For Those Who Value Democracy

After watching Pierre Polievre make the Sunday rounds extolling his government's achievements, it would be easy for the politically disengaged and ignorant to conclude that the Harper regime is the greatest thing since the proverbial sliced bread. By Polievre's account, his government has put more money into the pockets of 'hardworking Canadians' than any other in Canada's history. What's not to like about TFSAs (a leg up for both working and retired seniors, according to trickster Pierre), income-splitting and new pending budget measures for seniors. All is well with the world.

Except that it is not. Scratch beneath the surface of such self-serving rhetoric and you will find a profoundly anti-democratic regime with barely concealed contempt for those who hold differing views, that latter considered one of the most important elements of any society that deems itself healthy and dynamic. The regime has used every trick at its disposal to demonize those dissenting voices as it extols a consumer-driven politics meant to turn us into a people who embrace mediocrity and absence of bold vision.

Although I have written about it many times, the Harper-directed CRA witch hunts make for a good illustration of the profoundly intolerant and anti-democratic nature of the Harper regime.

Steven Zhou writes:

If a democratic system thrives on participation from a civil society free to express itself without state intervention, then Canadian democracy could use some help these days.

Citizens who band together into groups that push politicians to engage a problem should, in theory, be a vital aspect of democratic decision-making. Yet the Harper administration, in its infinite political wisdom, has devoted millions of taxpayer dollars via Canada Revenue Agency, formerly Revenue Canada, to, in effect, target groups that are critical of federal policies.

The statistics paint a damning picture:

The CRA launched a series of 60 audits in 2012, and, tellingly, the targeted organizations all seem to espouse views that don't fit so well with the Harper agenda.

These 'political-activity audits' have primarily targeted environmental groups, human rights organizations, and labour-backed think tanks like the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Meanwhile, more conservative-minded groups like the Manning Foundation or the Fraser Institute have not faced such aggression from the CRA. Many of them have also, like their leftist counterparts, participated in 'political activities.'

And this pattern holds true for the CRA's latest target:

[T]he latest charity to be targeted in a significant way is the United Steelworkers' Humanity Fund, a labour-backed organization that has supported food banks and disaster relief initiatives for over 30 years.

It has donated about two per cent of its annual revenue to the Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability (CNCA), an umbrella organization that advocates for more accountability in the Canadian mining sector, among other things.

This support for the CNCA, an organization that hasn't shied away from its political purposes, is apparently what the CRA is zeroing in on. The fund has often butted heads with the Harper administration over labour issues, and wants more oversight of Canadian mining practices abroad, which, according to its president Ken Neumann, is primarily why the CRA began auditing the group's finances last year.

The intended purposes of such audits, of course, are to provoke both fear and self-censorship:

Such audits can certainly disrupt an organization's day-to-day operations significantly, but this kind of trouble isn't the main reason why these intrusions are bad for Canadian democracy in the long run. Targeted organizations that are forced to go through the lengthy auditing process can, whether the government intends it or not, become examples of what not to say or do in the Harper era.

One can hardly blame other charities if they decide to interpret the current inquisitorial atmosphere as being politically motivated. This means that if they want to keep their charitable status, practicing a degree of self-censorship may end up being totally rational. This is an anti-democratic development almost by definition, and it hardly matters whether a particular agenda is behind it all, though the available evidence suggests that Revenue Canada's choices aren't exactly politically neutral.

Will such practices, profoundly inimical to democracy, be noted by average Canadians, or will their vision be blinded by budget baubles designed to cultivate the selfish part of their natures?

I don't know the answer, but I do fear it.

The Harper Attack On Charities Continues

Following a well-established pattern, the Harper regime has once again used the offices of Canada Revenue Agency to go after a charity that it deems ideologically inimical to its base. This time, it is Dying With Dignity Canada:

The federal government is stripping Dying with Dignity Canada of its charitable tax status following a political activity audit by the Canada Revenue Agency.

The organization, a registered charity since 1982, advocates for choice and dignity at the end of life, including providing information about patient rights, advance planning and education on the case for physician-assisted death.

Despite the fact that it has been a registered charity for over 30 years,

Dying with Dignity says the revenue agency has informed it that the organization never should have received charitable status in the first place because it does not advance education in the charitable sense.

That was some oversight, eh?

Harper Intimidation Tactic Backfires

As noted yesterday, the Harper-led CRA attacks on charities inimical to the base continues apace, the latest 'victim' being Dying With Dignity Canada, which is having its charitable status 'annulled.' However, this time it appears that the bully's strategy has backfired.

As reported in The Star, Dying With Dignity Canada is not going to appeal the decision, instead seeing it as a real opportunity:

“We won’t be opposing it, simply because it would be lengthy, time consuming, costly and a distraction from our core work,’’ Morris said in a telephone interview from Toronto.

She hinted strongly that once her group’s status is officially gone, it will use its website to begin endorsing politicians and parties who support the physician-assisted suicide position.

“We’ll be able to say here’s a candidate, come look,’’ Morris said.

“It’s unfortunate we’ll no longer be able to issue tax receipts, but it will also be a real freeing from constraints, because as a charity we’ve really had to follow careful guidelines from the (revenue agency). We’ll no longer need to do that,’’ Morris added.

A visit to their website shows a wealth of information on the topic of dying with dignity, surely fulfilling the educational component that comprises a good part of CRA-conferred charitable status, and solidly giving the lie to the Agency's alleged reason for revoking that status.

Nonetheless, as a result of Harper's sleazy intolerance of opposing views, I suspect that the profile of Dying With Dignity Canada has been considerably enhanced.

Sorry it didn't work out for you this time, Stephen.

On Prudent Spending

Now that the former fiscal masters of the universe, a.k.a. the Harper government, has left us with a structural deficit that will mean $3 billion to $5 billion in each of the next five years, the usual ideologues are suggesting that Justin Trudeau needs to reign in his deficit-spending plan. Financial probity is nothing to be lightly dismissed, but The Star's Carol Goar has some suggestions on how that deficit can be made more manageable:

... clean up the tax credits, deductions, exemptions and deferrals (known collectively as “tax expenditures”) that cost Ottawa billions of dollars. The Conservatives brought in at least 70 of them. But past Liberal governments created them, too.

These hidden expenditures cost approximately $150 billion a year in foregone revenue.

A second alternative is to stop spending money on Conservative priorities. The Liberals were never in favour of jailing young offenders for drug possession and other non-violent crimes; detaining unsuccessful refugee claimants; building mega prisons; auditing charities whose leaders spoke out against government policies; buying top-of-the-line stealth fighter jets; or airing prime-time government ads.

