Harper Archives - Forget The Box

The Fair Elections Act and the Illusion of Fairness

In 2014 the Harper Government passed the Fair Elections Act (FEA). It modified the Canada Elections Act (Act), our existing legislation on how our elections are conducted and run. Before we go into Harper’s modifications, let’s quickly discuss who is allowed to vote and what your voting rights are.

If you are a Canadian citizen and over the age of 18, you are allowed to vote in Canada’s elections.

You need one or two pieces ID, one of which has to be issued by the Canadian Government i.e. Medicare Card or passport, and have your name, photo, and address on it. If you don’t have any ID with your current address on it, you can show two pieces of ID with your name and have someone whose name and address are confirmed at the same polling station take an oath in writing attesting to your current address.

Please note: the voter information card you get in the mail is no longer considered a proof of address and no longer acceptable as one of your two pieces of ID.

For more information, check out Elections Canada’s website.

Those not allowed to vote include the Chief Electoral Officer (the Officer), the head of Elections Canada in charge of making sure elections run smoothly and fairly, and his assistant.

If you are currently imprisoned in a correctional institution for more than two years, you can’t vote either.

All that said, let’s tackle some of the new rules imposed through the Fair Elections Act.

Not Actually Fair

Despite its title, the FEA isn’t actually fair. It doesn’t guarantee or encourage fairness in our elections. It only ups the costs of Elections Canada by creating new positions and committees in order to give Canadians the illusion of fairness.

Take the new Advisory Committee of Political Parties (the Committee) created by article 21.1 of the now modified Act. Its role is to advise the Chief Electoral Officer “on matters relating to elections and political financing.”

The committee consists of the Chief Electoral Officer and two representatives of each registered political party chosen by the party leaders. It has to meet at least once a year and is presided over by the Officer.

At first glance this committee seems like a great idea, after all, it gives registered political parties a say in how elections are run, right?

WRONG!

According to article 21.1 (3), none of the Committee’s recommendations are actually binding on the Chief Electoral Officer. That means that the Committee’s existence is purely symbolic, and the Officer can disregard its advice if he or she chooses.

Then there’s the whole advertising issue. There has been a lot of anger regarding the Fair Elections Act’s modification to the Officer’s advertising rights.

In the past, the Chief Electoral Officer could use ads to encourage people to the polls. Under the new rules, the Officer’s advertising capabilities are limited to ads regarding how to become a candidate, how to be added to the list of electors, how voters can establish their identity and address at the polls, and how elections officials can assist the disabled on election day.

There is also Part 16.1 dealing with calls to voters. Calling campaigns are an effective tool used by candidates and their parties for fundraising, increasing voter awareness, and getting people to the polls. Since phone lines can be costly, it makes perfect sense for political parties to negotiate agreements with telecommunications service providers in order to limit costs.

stop-unair-elections-act — Image: canadians.org

At first glance, the modifications to the Act make sense for according to the new rules under the FEA, these agreements can only be entered into by a registered party or candidate or, if the person is an unregistered third party, they do so under their own name. They also have to inform the service provider that the contract is for calling voters. The problem arises with all subsequent actions required under this part of the Act.

Service providers have to file registration with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) for every group for which they have a contract for voter contact calling services, and they have to do it within 48 hours after the first call is to a voter is made.

They also – under article 348.16 of the modified Act – have to get a copy of every phone script used to make live and automated voice calls to voters. The political parties in agreements with these service providers have to not only keep records of their phone scripts, automated and live, they also have to keep records of every single date the scripts were used!

From a logistical standpoint, these requirements are absurd. Anyone who’s volunteered for a political party knows that calling campaigns have to be run as quickly and efficiently as possible and that any reasonable hours prior to polling day are opportunities to get in touch with voters.

One could argue that these rules ensure that the public knows exactly what is being said to voters on the phone during the election. However, laws should always be applied with a degree of reasonability in mind, and having to track every single day a phone script is used seems more like a political tool to limit parties’ abilities to get in touch with voters by adding new, tedious tasks to their overtaxed schedules. This is especially silly when the CRTC already has copies of these scripts and records of the days they were used.

The elections are a ‘coming and with parties using wedge issues to obscure their actual plans for our future government, it is imperative that we all go to the polls. We need to make sure we actually can vote by carrying the correct documents and a will to vote out governments that increase our taxes via unnecessary tedium.

News Politics

Niqabs and Terrorists and Fear, Oh My: How Harper Plans to Win the Election

For ten years, Stephen Harper has used the same electoral strategy:

1. Campaign from the centre, hold a kitten, don’t say much
2. Let opponents destroy each other
3. Govern from the far right
4. Repeat

It was a strategy that served him well and even gave him a majority government. He had no reason to change it, until a few weeks ago.

For the first time in a long time, it looked like the Conservatives were going to lose, badly. Harper’s own efforts to scare his opponents into accepting Bill C-51 had made this possible.

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau took the bait. NDP leader Tom Mulcair didn’t and fought hard against it. This encouraged many progressives to abandon the Liberal brand and get behind the next Orange Wave.

A mostly united left in a country that is predominantly centre-left is a real threat to Harper. He recognized it and decided to send his campaign manager back to Ottawa and bring in Lynton Crosby, known to many as the Australian Karl Rove.

Crosby didn’t waste too much time:

Post-Crosby Conservative mailout (via Twitter)

Canada is now getting a federal George Bush-style campaign of fear.

The Niqab Debate is Back On

A few months ago, before the campaign was even launched officially, people were talking about the Niqab. It all stemmed from the case of one woman who wanted to wear hers while taking the oath of citizenship but was denied because of a rule imposed by Harper’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

When the rule was overturned, the Conservatives wanted to bring it back, the NDP didn’t and the Bloc Quebecois, under the leadership of Mario Beaulieu, tried to make it their wedge issue against the NDP.

It stayed in the public eye for about a week and then most people forgot about it. The Bloc changed leaders and started attacking the NDP from the left on pipelines.

Fast forward to the week leading up to the first French language debate. The Bloc, reeling in the polls, brought the non-issue back up and in the debate, Harper pounced on it.

Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair in a heated exchange during the French language debate (Radio-Canada/YouTube)

In a heated debate, Mulcair got off a great one-liner: “Stephen Harper is trying to hide his failed economic policy behind a Niqab.” Elizabeth May echoed that statement. Bottom line, this is a distraction pure and simple.

Mulcair is right. Very few women actually wear the Niqab in Canada. I have seen maybe three people wearing Niqabs in my life and I live in Montreal. Only one woman fought for the right to wear one during a citizenship ceremony. Also, during the French debate, “What is a Niqab?” was the top Goolge search in Canada.

But yet, this non-issue is somehow THE issue for the moment.

You’re Either With Us or You’re With the Guy Who’s Already Serving a Life Sentence

When the Conservatives brought in Bill C-24, making it possible to strip citizenship from anyone convicted of “terrorism” or “treason” who could be considered the citizen of another country as well, most people, to put it mildly, weren’t impressed. Harper had just created second-class citizens and seeing as C-51 made it possible to define anyone the government didn’t like as a terrorist or terrorist promoter, it was now possible to have political opponents deported.

