 2001 and 2006, the year a military coup ousted him, the GDP grew by 30 percent, public sector debt fell from 57 percent of GDP to 41 percent, and foreign exchange reserves doubled .
Income in the north-east, the poorest part of the country, rose by 41 percent.
Poverty nationwide dropped from 21 percent to 11 percent, and the prevalence of HIV/AIDS declined.
He even managed to balance the budget.
So one can see what is really bothering the elites of the country. Enlightened policy means they have to share some of the pie, something the rich never seem to be very good at.
Of course, there is little danger of such upheavals in North America. Both Canada and the United States, as we know, serve their elites very, very well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)