A third choice is to terminate, or substantially scale back, corporate subsidies. Right now, there is a request for $1 billion from Bombardier sitting on the prime minister’s desk. Chrysler came calling last year. Over the last half century, Industry Canada has disbursed $22 billion to businesses ranging from oilsands developers to ice cream parlours, high tech manufacturers to pizzerias. The assumption is that these handouts boost growth and create jobs, but no government has provided credible evidence to back up this proposition.

The cupboards need not be bare as long as ideology no longer trumps strategic expenditures that will benefit the many instead of the favoured few so slavishly courted by the former regime.

Ed Broadbent Addresses The "Fair' Elections Act

I write this blog for a number of reasons, the most important one being the hope that I might contribute a little something to the general body of knowledge on political and social issues. The progressive blogosphere seems especially well-informed, and I often find myself reading sources and commentary that would have otherwise escaped my attention. So in that sense, I write for my fellow-bloggers.

Another audience I always hope to reach consists of those who may have come upon my blog seredipitously; they may see a perspective that offers some food for thought, which in turn may lead some into additional avenues of inquiry. While that may sound like a somewhat grandiose aspiration, one lives in hope.

Finally, I find writing a blog cathartic. Rather than simply allowing passions, anger, frustration and outrage to roil about internally, writing is a way of trying to create something positive out of, let's face it, negative issues (politics, corporate depredations, exploitation, etc. ad nauseam).

I wrote the above preface because my topic today is Ed Broadbent's op-ed piece in today's Star, in which he offers a withering assessment of the 'Fair' Elections Act. While his critique breaks no new ground and his points are likely well-known to those of us well-acquainted with Herr Harper's tactics and world-view, I offer some of them here in the spirit of the above:

Broadbent begins with the following:

For many months the Conservative government has blatantly taken away by fiat the right to strike of union members within federal jurisdiction. They are now threatening to shut down environmental charities that are talking about climate change. And they are ramming through Parliament changes to the elections act that will almost certainly mean that many thousands of Canadians will not be able to vote.

Taken in the aggregate, these measures, he asserts, are an unprecedented attack on our fundamental rights, restricting as they do freedom of association, freedom of speech, and our right to vote.

Inspired by the tried and tested voter suppression tactics used by the Republicans to disenfranchise marginalized groups in the U.S., the new election law would make it harder for certain groups to vote. The law would end the ability to “vouch” for the bona fides of a neighbour, a tool that allowed 120,000 voters — disproportionately aboriginal, youth and seniors — to cast ballots in the last election.

Among the other measures in the Act that will limit, not expand, democratic participation:

- The Prohibition of Voter-identification Cards: Elections Canada had only in the last few years piloted the use of the cards to make it easier to cast a ballot at polling sites serving seniors’ residences, long-term care facilities, aboriginal reserves and on-campus student residences.

Clearly that kind of easy enfranchisement is anathema to the Harper cabal.

- Limiting Elections Canada's Outreach Program will prohibit it from encouraging people to vote. Gone would be its ability to support programs in our schools, like Student Vote’s mock elections, or the outreach work in aboriginal communities.

- Removing Elections Canada's Power to Investigate Electoral Crime will mean that things like robocall fraud will be be beyond its purview.

I hope you will take the opportunity to read Broadbent's entire piece, but I will leave you with two more of his observations:

It is fitting, then, that the new election law is being rammed through Parliament. Once more, Harper is using closure — a way to end debate early — to prevent people asking, for example, why school programs that teach kids how to vote are so bad. Why let MPs actually debate democracy when it’s not valuable enough to educate children about?

Having spent more than two decades in the House of Commons, I can think of no prime minister who has been so focused on undermining electoral participation and public debate.

I suspect few would dispute Ed Broadbent's analysis or his conclusions.

About Those Diversions, Mr. Harper

H/t Raeside Cartoons

Meanwhile, always perspicacious Toronto Star readers will have none of it. Here is but a small sampling of their sentiments on Mr. Harper's diversionary tactics:

Re: Harper vows to end ‘terror tourism,’ Aug. 10

Travel restrictions to terrorist locations shouldn’t be election promises. When warranted I expect any government to take responsible precautions, including restricting travel to certain areas, more for the safety of the travelers than as a way to stop potential radicals.

It’s hardly worthy of be‎ing touted as a campaign plank, but I suppose the Conservatives have little else to run on. More and more though, the Conservative positions on security sound like a paranoid response from someone who runs and hides in a closet at the first hint of trouble.

Terry Kushnier, Scarborough

Life mirrors art. Stephen Harper unjustifiably presents terrorism as so threatening to Canadians that he must be kept in office to be our saviour. Remember the movie “Wag the Dog,” in which a film producer created a pretend narrative of real war threats in order to keep the incumbent U.S. president in power? It worked in the movie — let’s be aware and ensure it doesn’t work for Stephen Harper.

Linda Silver Dranoff, Toronto

If Stephen Harper had been a politician in the 1950s, his bogeymen to scare voters would have been those nefarious communists. Richard Nixon parlayed that type of fear mongering into a political career that launched him all the way to the White House. Once in power, Nixon would direct his people to undertake unethical retaliations against individuals and groups that disagreed with his ideology or who had pointed out mistakes or deceptions committed by his administration. Tax audits were one of his weapons.

In the end, his governments involvement in a scandalous illegal activity brought down a majority elected government. A lot of people knew the negatives about Nixon before he was elected to a second term. But, it took the release of the Nixon tapes to convince the rest of the U.S. electorate.

Wait a minute – in addition to our government’s cynical ploy of a tough on terrorism agenda, aren’t we seeing tax audits being used here in Canada against environmental and politically liberal charities? Don’t we have a chief of staff for the Office of the Prime Minister of Canada involved in a hush money payoff scandal? I don’t get it. Isn’t it our duty to learn from history?

Someone should have been taping the Harper administration.

Russell Pangborn, Keswick

Now we know who’s been spying on people through their baby cams. You gotta get to those terrorists while they’re still young eh Steve.
Harpers “Anti Terrorism Act” is just that — an act of desperation.

Richard Kadziewicz, Scarborough

Let us all hope, for the sake of our country, that such critical thinking is not confined to the pages of national newspapers.

Where Are Your Charity Dollars Going?

I doubt there are many amongst us who have not experienced the following: You are sitting down for a mid-evening meal, or perhaps settling in to watch an hour of television when the phone rings. At the other end of the line is someone calling on behalf of a charity, either one you currently patronize or one seeking your support. You do one of three things: you either agree to increase your support, say you can't give more, or agree to sponsor the new charity.

It may surprise you to know that in some cases, the person you have just dealt with is not necessarily a volunteer calling on behalf of the charity, but rather an employee of a professional fundraising company that will be receiving anywhere from 35 to 80% of your donation.