C-24 fell to the backburner quickly, but now that Crosby’s in charge of the campaign, the government decided to apply the law. They picked Zakaria Amara, one of two leaders of the so-called Toronto 18, a group of home-grown terrorists who planned to detonate several bombs in Toronto.

A dual citizen of Canada and Jordan, Amara was stripped of his Canadian citizenship on Friday. He was informed of this via a letter sent to the prison in Quebec where he is currently serving a life sentence. That’s right; our government boldly declared that someone serving life is no longer a citizen, though he will be staying here as long as his sentence lasts.

For him, that punishment means, wait for it, absolutely nothing. He’s still behind bars and will be for a while. Sure, if he gets paroled while he is still alive, he could be deported to Jordan, or, theoretically, Jordan could ask for his extradition before his sentence is up. After all, we are now holding a Jordanian citizen in one of our prisons. It was so much simpler when he was just a Canadian arrested and convicted under Canadian law.

It was a purely symbolic move. One designed to bring support to C-24 and the Harper government. Forget “sure it restricts freedoms, but it gets the bad guys,” this is more like “sure it restricts freedoms, but it allows us to turn the bad guys we’ve already caught into a political prop.”

Will It Work?

So, the big question is: will a right-wing wedge issue and fear-based campaign actually work federally in Canada? I don’t think so and seriously hope not.

I hope that the predominance of the Niqab debate is just spin from a mainstream media desperate for divisive issues. While I trust the Bloc’s statistic that 90% of Quebecers they surveyed are against permitting the Niqab at citizenship ceremonies (for now), I wonder how many of those people care enough about the issue to make it a primary voting concern.

If voters consider all the facts including the amount of women who actually wear the niqab in Canada, the fact that there are procedures in place at citizenship ceremonies to ensure proper identification and the fact that denying someone citizenship does nothing to protect them against coercion (in fact, it has the opposite effect), then the only way they can vote for a niqab ban is if their own cultural prejudices trump everything else. I seriously hope that’s not the case with my fellow Canadians.

I also hope that we can all see through the charade of picking someone who is already doing life and making him the poster child for an ill-conceived law that does not affect the guilty and harms honest Canadians who only want their voices heard.

I don’t think my countrymen and women are that fucking dumb. I don’t think Canadians will fall for a Karl Rove strategy. But I guess we’ll all find out on October 19th.

* Fetured image: feelguide.com

News Politics

Canada’s Unconstitutional Conservatives

This article originally appeared on QuietMike.org, republished here with permission from the author

I’ve often said, and many Canadians would agree, that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party is the most conservative the county has ever seen. It is, after all, the first conservative government to hold power without the word progressive tied to the party name.

Normally in Canada, we can determine the extremism of a party’s ideology by the laws they pass through the House of Commons. In the last decade however, particularly since 2011, we can also determine just how far-right Stephen Harper is by the amount of laws deemed unconstitutional by Canada’s Supreme Court.

The fact of the matter is, if Harper’s Conservatives pass major legislation with social implications, you can bet there is an above average chance that these laws fly in the face of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Before we get into the details, it is important to note that Canada’s Supreme Court contains 7 out of 9 justices appointed by Stephen Harper himself. The court has been under conservative control for years now, yet have continuously ruled against the guy who put them in the big chairs.

It just goes to show just how unconstitutional these laws really are. It should also be mentioned that 80% of these decisions were unanimous.

Federal ban on non-dried marijuana extracts – Jun 11, 2015

Canada’s highest court ruled that the federal government’s prohibition on consuming cannabis extracts for medical use is unconstitutional.

The case involved Owen Smith, whose legal team argued that the ban on non-dried forms of medical cannabis violated his constitutional rights. Mr. Smith went to Ottawa and won. The unanimous ruling against the federal government expanded the definition of medical marijuana beyond the “dried” form. Medical marijuana is now fundamentally legal in all forms.

Federal ban on assisted suicide – Feb 6, 2015

The Supreme Court of Canada lifted the government’s ban on doctor assisted suicide. The historic, far-reaching and once again unanimous decision declared that suffering patients have a constitutional right to have a doctor help end their life.

The Court ruled that assisted suicide is constitutional “under a physician’s care, for consenting adults who determine they cannot tolerate the physical or psychological suffering brought on by a severe, incurable illness, disease or disability.”

Canada’s three prostitution laws – Dec 20, 2013

The Supreme Court of Canada struck down the country’s three main anti-prostitution laws. In another unanimous decision, the court struck down laws prohibiting brothels, living on the avails of prostitution and communicating in public with clients. The Court ruled the laws were over-broad and “grossly disproportionate.”

The supreme justices didn’t legalize prostitution (they don’t write laws), but they did give the federal government a year to fix them or face the reality of legal prostitution.

Naturally, Harper’s conservatives wrote a new law and more than 220 legal experts inevitably claimed the new prostitution bill once again offends the Charter. I’m guessing Supreme Court Challenge part two is around the corner.

Marc Nadon on the Supreme Court – Mar 21, 2014

In order to appoint Quebecer Marc Nadon to the Supreme Court, Stephen Harper tried to amend the Supreme Court Act through a budget bill. The government introduced changes in an effort to make Nadon eligible as a former member of the Quebec bar, as opposed to a current one.

The court said in a 6-1 decision that the amendment was unconstitutional because the government does not have the power to make such amendments unilaterally. Changes to the court’s makeup require a constitutional amendment with the unanimous consent of the provinces.

Expands land-title rights – Jun 26, 2014

In what legal observers called the most important Supreme Court ruling on aboriginal rights in Canadian history, the Court determined that native Canadians still own their ancestral lands, unless they signed away their ownership in treaties with government.

The decision complicates any of Harper’s plans to build large federal infrastructure projects such as pipelines and highways in the vast un-ceded sectors of British Columbia.

The Prime Minister’s attempt at Senate reform – Apr 25, 2014

Prime Minister Stephen Harper had to give up on one of his career goals when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that he needed substantial provincial consent to introduce elections or term limits to the Canadian Senate and undivided consent to do away with it altogether.

Believing the provinces would never see eye to eye on reform, the unanimous 8-0 ruling forced Harper to throw in the towel. Without even trying, he determined “that significant reform and abolition are off the table.” Harper just conceded that the country was “essentially stuck” with a scandal-plagued unelected Senate.

Harper blocked from shutting down Insite – Sep 30, 2011

From the moment Stephen Harper was elected, he had his mind set on closing Insite; the country’s first (and successful) safe injection site. But in its 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court said the federal government had the jurisdictional right to use criminal law to restrict illicit-drug use, but that the anxieties it cited in an attempt to close Insite were “grossly disproportionate” to the benefits for drug users and the community.

