Will The Harper Promise Of Tax Breaks Continue To Seduce Canadians?

Recently, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne called upon the Harper regime to commit $12 billion annually in infrastructure funding. This request takes on even greater urgency in light of the challenges we are and will be facing as we reap the consequences of climate change.

Fiance Minister Joe Oliver's response:

Wynne’s request is “divorced from fiscal reality.”

“We are not going to engage in a wild spending spree, which will create massive deficits and increase the debt. . . . We will also not jeopardize our top credit rating and we will not add to the intergenerational burden,” he said.

At the same time Herr Harper's henchman is preaching the virtues of fiscal discipline and ignoring the increasing costs of doing nothing in light of the above-stated peril, he is also pandering to our basest and most selfish instincts.

Yesterday, in a preview of the 2015 budget that will be designed to ensure the regime's re-election, 'Uncle Joe' offered this tease:

“I’m talking about reducing taxes for Canadian families and individuals”.

The words 'false economy' never escaped him ample lips.

In reference to a study done by the regime's ideological allies, The Fraser Institute, which just released a 'study' claiming we are grossly overtaxed and not getting good value in return, the finance minister had this to say:

Ottawa has reduced the federal tax burden and has urged other levels of government to reduce expenses and taxes.

It’s healthy for Canadians to understand the facts when it comes to taxes so the public can decide what’s fair and necessary.

So the Institute is just providing a public educational service, eh?

In that case, be sure to check out this piece, which points out some flaws in both the study's methodology and ideology.

After all, apparently Uncle Joe wants Canadians to be fully informed to decide 'what's fair and necessary.'

The final choice is up to us in 2015. Will we embrace the Harper ideology of selfishness and insularity and re-elect a corrupt and undemocratic government? Or will we rediscover our collectivist traditions and remember that our obligations are not only to ourselves but to each other?

Harper's Reign Of Terror: Targeted Charities Begin To Fight Back

It was with a certain pleasure that I read in Monday's Star that some international aid charities are banding together to challenge the Harper-directed CRA witch hunt into charities that promote views counter to government policy:

A dozen such groups conferred last week about a joint strategy to present to agency officials next month, a reversal from the last two years, when many charities refrained from speaking out for fear of aggravating the taxman.

The challenge by a dozen charities, many of which have been or currently are being subjected to CRA audits/witch hunts, is being conducted under the aegis of the Canadian Council For International Co-operation, which represents some 70 groups who funnel charity dollars abroad to alleviate poverty and defend human rights. They have elected to send a delegation to meet directly with senior Canada Revenue Agency officials.

Says Julia Sanchez, executive director of the council,

The political-activity audits are just one element of a deteriorating relationship with the Canada Revenue Agency. She cited the case of Oxfam Canada, which was required by CRA officials to alter its mission statement to no longer refer to the prevention of poverty, only its alleviation.
“That’s a narrow and outdated definition of what tackling poverty actually means”.

About the Cra's attack on CoDev, in which it demands the organization translate every Spanish document it receives from its partners in Latin America into French or English, even taxi receipts, Sanchez had this to say:

[I]nternational-aid charities work in more than 200 official languages overseas and that such a requirement applied broadly would be a “huge amount of work.”
“We’ve never done that before in our sector . . . All of a sudden this comes up”.

Only the guileless or the extraordinarily naive would give the benefit of the doubt to either the Harper regime or the CRA. Click here to see the pattern of harassment that has emerged. You will note that no right-wing cheerleader of the Harper agenda has been targeted for an audit.

For more on this development, check out The Star's editorial in today's paper.

Terrible News

Sometimes the world is almost too much to bear, but not to this point. Robin Williams has committed suicide.

Chris Hedges, Gaza Rally in NYC: God's Covenant in the Promised Land

Here is the note written by Leigha Cohen as an introduction to the following video on You Tube featuring Chris Hedges:

On August 9th, 2014 a rally supporting the people in Gaza took place at Columbus Circle in NYC. The rally lasted for 2 hours which was followed by a march to the United Nations.

Prior to the rally starting, I was approached by Chris Hedges who mentioned that he had written a 8 minute speech that he wanted to deliver to the thousands of people attending the rally. However, he was told that all of the speakers were being limited to 2 minutes speaking time at the rally.

This is that special speech that Chris Hedges wanted to deliver that day. He talked about the historical and religious background to what is the re-occurring violence in the area that the Israelis and Palestinians presently live in.



You can see a transcript of Hedges' speech here.

Thomas Mulcair Speaks

Noted recently is the widespread criticism that both Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair have earned by either their silence or their very timid comments about the slaughter in Gaza. While most Canadians have probably come to expect the reflexive uncritical endorsement of all things Israeli by the Harper regime, many have been disappointed to see that the opposition leaders, save for Elizabeth May, seem cut from the same cloth.

But whether due to political opportunism, political expedience in reaction to that criticism, or a late blooming of a conscience, Thomas Mulcair has finally said something that sets him somewhat apart from Trudeau and Harper.

Although a modest foray into the world of principle, Mulcair's piece in today's Toronto Star, entitled Canadians want balanced and principled approach to Mideast conflict, tries to establish his party's bona fides in the following way:

When four children playing soccer on a Gaza beach were killed by Israeli shells, like so many other Canadians I was touched personally and thought of my own grandchildren. No child — Israeli or Palestinian — should have to live in fear of such violence.

As Canadians, we don’t want our country sitting on the international sidelines — unwilling to help and marginalized by Stephen Harper and the Conservatives’ one-sided approach.