These startling facts were presented on last night's edition of C.B.C.'s The National in a report by Diana Swain. The value of the report lies not in discouraging us from contributing to worthwhile causes, but rather in allowing us to make better-informed decisions as to where to allot our philanthropic dollars.

The full report, with links to a searchable database breaking down the expenditures of registered charities, can be found on the C.B.C. website

We are All Complicit in Environmental Degradation

Recently I wrote a post about the chilling effect that the federal budget will have on charities, especially those devoted to environmental activism. Unfortunately, I chose to ignore another reality that is equally grim - the fact that all of us (forgive the sweeping generalization) are to blame both for the current dire environmental situation we are in and for the future horrors that will ensue from that complicity.

In today's Star, columnist Christopher Hume reminds us of a few 'inconvenient truths':

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s move to “streamline” the environmental review process and muzzle the environmental movement was deeply disturbing, but Canadians will happily turn the other cheek.

Licking our lips in anticipation of tarsands trillions, Canadians, let alone Canadian politicians, are cheerfully signing up as our corner of the planet is plundered beyond recognition....

We can no longer see beyond the next fix....

As shrill as the deniers might be, we all know that the current path leads to degradation and devastation. Despite mounting evidence, including our own winter that wasn’t, we prefer to keep our collective head buried in the tar sand....

His depressing assessment of our own shortsightedness notwithstanding, I hope you will find time to read Hume's entire piece.

Harper's Reign Of Terror - A Closer Examination

While Stephen Harper's attacks on charities have been followed here and elsewhere, the Star presents a good overview of how the offices of the CRA have been subverted by a vindictive regime that brooks no opposition to its neoliberal agenda.

The article begins with the egregious case of CoDevelopment Canada, a small Vancouver charity that works with its Latin American partners in helping to fund programs that assist the poor. Apparently, if that assistance threatens to upset the corporate status quo, a crime has been committed in Harperland.

One of CoDev's Latin American partners is the Maria Elena Cuadra Movement for Working and Unemployed Women (MEC), which is based in Nicaragua. MEC’s goals include helping to modernize labour relations in Nicaragua’s free-trade zones by promoting the notion that human, labour and gender rights for workers must be upheld.

In 2013-14, CoDev and its Canadian partners sent MEC nearly $38,000. The money was used for causes such as MEC’s legal clinic, which that year handled 2,000 cases — 1,600 involving women — pertaining to issues such as labour-rights violations and gender-based violence.

Previously, the charity vigorously opposed Ottawa’s decision to sign a free-trade agreement with Colombia, a country [Barbara] Wood [CoDev’s former executive director,] describes as having “massive displacement and violence.’’

Wood muses about whether CoDev’s criticism of the government played a role in putting it on CRA’s radar.

Consider the tale of CoDev's two audits. Their first, in 2009, was a relatively innocuous affair:

The auditor came for about four days to the group’s small second-floor office in east Vancouver on June 10, 2009. A few glitches were spotted. For example, CoDev had been reporting some of its money in the wrong boxes on its tax returns, and filing cabinets in the charity’s office containing donor information weren’t being locked.

Case closed, right? Not quite. In 2012, 'Uncle' Joe Oliver, then Natural Resources Minister, in an open letter warned that environmental and other "radical groups" are trying to block trade and undermine Canada's economy.

It wasn't long after this that nonprofits critical of aspects of government policy suddenly found themselves the centre of the CRA's attention. The David Suzuki Foundation, of course, was one of them.

In mid-October, a new audit wass ordered of CoDev, one that began in January of 2013, this one involving three investigators, an auditor and two others whose area of specialty was program funding. They ultimately imposed onerous stipulations on the four-person office, including the translation of all Spanish documents into English. More specific details outlining the Harper-directed CRA vindictiveness can be found here.

Most reasonable people will draw the conclusion that these audits are far from innocent. In the simplistic and bifurcated world of Stephen Harper, you are either with the government or you are with its 'enemies'. If you fall into the latter category, beware the consequences.

Be Careful What You Wish For

As you likely know, Jeff Bezos is currently searching for a second headquarters for his company, Amazon. And much to the delight of Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and Mayor John Tory, Toronto has made the final cut of 20 cities being considered. Whoever lands the company is promised upwards of 50,000 well-paying jobs as well as bragging rights as a destination city. However, there is a dark side to this ostensible corporate munificence.

Recently, John Starkman wrote a cautionary piece:

Amazon derives its success because of its deliberate Darwinian culture that encourages combativeness and pits employees against each other. It is a fundamentally ruthless and predatory company.

Indeed, if you click on the link embedded in the above excerpt, you will wonder whether the term 'cutthroat environment' does justice in describing the working conditions at Amazon.

It would seem that Amazon cares only about Amazon. It also appears to be a very bad corporate citizen:

The IRS is pursuing the company for allegedly owing $1.5 billion in unpaid taxes, the European Union in October hit the company with a $294 million tax bill, and last month Amazon had to pay $118 million to settle an Italian tax probe.

In response to this article, the always thoughtful Star readers have offered their own insights, two of which I reproduce here:

Thank you, Eric Starkman, for speaking the unspeakable. No, we definitely don’t want Amazon in Canada. The jobs it might bring are not respectful to workers and Jeff Bezos has made it clear he’s not interested in paying taxes and contributing to the communities in which he makes his billions — $2.8 billion in one day and a net worth of more than $100 billion.

His contributions to charities, which only came after public shaming, are a pittance compared to the amount of money he is putting in his own pocket and hiding in offshore accounts.

He has made public statements that “the mission of Amazon is to become not the number-one retailer in the world, but the only retailer in the world. Imagine what that would do to small business. Yes, we would still be able to buy products, all from Jeff, but it would change the fabric of our society. What would our streets be like if there were no small businesses? No more storefront windows to look at, no opportunity to browse, no way to touch the clothes before you buy, no advice from someone who is knowledgeable?

And what would happen to all the people who no longer had an opportunity to put their creativity into their livelihood? I believe this is a greater threat than Walmart and other big-box stores, which have already had a huge negative impact on small business.

And do we really want to put all that power in one individual? Remember, we all vote with our pocketbooks and how we vote makes a difference. I for one am going to think long and hard before I put any more money in Jeff Bezos’s pocket. I hope you do the same.

Robin Alter, Toronto

The history of Amazon’s rise as a powerful online monopoly and its practices are largely unknown to people. What the average person knows about Amazon is an internet retailer that provides cheap goods with fast delivery. However, cheapness and speed come at a cost.