“During its eight years of operation, Insite has been proven to save lives with no discernible negative impact on the public safety and health objectives of Canada,” the Court said. The ruling had made it possible for other safe injection sites to open across the country, but Harper passed another, yet unchallenged law, that made opening new sites impossible.

Mandatory minimum sentences for gun-related crimes – Apr 14, 2015

Harper came into office promising to get tough on crime despite the fact that crime rates were at 40 year lows. One of the laws he passed with his Majority Government was his now famous Omnibus Crime Bill which included, among other things, mandatory minimums for gun-related crimes.

The 6-3 ruling, said the statute was unconstitutional as it upheld a 2013 Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that labelled the law cruel and unusual.

The court said the mandatory minimum sentence could entangle people with “little or no moral fault” and who pose “little or no danger to the public.” It cited an example; a person who inherits a firearm and does not immediately get a licence for the weapon.

Truth in Sentencing Act – Apr 11, 2014

Another part of Harper’s Omnibus Crime Bill was the Truth in Sentencing Act. His government basically tried to stop judges from acting in what it saw as an overly generous way toward prisoners who had not received bail. The 7-0 Supreme Court ruling said the practice is rooted in traditional sentencing principles and can continue.

What both cases have in common is the Harper Government’s attempt to limit judges’ discretion in sentencing. In essence, the party that preaches smaller government was trying to tell Canadian judges how to do their jobs.

Cutting access to early parole – Mar 20, 2014

Another blow to Harper’s crime fighting agenda. In another unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a law that applied retroactively to non-violent offenders that took away their easy access to early day parole, violates their constitutional rights.

The Harper Government had tried to end the Accelerated Parole Review which made it quick and easy for first-time, non-violent federal offenders to obtain day parole.

Harper, and conservatives in general, love to say they believe in small government, not wanting to manage people’s lives or waste public money like liberals or progressives apparently do. Judging from this list I’d have to say the opposite is closer to the truth.

I would love to get a figure on how much time and money these unconstitutional Conservatives have wasted passing and protecting these illegal laws. Regulations that their own judges have consistently and unanimously ruled unconstitutional.

News Politics

Don’t Take Harper’s Bait: Why the NDP Shouldn’t Block Candidates for Criticising Israel

I really thought I wouldn’t have to write this. No, scratch that, I really hoped I wouldn’t have to write this. Things were going so well since the New Year, the start of the election year in Canada.

Thomas Mulcair’s NDP, it seemed, turned over a new, very progressive leaf and it has really started looking like they could ride it all the way to 24 Sussex Drive. Unfortunately now it looks like they may have folded back that leaf’s left corner just enough to cause a problem. And they did it by taking the bait laid out for them by the Conservatives.

Two Steps Forward

Last summer, when Mulcair made a statement on Israel’s attack on Gaza that sounded as one-sided as the ones Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau released, the party faithful wouldn’t stand for it. Members of the NDP base began speaking out, some even occupying MP offices.

Such a strong statement eventually led to a mea culpa from the leader which came in the form of a Toronto Star op-ed. While it wasn’t everything the NDP base had been hoping for, it was a much more balanced approach to the situation and one that didn’t leave Israel blame-free.

Protesters occupying MP Don Davies' office in 2014. Photo: Mothers and Families for Gaza — Protesters occupying MP Don Davies’ office in 2014. Photo: Mothers and Families for Gaza

It was good enough to shift the party’s focus away from the Middle East and onto more domestic matters. It’s on these issues that the NDP has, for the most part, excelled in offering an alternate view to the sometimes indistinguishable Conservative and Liberal discourse.

This year, we have seen the NDP, among other things, take a very important stance against Bill C-51, Harper’s so-called anti-terror legislation. Not only did they oppose some of the more egregious elements of the now-law, but voted against it and promised to repeal it if they form government.

Four Steps Back: Manly, Wheeldon, Natanine and Hyder Ali

Unfortunately, that progressive streak hit a roadbump back in July when the federal NDP denied Paul Manly, son of former MP Jim Manly, a chance to run for the party’s nomination in the BC riding of Nanaimo-Ladysmith. Manly, now running for the Green Party in the same riding, took to social media almost immediately, letting everyone know his nomination was refused because of his father being on the boat to Gaza.

Last week, it became apparent that what happened to Manly wasn’t an isolated incident. After CPC trolls unearthed some rather ordinary statements critical of Israel, the party forced Clyde River mayor Jerry Natanine who was running in Nunavut and Kings–Hants, Nova Scotia candidate Morgan Wheeldon off the ballot and barred hopeful Syed Hyder Ali from running for the nomination in Edmonton Wetaskiwin.

Unprincipled Approach to Principle

So what did they say online that warranted such a censure? Nothing groundbreaking, really. In fact, it’s the same thing the United Nations had to say: that in 2014 Israel was guilty of war crimes for its assault on Gaza.

To block someone from running under the orange banner just because they have voiced principled views on a subject many in the party, the country and the international community share is just plain unethical, paranoid and wrong.

It also indicates a tone-deaf top-down approach instead of the grassroots one the NDP seems to have adopted over the past year. Now we’re back where we started last summer with the leader enforcing his own agenda on a party and its supporters that, for the most part, have a very different point of view.

Not Even Good Politics

To be completely honest, a good chunk of the political centre in Canada, the so-called middle class which all politicians pander to, doesn’t really care all that much about Palestine and Israel. Domestic issues are much more important.

Supporting Palestinian human rights gets votes on the left and may lose some on the right. Coming out as a hardcore supporter of Israel no matter what the country is doing has the reverse effect. A politician doesn’t risk losing the centre with either approach, but Mulcair is risking losing votes on the left in hopes of getting some on the right, which he will not. It makes no sense.

I checked out the site MeetTheNDP.ca. The Conservatives put it together as an attack site, pulling gotcha quotes from MPs and candidates, but the attack really only helps to mobilize their own base. I read through the quotes and came to the conclusion that this site just makes me want to vote for the NDP.

Screenshot of Conservative "attack site" meetthendp.ca — Screenshot of Conservative “attack site” meetthendp.ca

Canada is, at its core, a centre-left country. Harper is an aberration of electoral math, his right-wing and sometimes ultra-right-wing views and policies are not shared or supported by the majority of Canadians. However, he tries to use the fact that he has a majority government to bait his opponents into mirroring his agenda.

Trudeau took the bait on Bill C-51 and has been relegated to near irrelevance because of it. Mulcair has avoided it and offered a progressive view of Canada to voters. But now, possibly spurred by his own beliefs, he has fallen for it and barred valid candidates from running under the NDP banner simply for saying things which quite a few Canadians already think.

What Happens Now

As I said, I never wanted to have to write this. This leaves progressive Canadians in a very precarious position.

I had actually been excited to vote this time, despite all the hoops Harper’s “fair elections act” is making me jump through. It was a clear choice, vote NDP or live with Bill C-51, a real no-brainer.