Mulcair treads very carefully in his piece, working to provide a very balanced narrative:

During the current conflict in Gaza, we have criticized the indiscriminate rocket fire and breaking of ceasefires by Hamas — and have been clear that Israel, like all countries, has the right to defend itself from attacks.

Israel’s right to defend itself comes with the responsibility to protect civilian lives — and we have criticized the unacceptable number of Palestinian civilian casualties from Israeli Defense Force attacks during this conflict. The horrifying shelling of a United Nations facility sheltering refugees in Gaza was completely unacceptable and a clear violation of that responsibility.

Although not much in evidence in recent weeks, Mulcair talks about the party's beliefs:

As NDP leader, Jack Layton argued that Canada must engage partners for peace in the region and take a balanced and principled approach. This is a vision I share. New Democrats — committed to social justice — understand that we must actively work for peace, not simply talk about it.

New Democrats have long been committed to a policy of supporting peaceful coexistence in viable, independent states with agreed-upon borders, an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, and an end to violence targeting civilians.

So, take his words for what they are worth. A long-time political cynic, it will take more than an op-ed piece to convince me there is a genuine difference between the 'people's party' and the other two.

Scotian Responds To A Post

The other day I posted a video showing an Irish Senator and internationally recognized human rights activist, David Norris, speaking impassionately about the Israeli-Gazan situation, sparing no criticism of Israel's disproportionate response to Hamas's aggression that has cost so many lives. I wondered what things would be like if we had politicians with that kind of ferocious integrity.

Scotian made a heartfelt and well-considered comment that I think merits its own post. Here it it:

I think we have to also consider the difference in the efforts in NA by the pro-Israel-at-all-costs lobby to crucify anyone here who dares do what this Irish Senator did have had over the past few decades as opposed to his home environment. I'm not saying this to make excuses, because I agree this needs saying and the inability of any leader (and I do not just mean the federal party leaders either, but any major voice in our society) here to do so is a massive disappointment to me, but it is not like there is no reason for it, and I think to ignore the reason in this discussion is to enable it to an extent.

I stopped getting into discussions on this topic myself because I was tired of the unending abuse (and I *always* made a point of being clear I was talking about Israeli government policy specifically when I did, never anything else, and still was hounded for my "jew-hating"), and with my health issues I only have so much stamina to work with so I pick my battles instead of engaging on all fronts I care about as I used to in my younger and healthier days. Now, when these forces focus on someone as insignificant as I am to that extent and I see them focus on more prominent voices even more so then I am forced to always take their presence as a factor in my mind whenever I look at such failures as one of the reasons for that failure of discourse to happen. Last time I looked the EU and Ireland especially does not have anywhere near the same overwhelming pro-Israel-at-all-costs lobby presence that we in NA do, and I do think that is a factor which must never be forgotten about.

Our political dialogue on this issue has been massively distorted by that lobby's presence. It had been really bad in the USA for decades, but the past decade or two has gotten pretty ugly here as well, especially once the Harper regime came to power. I do wonder though how many Canadians are out there quietly watching the current dominance of this force and getting ever more frustrated by it, in the end it would not surprise me to see a massive backlash form against this force and Israel itself because of this blatant interfering in our domestic political affairs/conversations.

Our Politicians Serve Nothing But Their Own Ambitions

Given the ongoing Israeli assault on Gaza, many in Canada have been dismayed, not by the predictable and uncritical enthusiasm for all things Israeli from the Harper regime, but by the relative silence or complicity demonstrated by the two major opposition leaders, Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair; both have amply demonstrated that political expedience trumps principle in their cribbed set of values. By contrast, Green Party leader Elizabeth May has once more demonstrated that rareness of all qualities, integrity:

May denounced the three main federal parties for “parroting” Benjamin Netanyahu’s positions:

“It should be possible for all other political leaders to continue to press for a two-state solution, one that defends the right of the State of Israel to exist, but equally calls for a secure Palestinian state.

“It is simply not credible to take the stance of all three other leaders —Messrs. Harper, Mulcair and Trudeau — that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s siege of Gaza is legal and meets humanitarian standards. It does not. The death toll among Gaza’s civilians provokes the conscience of the world.

“Hamas is to blame for provocation, but to imagine that Israel is blameless is untenable. “

A Jewsih Canadian writer, Anthony Cantor, writes in today's Star about how such shameful compliance to a flawed Israeli narrative by people like Mulcair and Trudeau does the Jewish state no service because they conflate supporting Israel with endorsing the policy and strategic choices of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This leaves Canada’s pro-Israel, pro-peace constituency, among others, without political representation.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s refusal to push for a ceasefire is not unexpected. More concerning is the way that Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and, to a lesser extent, NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair have failed to counter the Harper government with a strong message that Israel’s best interests are not served by the assault on Gaza. As a member of the Liberal party, I am deeply disappointed that Trudeau resorts to platitudes rather than forcefully opposing a foreign policy that I and many other Liberals reject.

He suggests these 'leaders' should take some strength and inspiration from

other friends of Israel who recognize that the war in Gaza can only increase Israel’s international isolation and foster radicalization among Palestinians. President Barack Obama, for example, recently wrote an op-ed for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Obama correctly stressed that Israel’s Iron Dome can ensure temporary security, but only a comprehensive, negotiated resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can ensure Israel’s safety.

And yet Canadian leaders are silent as Netanyahu systematically undermines the possibility of a Palestinian state. Friends should not always tell each other what they want to hear. Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, expansion of settlements and blockade of Gaza are major issues that drive the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Resolving those issues would weaken the appeal of extremists such as Hamas.

Cantor writes a reasoned and convincing essay here. Unfortunately, the political cowardice of our current leaders means that in all likelihood, it will fall on deaf ears.