Amazon is not a retailer like any other we have seen before. It is a vast 21st-century digital monopoly that has skilfully manoeuvred around the U.S. antitrust laws and, with a predatory pricing system, spread its tentacles far and deep. Amazon accounts for more than 40 per cent of online retail sales in the U.S., with more revenue than the next top 10 online retailers combined.

Any move that Amazon makes has a long-term strategic element, with the idea of extending its power with little regard to the interest of citizens of the community. No city like Toronto, with caring neighbourhoods and communities, should want an Amazon headquarters in its backyard. The interests of those who advocate for an Amazon headquarters in Toronto are not necessarily the same as the interests of ordinary Torontonians and businesses. People of Toronto should carefully study both sides of the argument and decide.

Ali Orang, Richmond Hill

The allure of a wealth of high-paying jobs is a siren call few can resist. However, as the saying goes, be careful what you wish for. Given what is now known about Amazon, it is advice apparently well-worth heeding.

UPDATED: Hope Fades ......

It is becoming difficult to hold on to hope. Despite all we know about the Harper regime, despite all that has been written about its corruption, its abuse of power, its undermining of our democratic institutions, its insidious appeal to the worst in our natures, it seems to all be coming down to an issue that has already been decided by the courts: the niqab and its use during citizenship ceremonies.

It is almost enough to make me hold up my hands in abject surrender.

According to the latest poll conducted by Forum Research, if an election were held today, Stephen Harper would win another government, albeit a minority one:

The survey of 1,499 Canadian voters has Conservative Leader Stephen Harper’s party ahead with 34 per cent support, compared to 28 per cent for the NDP and 27 per cent support for the Liberals.

At the heart of this resurgence, according to Forum president Lorne Bozinoff, is that [t]wo-thirds (64 per cent) of Canadian voters are opposed to having fully veiled women swear the oath of citizenship, while just over a quarter (26) support it.

Though the poll’s findings are just a snapshot in time, if the same results occurred the night of the Oct. 19 election, the Conservatives would win a minority — 151 seats in the 338-seat House of Commons. The NDP would form the opposition again with 105 seats, the Liberals would seize 76 seats, the Bloc six seats and the Greens one.

And while the neo-barbarians are ready to resume their assault on our putative values and traditions, what are the oppositions parties doing? Fighting each other, of course. Thomas Walkom writes,

New Democratic Party leader Mulcair dismisses Trudeau as a callow youth. Echoing Conservative attack ads, his New Democrats say the 43-year-old Liberal leader just isn’t ready to become prime minister.

From time to time, and again echoing the Conservatives, Mulcair dismissively refers to his Liberal rival as “Justin.”

Trudeau is no less harsh. He accuses Mulcair of duplicity — of saying one thing in French and another in English. He says the NDP, by pandering to Quebec separatists, threatens national unity.

He dredges up old charges that Mulcair, a former Quebec Liberal cabinet minister, once contemplated the idea of exporting fresh water in bulk.

All of this occurs at a time when Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are quietly edging up in the polls.

As those two parties put on full display, not co-operation to oust the tyrant but instead their avidity for power at any price, progressives are put in a bind:

These so-called progressive voters desperately want Harper gone. And they are horrified by the real possibility that this war to the death between Liberals and New Democrats will split the anti-Harper vote, thus allowing the Conservatives to win power again.

Here's a sample of what the NDP is doing to achieve power:

Another ad aims to maim support for Trudeau in the manufacturing sector by referencing a suggestion Liberal candidate Chrystia Freeland made years earlier about letting the big three automakers — Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler — go bankrupt.

The third brings up the Liberal leader’s $20,000 speaking fees he charged charities and school boards, accusing him of skipping House of Common votes to collect money “for something that’s already a part of his job.”

Trudeau offered to reimburse some fees in 2013.

It’s a tactic that’s borrowed from the Conservative Party, who have been running attack ads against Trudeau with the tagline, “Just not ready” for months.

Canadians have notoriously short memories. Yet as we get ever closer to October 19, they are bound to remember certain things, the wrong things, I fear.

UPDATE: In his comment, Anon pointed out that the radio ad war was, in fact, started by the Liberals. I am unable to embed the ad, but you can listen to it here. While perhaps mild compared to the acerbity of the NDP attack ads, it serves to amply illustrate that both opposition parties are guilty of divisive tactics in their respective quests for power.

UPDATED: Harper's Reign of Terror - Part Four

Except, that is, in Harperland. The latest Orwellian edict to come down from the Harper-directed CRA, reported by The Winnipeg Free Press, is as follows:

The Canada Revenue Agency has told a well-known charity that it can no longer try to prevent poverty around the world, it can only alleviate poverty — because preventing poverty might benefit people who are not already poor.

The bizarre bureaucratic brawl over a mission statement is yet more evidence of deteriorating relations between the Harper government and some parts of Canada's charitable sector.

The lexical scuffle began when Oxfam Canada filed papers with Industry Canada to renew its non-profit status, as required by Oct. 17 this year under a law passed in 2011.

Ottawa-based Oxfam initially submitted wording that its purpose as a charity is "to prevent and relieve poverty, vulnerability and suffering by improving the conditions of individuals whose lives, livelihood, security or well-being are at risk."

The international development group, founded in 1963, spends about $32 million each year on humanitarian relief and aid in Africa, Asia, and Central and South America, with a special emphasis on women's rights.

But the submission to Industry Canada also needed the approval of the charities directorate of the Canada Revenue Agency, and that's where the trouble began.
Agency officials informed Oxfam that "preventing poverty" was not an acceptable goal.

"Relieving poverty is charitable, but preventing it is not," the group was warned. "Preventing poverty could mean providing for a class of beneficiaries that are not poor."

Oxfam Canada's executive director called the exchange an "absurd conversation."

I really have nothing to add to that assessment.

UPDATE:

In my haste to put this little nugget up last evening, I neglected to include one piece of information that demonstrates Oxfam is yet another victim of a vindictive and intolerant Harper regime:

Oxfam Canada was singled out for criticism earlier this year by Employment Minister Jason Kenney over the group’s opposition to Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

And in July last year, Oxfam Canada signed a joint letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, taking issue with reports that government officials had been asked to compile “friend and enemy stakeholder” lists to brief new ministers after the summer cabinet shuffle.

A Pitch for Avaaz.org

Because I believe in the good work that they do, I am reproducing below an email I received from Avaaz.org, a world-wide organization that marshals wide-ranging support for numerous causes and issues that, if properly addressed, can make our world a better place. If you like what you see, you might want to consider making a donation to help them continue their good work.

Wow - we've almost reached our fundraising goal of 10,000 sustainers! We have 5 days left until the New Year - if we can find 150 more donors from Canada, we'll hit our goal and massively empower Avaaz in 2011! Here's the email -- 

Dear fellow Avaazers, 

I've had moments in my life when I doubted the strength of goodness and compassion in the world, and myself. 