Sure, I wasn’t thrilled with Mulcair’s stance, or lack thereof, on Energy East, but at least he has chosen to remain on the fence until after he forms government and conducts a study on whether he gets more votes from Quebec or Alberta. Crass politics through and through, but I can live with it.

When it comes to Palestine, he’s not on the fence. He is forcing the NDP into a position that is no different than Harper’s or Trudeau’s and he is doing it with the party in full campaign mode, so it’s really hard to challenge him.

I can’t change my vote on FTB’s election poll, but I can do so in the actual election. I don’t think I will, though. There are plenty of good people running for.and working with the NDP who share what I believe in. I also want to get rid of Bill C-51 at all costs and while the Greens would do that and also offer a more principled position on Palestine, they are not in a position to form government and do anything while the NDP is.

While I’m reluctant to vote NDP under these conditions, I will do it. Unfortunately, I think there are those who will not, strictly out of principle. These are people who may have supported, volunteered for and voted for the party but just can’t because Mulcair seems to have taken a stand on Palestine that is on the wrong side of history.

I can only hope that the NDP fixes this problem quickly and acknowledges that criticism of Israeli war crimes is not something to sweep under the rug, but something to be proud of, as it is one more thing that distinguishes New Democrats from the Lib/Con slate.

Culture Humour

Why I’m Not Voting for Stephen Harper

Stephen Harper once released two-hundred thousand snakes into the city of Moncton. I mean, they weren’t poisonous snakes, and most of them just died the following winter, and actually they did do a lot to get rid of a mouse problem that was affecting a substantial portion of the city’s restaurants, but that’s not the point. Stephen Harper didn’t release two-hundred thousand snakes to help local businesses, Stephen Harper released two-hundred thousand snakes because he could.

You didn’t hear a lot about it in the media. In fact, it went largely unreported even in the city of Moncton itself. Which makes sense, I guess, because why would you need it to be reported to you that your city is overrun by snakes when you suddenly have thirty snakes in your bedroom or your sex gymnasium. It makes even more sense when you learn that one of the snakes was a boa constrictor and ate the reporter for the Moncton Free Press who was writing a story about the snakes.

Okay, that’s not really true. But the boa constrictor did eat the reporter’s Lhasa Apso. And that reporter is a raging alcoholic who can barely meet a deadline at the best of times, let alone when her dog is dead and there are snakes coming out of her kitchen sink. At least that’s what my friend who works for Canada Post and was stationed there for six weeks told me.

Anyway, the fact is that Stephen Harper released all these snakes. Just because it wasn’t reported on by any major or reputable news source doesn’t mean it’s not true. Also I saw a meme that some people posted on Facebook that said he did some bad stuff to all of Canada’s protected rivers and lakes. I can’t remember what it was exactly. Probably he peed in them, I guess.

And that’s pretty fucked, I tell you what. Stephen Harper, the man who is supposed to be running our country, is going around and peeing into 2.5 million rivers and lakes. That’s going to take a long time. And a lot of taxpayer dollars. That’s a lot of pee, no matter how much Sunny D you drink. And what’s next? Our pools? No sir, Mr. Harper, I say. I didn’t vote for you for you to go around peeing in the recreational facilities of hard working Canadians.

In fact, I didn’t vote for you at all. So how did you get this job, anyway? If I didn’t vote for you, and a bunch of people who post anti-Harper memes on social media didn’t vote for you, then who did? I mean, I’m a pretty popular guy, I know like twenty people. And they all say they didn’t vote for you. So where are all these votes coming from?

I guess friends of his must’ve voted for him. It’s a big popularity contest. Like how I didn’t get to be my high school graduating class’s valedictorian because Jacob had a bunch more friends than me. Also because I didn’t do real good with grades on account of I don’t do good English and I can’t math. And technically I didn’t actually graduate. And because of that one time Mr. McKay caught me selling cocaine.

It wasn’t even actually cocaine, Mr. McKay, it was just baking soda. But Jason and Shelly and Wade and all the other popular kids didn’t know that. We were sixteen, they had no frame of reference, they thought that’s what cocaine was. Way to blow a good thing I had going, McKay.

So, anyway, Harper unleashes this torrent of snakes upon the citizenry of Moncton, and wouldn’t you know it, he gets elected again. Mainly, I guess, because all of those snakes voted for him. Which isn’t surprising, because snakes are big oil advocates and notorious climate change deniers.

I guess my point is that the reign of Harper needs to end. And the only way to make that happen is to not vote for him in the upcoming election. If we all decide to vote for someone else this October we can put a stop to the rampant abuse of power that Mr. Harper has been bandying about as Chamberlain of Canada for over fifty years.

Realistically, though, none of us should even be voting at all, considering we were all stripped of that right after being arrested and charged for getting real drunk and pooping repeatedly over the course of five weeks onto Alan Thicke’s star on Canada’s Walk of Fame.

Photo by Seattleye via Flickr

News Politics

The Longest, Most Expensive Canadian Election in History

This article was originally published on QuiteMike.org.

After dissolving parliament, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper promptly lies to Canadians about the election’s cost

October 19th 2015 has been the chosen date for Canada’s next election since Prime Minister Stephen Harper won his first majority parliament back in 2011. It should be mentioned that the fixed election idea belongs to Harper’s Conservative Party which amended the Canada Elections Act.

What Canadians didn’t expect at the time was a 78 day election campaign marathon. The longest election since 1872 when the country was just five years old. Well buckle up Canada because that’s what harper has brought us. This Canadian Election will be twice as long as past traditional elections and twice as expensive to tax payers.

After dissolving parliament, Prime Minister Harper stood outside Rideau Hall yesterday and announced the 11 week campaign. He then blatantly lied to Canadians as to why he called the election more than a month early by saying “As it my intention to begin campaign-related activities and it is also the case for the other party leaders, it’s important that these campaigns be funded by the parties themselves, rather than taxpayers.”

The Conservatives of all people should know how bullshit a statement like that really is. Last year they changed the election rules to allow more money to be spent on longer campaigns. Approximately $685,000 for each day beyond the basic 37-day campaign. Campaigns that are 50% funded by the public.

After being challenged about the statement from a CBC reporter, Harper repeated “I feel very strongly that if we’re going to begin our campaigns, if we’re going to run our campaigns, those campaigns need to be conducted under the rules of the law, that the money come from the parties themselves not government resources, parliamentary resources or taxpayer resources.” WTF?

In the last election of 2011, taxpayers refunded 50% of each party’s spending limit, which was just over $20 million for each party. This time around thanks to Harper’s rule changes and early election call, the limits will be above $50 million each.

It should be noted that as the only right wing party in Canada, the Conservatives have raised more money than the other major parties combined. A long expensive election works to their advantage which I imagine was the plan all along.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May sarcastically joked about the rules being fair then said “What isn’t right is to claim that the taxpayers’ aren’t subsidizing this election. It’s going to cost Canadians tens of millions of dollars more because for all of those horrible attack ads that we are about to hear — we will be bludgeoned in our own homes by attack ads — and every single one of those attack ads, we are paying for half.”

Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair of the NDP spoke about the need for change and said the campaign is about priorities. “Mr. Harper’s priority is spend millions of dollars on self-serving government advertising and an early election call.”

The cost of the early election to the Canadian public is not the only thing Stephen Harper lied about in his opening election speech. He also falsely claimed his Conservatives have balanced the budget despite having a deficit for eight straight years including this one. He even had the gall to say that the Canadian Economy was stronger, but I’ll get into that story another time.

Over the next 78 days, there will be plenty of time to expose the lies and the policies of Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. In the meantime, please do not allow an extremely long hate filled campaign to keep you from voting. It is too important.

Check back with Quiet Mike and our partners at QuiteMike.org throughout the campaign for all the election coverage you can stomach. We will do our best to keep all the parties honest.

News Politics

Bill C-24: Harper’s Second Class Citizens

I was born in Canada and I have no other country that I could theoretically be considered a citizen of. I guess that means I’m safe. Unfortunately, there are quite a few people who do not fit this bill. Even if you were born in Canada, if you could conceivably claim citizenship in another country, you are now a second-class Canadian citizen under the law, thanks to Harper`s Bill C-24, the so-called “Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act,” which passed on June 11th.

Now, anyone convicted of “terrorism or treason” could have their Canadian citizenship revoked if they are a dual citizen or there is a chance they could become the citizen of another country. That means if your grandparents were born somewhere else, you could conceivably get citizenship in that country and the law applies.

C-24 Makes C-51 a Whole Lot More Real

If you qualify as a second-class Canadian, you may not be too worried. You’re not planning on committing treason or carrying out a terrorist act and neither are your friends.

Well, now that C-51 is law, it’s not clear just what constitutes terrorism and what doesn’t. The current government is free to label activists they don’t like as terrorists, as is any future government until the law is repealed. Economic boycott, a respectable and effective tactic, could also fall under terrorism according to C-51.

Working in tandem, C-24 and C-51 make it possible for a recent immigrant or someone born here to lose their citizenship for doing something that has been legal up until now and should always be.

Ironic Nightmare Scenarios

Imagine, if you will, a Canadian citizen who could theoretically live in another country. They take part in, say, an Idle No More solidarity action. Harper and company decide to label that terrorism.

This person then gets labelled a terrorist or terrorism promoter under C-51 and then loses their citizenship under C-24. Effectively forced to leave Canada for defending the one group that actually has a right to be here but are treated as second-class citizens already.

Now imagine a Jewish Canadian who participates in the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement criticizing Israel. If the government decides to label this economic terrorism, C-51 would make this person a terrorist.

Now, given that Israel grants a right to return to all Jewish people, this person would be considered someone who could go and live there and therefore could lose their Canadian citizenship under C-24. So, they could be forced to live in the very country they are urging a boycott against.

What C-24 Really Is

Above all, C-24 is an intimidation tactic. As long as the risk of being deported or left in limbo for speaking your mind is present, protesting the government or their friends just won’t seem worth the risk to many.

Revoking citizenship for actual crimes or actual terrorism is one thing. Making the consequences dire for expressing an opinion not in favour with the current powers that be is truly frightening.

Change through the political process is important, but without a grassroots opposition that is free to mobilize, it is irrelevant. When you take away the right to protest and oppose, you’re basically left with a fully democratic, open and transparent dictatorship. Yes, people get to change the dictator every four years (or sooner in a minority situation), but when they’re in power, only parliament and mainstream media pundits can oppose them, not the general public.

This should not be a partisan issue or even a left-right thing. Dictatorship is bad no matter who the dictator is.

I wouldn’t want to live under a Harper dictatorship any more than one run by Mulcair, Trudeau, Gilles Duceppe or even Elizabeth May, though the last one, I have to admit, would at least be entertaining. As long as these two laws stay on the books, that’s pretty much what we’re getting.

I don’t use the “d” word lightly, in fact this is the first time I have used it in relation to Canadian politics. But then again, I don’t take C-51 and C-24 lightly, either, and neither should you or, for that matter, anyone.

News Politics

BDS is Economic Boycott, Not Hate Speech. Harper Doesn’t See a Difference

The other shoe has dropped. Barely a few days after Harper’s Conservatives, with the help of the Liberals, pushed Bill C-51 through the House of Commons, we get more proof that this government is, in fact, all about silencing dissent by any means necessary.

Top government officials indicated that they would enforce their zero-tolerance policy towards criticism of the State of Israel by treating the promotion of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement as hate speech.

Government Policy is Not a Person

Canada’s hate speech laws are a very good thing. They prevent promoting discrimination based on gender, race, religion and sexual orientation. Unfortunately, the way Harper now plans to use them is an insult to those who are actually victims of hate speech.

Last year, national origin was added to the list, presumably to make it easier for the government to follow the approach they are now following. Previously, they would have had to prove a correlation between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism, which may be possible when talking to their base, but not in a court of law. Also try calling Jewish people who support BDS anti-Semites and you’ll be in for quite the argument, to say the least.

Harper and company have opted instead for the dubious route, but they still don’t have any real footing. Encouraging economic boycott of Israeli products is not a criticism of or discrimination against the people who produce those products based on national origin or anything else.

Those people could produce the same products in a different country and not be under boycott. In fact, if they voted out the current government and replaced them with one that eliminated the policies the BDS movement is protesting, or if the current government went that route, the people could produce the same products in Israel and not be under boycott.

The boycott is against goods produced under the current government policy in the State of Israel and government policy is not a person and therefore cannot be the victim of hate speech.

Double-Standard for Israel

One thing staunch supporters of the current Israeli regime’s policies love to bring up is the notion of a double-standard. In fact, a few years ago, the Harper Government was trying to get everyone who criticized Israel to also criticize another country at the same time, otherwise be labelled an anti-Semite.

Well, when it comes to double-standards, this could turn out to be a whopper. If it’s hate speech to urge boycott of Israel, presumably because the country’s population is majority Jewish, even though their government has some horrible policies, does that mean it would also be hate speech to boycott the products of a country whose population is largely Muslim whose government has some ethical issues to account for?

Let’s take Saudi Arabia as an example and imagine people in Canada urging a boycott based on ethical grounds. Wait, we don’t have to imagine such a scenario, thanks to Ezra Levant.

Wouldn’t the former Sun News, now independent, pundit’s Ethical Oil campaign be considered hate speech under this new definition? He is urging us to boycott Saudi oil, after all. Come to think of it, wouldn’t any Buy Canadian campaigns be considered hate speech against the country we are buying from instead of Canada?

I really don’t think so, because, after all, this isn’t actually about right and wrong or hate speech. It’s about using the law to silence political opponents of our government at home or allies abroad.

The Politics of BDS

Since this is an election year, it’s important to remember that the only type of discrimination Stephen Harper cares about is discrimination against his party at the ballot box. This new approach didn’t become public knowledge at this time by accident.

Harper is playing to his base, that much is clear. But this is also an attempt to derail one of his opponents. C-51 took care of Trudeau (plus Trudeau is in lockstep on BDS), now all but hardcore Liberals will admit his is pretty much just Harper with better hair. This plan is aimed at Mulcair.

The NDP leader has garnered quite a bit of support for his principled, logical and, at some points passionate opposition to C-51. I sincerely hope that he doesn’t take Harper’s bait on this one.

Personally, Mulcair is a strong supporter of Israel. This nearly cost him the support of the NDP base a few months ago when his response to Israel’s assault on Gaza came very close to the one-sided approach both Mulcair and Trudeau were espousing. Fortunately for the party and for him, he changed his tune in an op-ed in the Toronto Star.

That only came after the party faithful occupied NDP offices and forced his hand. This time around, he doesn’t have the luxury of time to realize he has to support what his party wants.

If some reporter asks Mulcair for a comment on the CPC plan to use hate speech laws against BDS supporters, I sincerely hope that his response doesn’t focus on his personal views on BDS which, as far as I know have not been declared, but one can guess.

Instead, I hope he uses his logical and constitutional mind and attacks the gross misinterpretation of a law meant to help the real victims of hate speech. He can even admit his views on the actual subject, just not dwell on them.

To do otherwise would waste a good chunk of the unity fostered by the NDP being the only party (with a chance of winning) strongly against C-51. With all three parties appearing as basically the same to some, many on the left will stay home and Harper will win.

I also hope that those critical of the BDS movement realize that Harper is trying to use you. Even if you don’t agree with boycotting Israel, arguing that those who do support it are uttering hate speech is a stretch that defies all logic.
Economic boycott is one of the most peaceful and accepted methods of dissent. Now, Harper is trying to take that away in order to earn a few cheap political points. Don’t let him.

News Politics

C-51: Unpopular and Completely Unnecessary Bill Passes House of Commons

On Wednesday, as most Canadian politicos were either basking in the afterglow of the Orange Wave which swept Alberta or nursing their hangovers, the House of Commons passed Bill C-51, the Harper Government’s so-called anti-terror legislation. This wasn’t a surprise by a longshot, but it is, nonetheless extremely unfortunate.

All the major parties voted as the said they would. The Conservatives voted for it, the NDP and Greens against, and the Liberals, living up to half of their promise to help make it law and then change it if they come to power, voted yea.

Much has been said about how this Bill is fundamentally flawed and over-reaching. Many pundits, including myself, have raised concerns that C-51’s definition of terrorism was left vague so the bill could be used as a weapon against the government’s political opponents such as environmentalists, First Nations, BDS supporters and others.

One thing that really hasn’t been talked about, though, is that even if C-51 was on-target and not a typical Harper Omnibus distraction, there still wouldn’t be need for it at all.

A Tale of Two Tragedies

I will never forget the Dawson shooting. My old CEGEP turned into a crime scene. Anastasia DeSouza was gunned down, an innocent, random victim of one man’s violent delusion. Her murderer, Kimveer Gill, killed himself after being shot in the arm by police, though this is one of those rare times when I think deadly force by police would have been justified.

At the end of the day, two people were dead, one an innocent victim, one very much the exact opposite. Several people were injured and survivors were left traumatized.

It was a terrible tragedy. In the aftermath people were calling for tighter firearms regulations and improved services for people suffering from mental illness. No one, though, was screaming terrorism, because it wasn’t. It was the act of one man.

What happened last October in Ottawa was also a tragedy. Corporal Nathan Frank Cirillo died senselessly, the victim of one man’s delusion. His killer, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, was justifiably killed by Parliament Hill Sergeant at Arms Kevin Vickers.

At the end of the day, two people were dead, one innocent, one guilty. Others were injured and survivors were traumatized. I don’t laugh at Prime Minister Harper hiding in a broom closet (though I do question the RCMP’s exit strategy for a head of state), he’s human and was a victim of this event, too.

Despite its similarities to the Dawson shooting and other horrific attacks carried out by troubled lone gunmen, the reaction to the Parliament Hill shooting was different. It was instantly labelled as a terrorist attack.

A few thousand people, or even just a few people, killed by a coordinated assault planned by a group is a terrorist attack. It doesn’t justify something like the Patriot Act, in my opinion, but at least the shoe fits. A lone gunman going on a spree is a spree killing, even if the spree is cut short after one or a few victims.

While Zehaf-Bibeau may have had thoughts of jihad in his head and chose targets based on his take on world politics, he was still just a disturbed man acting without outside coordination. Michael Zehaf-Bibeau was as much a member of ISIS as Kimveer Gill was the Angel of Death he claimed to be on a website.

Political Reasons Only

Justin Trudeau was interviewed on Vice News a few weeks ago. Shane Smith asked him about his party’s confusing position on C-51. Trudeau said that despite C-51’s faults, “there are a number of things in that legislation that increase security for Canadians, that do make us safer at a time when people are worried about terrorism.”

I’d honestly like to know what those things are. How does anything in a bill, inspired by an event that is not terrorism, but the act of a disturbed individual, protect Canadians against the bogeyman of terrorism?

It can’t, but that’s not the point. The point, at least for Trudeau, is “at a time when people are worried about terrorism.”

It’s politics, pure and simple. Polls, albeit sketchy polls, showed support for the bill at the time. He went for it. So did the Bloc Quebecois. When C-51 came up for a vote, though, the Bloc voted against it. I guess they saw that the bill was now opposed by many. If there ever was a time for the Liberals to flip-flop and not suffer for it, it was Wednesday.

There are so many ways Trudeau could have sold a reversal on this that even the cleverest Dipper wouldn’t be able to use it to hurt his party. While I’m not a Liberal supporter by any stretch of the imagination, I would have welcomed it. The more voices against this bill, the better. I even wrote to Marc Garneau, my current MP, asking him to convince his boss to change his tune.

Colossal Miscalculation

Being the anti-Harper candidate doesn’t just mean looking younger and fresher and having somewhat more progressive social policies. It means opposing crap bills with no purpose like C-51.

Instead, Trudeau stuck to his badly aimed guns. The opposition to this monstrosity of a piece of legislation now clearly belongs to Tom Mulcair. The NDP leader is a moderate centrist at best, but, thanks to a little bit of rain on his hair and some serious Liberal bungling, he has the chance to come across as a street fighter, standing on a soapbox railing against oppression and invoking the War Measures Act and Duplessis’ Padlock Laws. He’s Angry Tom who’s angry for a very good reason.

trudeau voting for — Justin Trudeau voting for C-51

C-51 may have cost Justin Trudeau any chance he had in the upcoming election. That is, if people remember a few months from now that he sided with Harper on a bill which has no purpose but potentially horrible repercussions. If they do, he can forget about the left. As for the right, why would they vote for Harper Light when the real deal is also on the ballot?

This colossal miscalculation on the part of the Liberals doesn’t necessarily mean a new era, though. Stephen Harper is still one of the craftiest politicians out there. Even if the anti-Harper vote crystallizes into a shade of orange, some of what once was red may turn blue and join their right-wing brethren to fight the feared wave.