But being part of Avaaz has been profoundly thrilling. Every day I read the most incredible messages from you (if you write 'dear ricken' at the top it comes through to my personal email) -- messages of hope, courage, and wisdom. I lived and worked in war zones before starting Avaaz. From Sierra Leone to Afghanistan, I saw some of the best and worst in humanity. But at Avaaz I have seen a humanity I didn't know existed. There are millions of us, we all just want to do the right thing, and we're willing to work for it. 

Week after week, we come together for a purpose. At the beginning it was often just to speak out. But as we've grown and our voice has grown, we've begun to create real magic. Time and again, we're winning - actually stopping those things that break your heart when you read about them in the paper. Actually building the world we all dream of. 

If you feel at all like I feel, consider becoming an Avaaz sustainer. It sounds incredible, but all the work of our 6.5 million strong network is made possible by just 4967 "sustainers" who donate a few dollars/euros/etc a week -- the price of a cup of coffee -- to sustain our core operating costs. As the holidays approach, we're looking to double that number, and with it our capacity to serve this incredible community. Click here to double the hope, change, and everything that we can do together.

Making a small but steady weekly contribution enables Avaaz to plan responsibly around long term costs like our tiny but awesome staff team, our website and technology, and the security of our systems (this can get pricy when our campaigns are taking on shady characters!). It also means we have the ability to respond immediately to crises as they occur and jump on opportunities for action without delay.

A very small donation of $3 or $5 per week from 10,000 Avaazers would enable our community to expand all our work next year, helping to save lives in humanitarian emergencies, protect the environment and wildlife, fight political corruption and organized crime, push for peace and reduce poverty.

Donating to Avaaz has a double-impact – because our donations not only make change now by empowering particular campaigns, every contribution builds our community that will be making change for decades to come. It’s an investment with both immediate and long term results for our children’s and our planet’s future. Click here to contribute. 

Fundraising is often a problem for social change organizations. Government or corporate funding would profoundly threaten our mission. Funding from large donors also often comes with strings attached. And high-pressure tactics like telemarketing, postal mail, or direct on-the-street programmes often cost nearly as much as they raise! That's why the Avaaz model - online, people-powered donations - is the best way in the world to power an engine of social change, and a huge part of our community's promise. 

If we can multiply the number of sustainers we have, it will take our community, and our impact, to a whole new level. I can't wait. 

I know that donating is an act of hope, and of trust. I feel a huge and serious sense of responsibility to be a steward of that hope, and my team and I are deeply committed to respecting the trust you place in us with your hope, time, and resources. It's a special thing we're building here, and if we can keep believing in each other, anything is possible. 

With hope and gratitude for this amazing community, 

Ricken Patel
Co-Founder and Executive Director
Avaaz 

PS - In case you're mulling it over, here's 11 more reasons to donate to Avaaz :) :

Reason 1 – What we do Works

With 6.5 million members in every nation of the world, able to mobilize at a moment's notice to pressing needs and opportunities, Avaaz works –- together we've saved lives in Haiti and Burma, reversed government policies from Brazil to Japan, and won victories on international treaties from banning cluster bombs to preserving oceans. UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown says of Avaaz "You have driven forward the idealism of the world... do not underestimate your impact on leaders" while the Economist says Avaaz is "poised to deliver a deafening wake up call to world leaders" and Al Gore says "Avaaz is inspiring, and has already made a difference". We're only 3 years old and growing fast, and the more our members get involved and donate, the more impact we have.

Make a donation here.

Reason 2 – An Avaaz donation is an investment with permanent social change returns

With Avaaz, our donations fund high impact campaigns that also recruit more people. More people means more donations, and more impact. So you're not only achieving a particular change with your donation, you're helping grow a community with new members that will multiply your donation many times over, and be a permanent and ever-increasing source of change. It's a tremendous philanthropic value to have this kind of double and permanent impact.

Reason 3 – We have no bureaucracy

Avaaz is a massive network of citizens, but our organization is absolutely tiny – just 15 full time campaigners with operational and technology support. Most large global NGOs have hundreds or even thousands of staff. Our small size means we have no time for red tape, layers of management, or being focused on anything but getting results.

Reason 4 – We're regularly audited, and fiscally responsible

There's a lot of fear out there about misuse of donated money. Most of the fear is misplaced – most organizations are filled with good people trying to do good things. With Avaaz you can be sure – partly because we're required by law to be audited every 12 months. This audit thoroughly checks every aspect of our books and financial practices. We've been audited 3 times since we launched and every time been given a squeaky clean bill of health (for details, click here).

Reason 5 – We have a world-class team that does outstanding work

Campaigning, advocacy and social change are a serious and demanding business – the more competent the team, the more impact our donations have. Avaaz attracts some of the best campaigners and advocates in the world. Many of our campaign directors joined us after being CEOs of successful multi-million dollar advocacy organizations, and most have degrees from the top universities in the world.

Donate now: 

Reason 6 – We're 100% Independent

Avaaz takes absolutely no money from governments or corporations. This is hugely important to ensuring that our voice is exclusively determined by the values of our members, and not by any large funder or agenda. While we received initial seed grants from partner organizations and charitable organizations, almost 90% of the Avaaz budget now comes small online donations. This means that the only agenda we have to follow is the people's agenda.

Reason 7 – We pass the money on when it makes sense, and give to the best efforts

Avaaz has donated almost $4 million to other organizations, because we saw them as better placed than us to have impact on a particular issue. For example, we've granted $1.6 million to Burmese monks and aid groups, and $1.3 million to Haitian aid organizations – see this video from the groups that received our donations. The way we support organizations is important too. Most foundations have endless process and constraints that make them slow, bureaucratic and risk averse in supporting advocacy. Avaaz finds the best people and organizations and doesn't micromanage them – we just empower them to do what they know best.

Reason 8 – We're political (this really matters)

Most charities offer tax deductibility for donations. But this means that they are, in a way, partially tax-payer funded, and governments use that to place a very thick set of rules on what they can and can't do. Chief among them is restricting what they can say to criticize, support, or oppose a politician. Avaaz is very rare in that our donations are not tax deductible, leaving us 100% free to say and do whatever we need to to get leaders to listen to people. Since so many important issues are won and lost in the political realm, this makes us much more effective than advocacy groups that shy away from speaking out politically.

Reason 9 – We go where the greatest needs and opportunities are

Most organizations focus on a single issue over a long period of time. This is very important to do, but that can mean that when desperate needs or amazing opportunities for social change arise, they get ignored because everyone is working on their own issue. Avaaz campaigns target the most urgent needs and opportunities, showing up just when a powerful burst of citizens' attention is needed most. We work continuously with top quality partners in the areas we campaign on, and all describe Avaaz as an amazing added value to their work.