The real trick is convincing all, or most, Canadians, whether they lean right, left, stay in the centre or don’t really care about politics at all, that taking away our basic rights to express ourselves for manufactured purposes is just plain wrong.

* Featured image: openmedia.ca

News Politics

A culture of brutality and barbaric practices

If one thing that can be said about this Conservative government, it’s that they are very tactful and savvy when it comes to selecting picturesque Orwellian names for the proposed pieces of legislation they put before the house. The more exuberant the title, the more ludicrous the bill and perhaps the more terrifying the potential consequences of its passage.

Even in his wildest dreams, Orwell couldn’t have imagined some of the stuff emanating from the Ottawa bubble nowadays… A “Fair” Elections Act that disemboweled the body of democracy, a First Nations Control of First Nations Education that completely disempowered First Nation communities and blackmailed them into accepting a white man’s education, and last but not least, Vic Toews infamous omnibus crime bill, Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act that was actually a cover to quell any ”Un-Harperish” activities.

But the Palme d’Or of newspeak goes to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Chris Alexander’s Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices. It isn’t for the feeble hearted.

Another thing that isn’t for the feeble-hearted was the the violence used against protesting students in front of Quebec’s national assembly last Thursday. The images of a canister-armed SPVQ officer shooting Naomi Trudeau-Tremblay in face from a distance of barely a meter or less, was horrifying.

A Tale of Two Barbarians

In response to all of this, a wired cacophony emerged on mainstream media within the past week. On one hand images of the reckless hoards of ”radical” student protest and the other the senseless violence of those that ”hate us,” those that ”hate liberty” and our most cherished principles and freedoms. Through the lens of the mainstream media civil society, the silent peaceful, idle, majority is caught between the menace of radical Islamists on one side and by radical anarchists–they use it as if it was pejorative– on the other.

When it comes to violence perpetrated by ”radical Islamists” that violence couldn’t be more heartfully condemned. Grandiose tirades and lyrical waxing are used to put the emphasis on the need to defend the ”values of occidental society” against barbarian practices. We’ve since yesterday extended our mission to make sure ”barbarism” and obscurantism won’t engulf the Middle East. Yet another chapter of the West bring the light of civilization, by way of the lightning of aerial bombardment, to the dark corners of the globe!

On the other hand there’s the ”good” violence, the violence used to protect civil society and the silent majority from within. The violence that was used in such an exaggerated manner by law enforcement in Quebec City and Montreal in the past week.

The Silent Majority?

Once again in name of the silent majority of hard working families who agree with sacrificing their public services and their children’s future for the sake of rapacious tax credits to billionaire multinationals, the use of ”barbaric” tactics is justified. It’s self-evident that, for the silent majority to be heard, a little bit of violence is necessary.

What this underlines is that ”barbaric practices” are not the monopoly of exotic foreign cultures. With the perspective of what has happened within the past week, I do see barbaric practices, but they aren’t perpetrated in the some foreign land in the middle of sand-dunes, I do see inherently anti-women practices, but they aren’t perpetrated in the name of one god or another, except maybe the deity of balanced budgets and relentless growth.

When 18 year-old Naomie Trudeau-Tremblay was struck to the head with a gas canister, she was struck because she was protesting something. She was struck because she was student, because she was women, because she refuted the austerity agenda that this government has put forward. She was struck because this government wanted her to be silent.

This practice of police brutality is a widespread one, a practice that has been put forward to quell any form of resistance towards the dogma of austerity. Every time an exaction is committed by police officers against peaceful demonstrators, every time dispersion tactics kill a protest, every time a Naomie, a Maxence, a young student, is brutalized, their physical integrity violated, because of their political opinions, every time their voices are silenced or we attempt to silence them, a victim is born, a victim of ‘terrorism’ of ‘barbaric practices. This begs the question: maybe the “real” barbarians are here, not overseas? Or at least maybe, in many ways, we are barbarians as well… One thing is sure, austerity is barbaric!

As for the notion of silent majority, that keyword that’s swung around right and left, used to justify everything and its contrary, here’s a newsflash: the silent majority isn’t constituted by those that are idle in the face of injustice, it’s those that stand-up and fight back and that are silenced for doing so that make-up the true ‘silent majority’.

The silent majority isn’t about those who are silent, rather it’s about those who are silenced.

See you in the streets!

A luta continua!

News Politics

Groping For Relevance: How the Bloc Quebecois Sold its Soul for a Few Votes

Last week, my colleague Niall made a very interesting observation: Harper’s Bill C-51 was designed, among other things, to attract Quebec voters who supported the Marois government’s ill-fated Charter of Quebec Values. For a few days, it seemed like that strategy just might pay off. After all, there was a poll done by Angus Reid that said 9 in 10 Quebecers supported the bill, and the current major Quebec parliamentary real estate holders, the NDP, were very much against it.

Now it looks like Harper’s Quebec roadmap may have hit two significant bumps. First, it looks like that poll wasn’t the type of broad-reaching, reliable, accurate and representative survey Angus is famous for. Instead, the 82% support nationwide approval for the bill, and the nine-in-ten Quebecer approval comes from an internal poll Angus did of members who signed up to its forum.

The second obstacle came last Thursday in the form of a backhanded endorsement of the Conservative government’s plans to appeal a court ruling permitting Muslim women to wear niquabs at citizenship hearings. The Bloc Quebecois released an ad online, depicting the House of Commons as seen through a niqab, and attacking Thomas Mulcair for coming out against Harper’s decision to appeal the ruling. It asked the question: “Do we have to hide our face to vote NDP?”

Bloc: Learning from the Wrong History

Desperate times call for dumbass measures, I guess. Since Mario Beaulieu (I seriously had to Google his name to make sure I had it right) took the reigns of the Bloc, he has made it clear that the way forward and back to relevance was through a hardline separatist approach to policy and messaging. Now, it seems like he has added xenophobia to the party platform in equal measure.

You can see the logic behind it: trying to be a progressive federal party with the interests of Quebec at heart didn’t cut it in 2011, and that’s why Gilles Duceppe lost in such a big way. To rebuild the Bloc, they needed a completely different approach.

If Beaulieu and company had looked, instead, to the defeat of the Parti-Quebecois in 2014, they would have realized that their new approach was the exact same mix that brought down Pauline Marois. And she was a sitting premier with considerable backing and exposure. What makes the Bloc think that they, with just two seats in the House of Commons and a general feeling of irrelevance, are in a better position to make this approach work?

It Could Have Worked for Harper

Appealing to the bigotry of some Quebecers by scapegoating the Muslim “other” is a strategy that took another Mario, the ADQ’s Dumont, all the way to Quebec Leader of the Oppositon in 2007. His party’s ambiguity on the national question along with an openly gay PQ leader (Andre Boisclair) made it easy for him to scoop up the right-wing nationalist part of the PQ’s base, leaving them with only the other half, the progressive sovereigntists, and a third-party placement. Marois appealing to the bigots produced an almost identical result.