Click to donate: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/sustain_avaaz_16/?vl

Reason 10 – Democratic accountability is hard-wired into our model

The Avaaz model of campaigning is people-powered. Our priorities are set at annual and weekly levels by polls of our membership and every campaign we run is first polled with members. Click here for results from our 2010 annual poll. No matter how much work we put into developing a campaign, if it fails to get the greenlight from members, we don't run it. So on a day to day basis, how we spend the donations we receive is determined directly by members.

Reason 11 – There's no other organization like us

Avaaz is the world's first and only massive, high-tech, people-powered, multi-issue, genuinely global advocacy organization. In a world where the problems we face are consistently global, and the solutions to them increasingly require global democratic action, Avaaz is uniquely placed to effect change. No other organization can rapidly mobilize large-scale, coordinated democratic pressure in over 150 countries within 24 hours. A new model of internet-based, people-powered politics has changed politics in several countries, and Avaaz is taking that proven model global. The result is already the largest global online movement in history, and we're just getting started.

Make a secure donation to Avaaz here. 

In The Fullness Of Hypocrisy

 

Those who read this blog with any regularity will know that I am a strong advocate of newspaper readership. Despite their flaws, mainstream media have something to offer that simply gleaning news from the internet lacks: reports and perspectives on a wide array of issues. Unlike the echo chamber that the pick-and-choose Web has become, they provide something sorely lacking in many people's perspectives: wide context with which to evaluate the world, and our place in it. Local, national and international reports and views have the potential to take us out of our limited bubble, rather than reinforce it as happens with those who attend the university of the internet.

With that is mind, I am taking the unusual step of reproducing a large portion of a column today, written by Althia Raj, as she addresses some of the fundamental and farcical hypocrisy evident in the Conservative Party of Canada and. to a lesser extent as asserted by Raj (although I don't really agree with her on this point), by Justin Trudeau that has emerged in the truckers' kidnapping of Ottawa:

Shockingly, the demonstrators have received the nearly incomprehensible blessing of Conservative MPs. Writing in the Toronto Sun Friday, Rachael Thomas (Lethbridge) said it an “honour and a joy” to walk among the protesters; she expressed pride that the trucking convoy was sparking mimics in other countries, and called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to dialogue with the protesters — whose organizers have called for the overthrow of his democratically elected government.

Last week, interim leader Candice Bergen (Portage-Lisgar), who has cheered the convoy since the beginning, saying their demands for freedom and respect were not too much to ask, also called on Trudeau to extend an olive branch to the protesters. Carleton MP and declared Conservative leadership contestant Pierre Poilievre also made a point of posing for pictures with the protesters, as have Leslyn Lewis (Haldimand-Norfolk) and several Saskatchewan MPs.

The Tory caucus is not united. But for every Pierre Paul-Hus, a Quebec MP and former lieutenant-colonel, who called for the streets be cleared and the occupation “controlled by radicals and anarchist groups” stopped, or a Shelby Kramp-Neuman (Hastings—Lennox and Addington), who tweeted that the increasing amount of bad-faith actors were not a legitimate protest, there is a Lianne Rood (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex) or Dean Allison (Niagara West) who “strongly disagree,” and see in Ottawa a peaceful assembly. Social media is full of Conservative MPs, such as Greg McLean (Calgary Centre) who decry “unbalanced media coverage,” choosing to focus on the protest’s “winter carnival” feeling rather than its lawlessness.

Who among us believes that if the truck convoy occupiers were anti-pipeline advocates, bringing a joyful message of hope for a greener and cleaner future while urinating on the streets, and blocking these MPs’ constituents from going about their daily lives or sleeping at night, there wouldn’t be a very different message from the Tory caucus?

Back in 2020, during the Indigenous-led railway blockades, Poilievre seemed to be standing on principle when he said, on CBC News Network: “You have the right to swing your fist, but that freedom stops at the tip of another person’s nose. And right now, these blockaders are taking away the freedom of other people to move their goods and themselves where they want to go, and that is wrong.”

Now, we see the double standard.

Most concerning in all this is the noticeable lack of voices decrying the use of foreign money supporting this occupation — a fact the police chief mentioned Wednesday and was later confirmed by attorneys general in Florida, West Virginia and Louisiana.

In 2012, the Conservatives were hell-bent on stopping the foreign funding of charities. Joe Oliver, then natural resources minister, suggested American interests were funding “radicals” who were preventing Canada’s natural resources projects from going ahead.

As more than $10 million was amassed on the GoFundMe platform, and at least $1 million more collected through other avenues, where is the Conservative outrage about outside funding for the convoy? Whether or not you think some of those protesting are just fed-up Canadians — and many are — there is no denying some also share a desire to destabilize the state.

While Ottawa residents deplore the vacuum of policing, there is also a vacuum of leadership.

Trudeau, by referring to the anti-vax as a “small fringe minority” with “unacceptable views,” likely emboldened a movement and encouraged the vaccine-hesitant to join a community that felt aggrieved and misunderstood by the majority. He should be called upon to explain why he sent ministers to dialogue with pipeline protesters but won’t do the same for those on the Hill. Thus far, the prime minister has said strikingly little about the occupation on his office doorstep.

Similarly, Ontario Premier Doug Ford needs to explain just what he’s ready to do to bring order to Ottawa. Saying the city’s police force just needs to ask for help has proven to be insufficient.

All of this is good to know and good to keep in mind, as long as large numbers of people don't get distracted too much by the next viral internet meme or conspiracy theory. 

Conservative Self-Delusion

These days I find I have little desire to think, let alone write, about the Harper regime. Despite the fact that we lived so long under its oppressive and toxic shadow, I prefer these days to think about future possibilities. However, the current 'introspection' the defeated party is undergoing merits some attention; it is a process that seems doomed to failure as revisionism about its sordid and dark record is rampant. Stoutly declaring that they got the 'big things' right, Conservative stalwarts seem doomed to a fruitless rebirth that will, at best, be cosmetic, at least until they are willing to confront some unpleasant truths, something I frankly doubt they are capable of.

In today's Star, Carol Gore offers them a framework for renewal that I doubt their hubris will allow them to entertain.

Since the Conservative were ousted on Oct. 19, former cabinet minister Jason Kenney has told anyone who will listen: “We got the big things right. We got the tone wrong.”

But the 47-year-old leadership aspirant is deluding himself if he thinks his party’s problems are only skin deep. The reason the Conservatives lost power is that Canadians no longer wanted a government obsessed with security, fiscal austerity and big oil. Harper’s relentless negativity only reinforced that.

Their 'sins were many; here are but a few of them:

Their Fiscal Record:

They spent the $13.8-billion surplus they inherited within two years, leaving Ottawa with no economic cushion when the 2008 recession hit.

On their watch, the national debt grew by $176.4 billion. Almost a quarter (24 per cent) of Canada’s accumulated debt was amassed since 2008.

Their Job-Creation Record:

Year after year, they brought down budgets that promised to increase employment and prosperity. When they took power in 2006, the unemployment rate stood at 6.4 per cent. When they lost power, it was 7 per cent.

Add to that the fact that many of the jobs are precarious and part-time, forcing more people into poverty.

Their Record On Political Accountability:

They shut off access to government documents, silenced public officials, denigrated or drove out parliamentary watchdogs, rolled dozens of legislative changes into book-length omnibus bills and refused to let opposition MPs examine their expenditures.

Their Record ON Advancing Canadian Values On The World Stage:

Jason Kenney was front and centre on many of these issues. He was the minister who banned niqabs at citizenship ceremonies; who opened the floodgates to a massive influx of foreign temporary workers; who insisted Canada had a great “skills gap” (based on a misreading of Kijiji’s jobs vacancy data); who boasted about defunding charities that criticized Israel; and who blasted a United Nations official for revealing that nearly 900,000 Canadians used food banks every month.

Carol Goar lists additional examples of how the Conservatives squandered their power during their reign, but I think you get the picture. It is one, I suspect, that will be forever beyond the grasp of a party that seems to prefer sweet lies to bitter truths, thereby likely dooming them to wander the political wilderness well into the future.

We All have To Stand Against This Blatant Reign Of Intimidation And Tyranny

Although I have written many posts on this topic, each new incident once again evokes in me a visceral reponse bordering upon hatred for this government. The Harper regime is back at it again, using the CRA to intimidate people who are critical of its policies or in any way impede the flow of oil progress.

This time, the victims are birdwatchers, yes, that's right, birdwatchers - The Kitchener-Waterloo Field Naturalists.

CBC reports the following:

The Kitchener-Waterloo Field Naturalists, a registered charity, is apparently at risk of breaking tax agency rules that limit so-called political or partisan activities.

Earlier this year, tax auditors sent a letter to the 300-member group, warning about political material on the group's website.

The stern missive says the group must take appropriate action as necessary "including refraining from undertaking any partisan activities," with the ominous warning that "this letter does not preclude any future audits."

It appears that the Harper-directed CRA has accomplished its goal, at least in part, inasmuch as officials of the group, whose revenues amount to a mere $16,000 per annum, are refusing comment, less they attract even more wrath.

But not everyone has succumbed to intimidation:

Longtime member Roger Suffling is speaking up, saying the issue is about democratic freedom and not about arcane tax rules.

Effectively, they've put a gag on us," he said in an interview, noting that the letter arrived just after the club had written directly to two federal cabinet ministers to complain about government-approved chemicals that damage bee colonies.

"You can piece together the timing," said Suffling, an adjunct professor at the University of Waterloo. "The two things are very concurrent."

The other 'sin' of this group, it would appear, is the fact that it

has also had a guest speaker to talk about the oilsands, and has publicly defended the Endangered Species Act from being watered down.

Of course, the usual suspects, who I do not believe for a minute, deny any political direction or purpose:

Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq's office ... denies there's any link, saying the agency operates independently.

Canada Revenue Agency officials say they do not target any one charitable sector, and are choosing groups impartially, without input from the minister's office.

The decision to launch an audit is also not based on any group’s position on the political spectrum, charities directorate chief Cathy Hawara has said.

Those denials might work with gullible children, but not thinking adults.

I grow weary of the totalitarian tactics of this regime. I hope my fellow Canadian feel the same.

What Fools These Mortals Be

The title of this post, taken from Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream, hardly qualifies as a startling insight. Nonetheless, after reading two columns in this morning's Star, I couldn't help but reflect on the mass of contradictions that we are. It has likely always been thus, but stands in especially sharp relief in today's broken world.

My very wise friend Dom pointed out something to me recently. "Lorne," he said, "the genius of the corporate world has been to get us addicted to cheap stuff from China, even though that cheap stuff comes at a very high cost: the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs, as well as the spread of retail positions (think Walmart) that refuse to pay a living wage."

On some level, I suspect we are aware of this truth, but choose not to ponder it as our search for bargains encompasses an increasingly wide swath. In her column today, Heather Mallick confronts the issue head-on in a meditation prompted by Wall Street's reaction to Apple Tim Cook's recent announcement about bringing a small amount of Apple jobs back from China. What should have been a cause for celebration in the depressed American job market turned out to be anything but:

Wall Street’s instant response was to drop the stock several percentage points. Apple is the biggest company in U.S. history. But despite its might and inventiveness, the market judged it solely on its merits as a behemoth built mainly on cheap Chinese labour.

But it seems that it is not just the stock market that takes a dim view of such a move:

Ten years ago I paid $250 for a coffeemaker. Today I pay $80. Would I pay even $60 more to restore Canadian jobs?

Yes, I say. But am I being truthful? I buy books from Amazon.ca because they offer me 37- to 50-per-cent discounts and free shipping. But I could buy them locally at full price if I were of a mind. I am not.

So yes, we would like to see a return to good-paying jobs, but not if we have to pay more for our goods as a result. While I realize this may be an over-generalization, Mallick really does speak an unpleasant truth about our contradictory natures.

On a separate topic, Dow Marmur writes about the irony of how our best impulses, our philanthropic ones, may have undesirable and unintended consequences. Echoing a concern I recently voiced here, Marmur opines that private efforts to relieve hunger in fact make it easier for governments to ignore the problem of growing and intractable poverty.

He writes about Mazon, a Jewish group whose aim is to feed those in need irrespective of background and affiliation. So far it has allocated more than $7 million to food banks and related projects across Canada.

Its founding chairman, Rabbi Arthur Bielfeld, recently

... challenged the government to render it and all organizations of its kind obsolete. In reality, however, the need continues to increase multifold. A quarter of a century ago there were 94 food banks in Canada; today there are more than 630.

Citing recent data, Rabbi Bielfeld said that some 900,000 Canadians use food banks every month. Last year more than 150 million pounds of food were distributed to families in need; 38 per cent of recipients were children. This year many will have to make do with less because of growing demand and diminishing resources.

Marmur observes the irony of it and many other organizations committed to the reduction of poverty:

... as essential as it is to help those in need, ironically, the relative success of such efforts helps governments to get off the hook. At times it even seems that charities find themselves inadvertently colluding with the inaction of politicians.

And so we have it. Two very good writers making some very relevant observations about the contradictions that define our humanity. On the one hand we want to be oblivious to the economic and social consequences of our propensity for bargain-hunting; on the other hand, even when we allow our better angels to come to the fore, the results are anything but an unalloyed good.

I guess, as always, the answer to this conundrum ultimately does lie in our own hands.

Harper's Reign Of Terror - Part Five

As in the previous installments, this post examines the Harper regime's unrelenting attacks on nonprofits that in any way oppose or criticize its agenda. The latest target is CoDevelopment Canada (CoDev), whose website lists the following as its mission:

CoDevelopment Canada is a B.C.-based NGO that works for social change and global education in the Americas. Founded in 1985 by a group of activists who wanted to go beyond financial aid, CoDev builds partnerships between like-minded organizations in Canada and Latin America to foster learning, social change, and community empowerment. These partnerships educate Canadians about Latin America and allow them to directly support the region. Such connections build solidarity, mutual understanding and ultimately improve prospects for a fairer global order.

For most people, those would seem to be commendable and progressive goals. For Stephen Harper and his cabal, they are reflective of a subversive organization that needs to be frightened into silence.

As reported in today's Star, CoDev has passed its two recent CRA audits, one in 2009, its first in 25 years and one last year, the latter conducted by three auditors — two of them political-activity specialists. Both appear to be part of the pattern discussed in previous posts:

Many of the charities under audit have been critics of government policy, including CoDev, a trade union-funded group that has raised questions about Canada's free-trade deal with Colombia, among other issues.

Indeed, on its website, CoDev offers a trenchant critique of Canada's free-trade deal with both Honduras and Colombia entitled Honduras deal: Another example of Canada’s poor record on trade and human rights

So is CoDev in the clear, after passing two audits? Not at all. Here is the latest cudgel from the Harper toolbox of intimidation as it continues its direction of the CRA investigations:

[CoDev] faces the crippling prospect of translating every scrap of paper it receives from 17 partners in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras and elsewhere from Spanish into either English or French.

The demand, set out in a January compliance letter from the CRA, will start to bite this fall as the tiny four-person shop begins to receive banker's boxes full of Spanish-language documents from its Latin American projects, including taxi chits and bus fare receipts.

The group's executive director, Barbara Wood, says the newly imposed requirement will drain away scarce resources, yet must be carried out or CoDev risks losing its charitable status.

The CRA demands suggest the vexatious nature of the persecution:

Among CRA's new demands: the official CoDev mission statement had to be rewritten to cite each human rights law in all 11 Latin American countries that CoDev's partners try to uphold. That meant a lengthy four-page annex to the statement, in English translation.

But the most onerous condition, Wood said, is the major translation project ahead, which involves thousands of receipts.

“The amount of work is unbelievable,” she said. “The rules seem to have been applied differently in 2009 than they were now . . . We're a really small team and this is a huge amount of work.”

Typically, the CRA has turned aside inquiries, citing the confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act.

For anyone following the Harper pattern of harassment and intimidation, no further explanation is needed.

Heather Mallick And The Climate Of Fear

Toronto Star columnist Heather Mallick has a lacerating assessment this morning of the political landscape we now inhabit, thanks to the machinations of the Harper cabal. Owen, over at Norther Reflections, has a post on her piece that is well-worth reading.

I shall only add this from her column:

What an extraordinary thing to live a pleasant life in a western nation and yet fear your own government. But the Canada Revenue Agency’s new audits of environmental charities like Tides Canada, the David Suzuki Foundation and Environmental Defence in the midst of their continuing warnings about the effects of the climate-poisoning Alberta tarsands project are terrifying.

Harperites are sessile, “rooted to the ground and unable to pick up and move ... when conditions turn unfavourable,” as the New Yorker put it recently in a rather dismissive piece about plant IQ. They can’t adapt to the news of climate change so they lash out at those who have.

I have praised David Suzuki to the skies, most recently in a column about a performance staged at the Royal Ontario Museum about the damage done by the tarsands. Am I to be audited next?

Extraordinary, indeed, that we are witness to, and in many cases abettors of, an ongoing process of democratic subversion directed by the Harper cabal, culminating in a very real and justifiable fear of the government.

A Reason For Hope

Although the White House is currently overrun with a band of lunatics that has quickly brought about very dark days, I can't help but think that there are reasons for hope. That I, an inveterate cynic, hold such a view astounds me, but the signs are unmistakable.


Or consider this array of magazines, whose covers leave do doubt about the medium's values and sensibilities. Here are but two of many:





Then there are the strong commitments to justice shown by the number of Canadian and American lawyers who are providing free assistance to travelers caught in Trump's Muslim ban.

As well, large protests are taking place in West Palm Beach near Trump's exclusive Mar-a-Lago resort; charities that traditionally hold fundraisers there are under intense pressure to go elsewhere rather than lend any scintilla of legitimacy to this rogue executive.

What I find especially heartening is that, unlike many protests and demonstrations of the past, these seem dominated by young people, not the graybeards of my generation. Is it possible that the Trump presidency has awakened, not just the dark forces of racism, division and hatred, but also a political consciousness that is strong, defiant and contemptuous of repression? Can it be that Americans, who like to think of themselves as fair-minded and open, are stung by the dark image of the U.S. that Trump is propagating both at home and worldwide?

Consider what Tony Burman has to say:

... the resistance to Trump’s rule is beginning to build in every corner of America, and in many parts of the world. This silent majority — yes, majority — is no longer silent.

It began the day after Trump’s inauguration with the breathtaking women’s marches in more than 600 American cities, as well as many world capitals, denouncing his policies. This event is now regarded as the largest day of demonstration in American history. Since then, there have been countless protests across America, both inside and outside of government, fuelling a growing resistance movement similar to the emergence of the conservative Tea Party in 2009.

Some of the protests have been evident in overflowing town halls and besieged congressional offices, while others have been more discreet. In an unprecedented act of disapproval, more than 1,000 State Department employees signed a letter condemning Trump’s anti-Muslim ban.

In Austin, Texas, meanwhile, the sentiment was more dramatically expressed.

Every year since 2003, a small group of Muslims in Texas have met in Austin to visit with lawmakers. It is called “Texas Muslim Capitol Day” and last year’s event was disrupted by protesters shouting anti-Muslim slogans.

At this year’s event on Tuesday, more than 1,000 people showed up to form a human barricade around the Muslim group to show solidarity.

So palpable is Trump's hatred, so clear is his racism, it would seem that the better angels of our nature are beginning to reassert themselves. Give those angels time to coalesce, and there is no limit to what they might accomplish.