If opposition status in Quebec is what you’re after, then xenophobia is the way to go. The problem for the Bloc is their goal isn’t that. It is (or at least it should be) to sweep most of Quebec and be the opposition, or close to it, in Ottawa.
Harper, on the other hand, isn’t looking to sweep Quebec. He just needs to bring out enough of the people who supported the Charter and get them to vote Conservative. For him, a Quebec roadmap that leads to opposition status in the province is perfect, as it may help him secure a second majority overall.

Now, though, it looks like the Bloc may be throwing a spike into those plans. No matter what side of the political spectrum they find themselves on, Quebecers generally don’t like Harper. If he pushes the right xenophobic buttons, though, some may hold their collective noses and vote for him. The Bloc is giving them a way out.

By effectively competing for and possibly splitting the hard-right xenophobic vote in Quebec, they may be helping out the NDP and Liberals in ways they hadn’t planned to. Planning, though, doesn’t seem to be the Bloc’s strong suit these days.

The Sad Truth

While my instinct might be to laugh and cheer, it’s actually really sad. Regardless of what you think of a separatist party running federally in Canada, the Bloc, at least under Gilles Duceppe, was a party that wanted to be on the right side of history.

I liked Duceppe as a leader and always enjoyed his role in English debates. He didn’t care, so he said what he felt. He was willing to form a coalition with the NDP and the Liberals, when it was the right thing to do. He stood up against Harper’s more damaging ideas.

I’m not saying I would have voted for him, in fact I once lived in his riding and was very proud that my vote was against him, which seemed like a wasted ballot at the time, helped unseat him during the Orange Wave. But at least he had integrity and stood up for progressive ideals, when they didn’t conflict with his ultimate gameplan, that is.

Now, that Bloc is dead. The Bloc of ex-Mulroney MPs that Lucien Bouchard started is dead, too. While Bouchard’s Bloc was economically conservative, at least they weren’t Harperite right-wing reactionaries. What we’re left with is an ultra-nationalist version of the ADQ operating at the federal level. It’s a joke, sure, but it’s also a sad end to a party that did have a purpose.

If blocking Harper (pun unavoidable) from gaining any type of tangible foohold in Quebec is their legacy, so be it. It’s just a rather undignified end for a party that once stood for something other than the lowest common denominator of bigots in Quebec.

In their latest and possibly final attempt at relevance, the Bloc just killed its soul.

News Politics

The Holy Grail: C-51 is Harper’s Charter of Distraction

The stage is now set for round two of the charter debate. It’s sort of like a Star Wars sequel, only in this one it’s the bigots and the political opportunists that strike back. Maybe in some ways it’s the Empire, if you mean by that the dominant oppressive forces that are in play in Quebec and broader Canadian society nowadays.

During the infamous debate about the charter, I wrote that Pauline Marois, with her quest into the heart of darkness of Quebec, had given Harper and the Conservative Party a priceless electoral blueprint. In fact, contrary of common knowledge, the Conservative movement and the Sovereignist movement have a lot more in common than the rest of the electoral pack.

With C-51 it looks as if, unfortunately, that my prediction has been vindicated. Xenophobia sells in Canada in general and in Quebec in particular. The snake oil of security and secularism in disguise has become but another means to divert attention away from unpopular neo-liberal shock doctrine while reinvigorating the omnipresence of the state.

For all that the libertarian prophecies of neoliberal and neoconservative think-tanks, their rhetoric of “no government is good government” and that “government is the problem,” C-51 is nothing more than a power swap in favor of more state power. It’s an 18th of Brumaire coup that allows neoliberal forces to consolidate their coercive power.

C-51 is ultimately a brilliant strategic move. It enables this Conservative government to do two things. First and foremost, they can use it to sideline any in depth debate about the economic model that they have imposed on Canadians from coast to coast to coast since their tenure in power, a model that is tatters. You just have to take a look at Alberta. Secondly, it allows them to crush any resistance that might have already been brewing, to kill in the egg social and environmental movements such as Idle No More or more recently ShutDownCanada.

In the House of Commons, Liberals and Conservatives alike called for non-partisanship and for consensus, even though consensus cannot happen in the absence of debate. That, though, is the objective. The incidents that took the lives of two Canadian Army officials, in Ottawa and in St-Jean-sur-Richelieu, gave the Conservatives the perfect opening to apply their shock doctrine.

In the wake of those events the country was in shock. It was time to pass legislation that couldn’t be passed before, and this is where C-51 comes into play. This bill is the armed-wing of the economic policies that have been put forward by this Conservative government.

C-51 will outlaw any tentative to unseat or destabilize the Conservative economic agenda. Further with the Liberal Party voting in favor of it, it seems that at the end of the electoral cycle win or lose, if the Liberals win, Stephen Harper still wins.

In this context “Islamic Radicalism” and “Terrorism” are merely facade. Needless to say, when toddlers kill more Americans than terrorism, it puts the whole debate into perspective. It’s a means, a destructive means towards a destructive end. Quell the opposition to the petrostate once and for all.

The good news coming out of C-51 is that we are all or can possibly be defined as “domestic terrorists” within the months to come. We should wear that badge with pride and oppose this bill vehemently in the streets and the courts. Let the battle begin! #iamaterrorist.

A luta continua!

News Politics

Harper government joins war on terror

Yesterday, the Conservative government put their ‘money’ where their words were, and officially joined the new coalition of the willing. As I write Canadian fighter jets have joined the mission in Syria and Iraq. The Conservative government is leading Canada into a war that they deem is a moral imperative, a war against the horrific evil of ISIS and their genocidal tendencies, and a war to uphold the values of humanity.

Given the razor thin lines drawn by this Conservative rhetoric, either you are for war, that is, in favor of a military intervention against ISIS, or you’re giving a free pass for human rights to be trampled, or perhaps even worse, you are a de facto ”ally” of the ideology which drives ISIS.

In Bushian terms either you’re part of the ”Free World” or you’re part of the axis of evil.

I couldn’t contain my profound amazement, uncomforting disbelief and utter bewilderment (and yes, I went through all of those states of emotion in merely five minutes; it was one heck of an emotional rollercoaster ride), as I heard our beloved Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird, making the government’s pitch for a military intervention, address the House of Commons the other day.

The centerpiece of his argument was, believe it or not, women’s rights. Yes; women’s rights. During his fiery intervention, John Baird said that ‘his’ Canada didn’t sit on the sidelines while people were being massacred, blatant disregard for human rights was being done, and innocent women and children were being purposefully targeted.

In his words, it was Canada’s ultimate moral duty to intervene, in order to prevent such things from happening. At the end of the speech, you got this feeling that this was a moment John Baird had long dreamed about. Surely, he had dreamt as a child that one day he would be the champion of the oppressed, of the marginalized, and the champion of those ”lost causes” and that he heartfeltly would rise to the occasion and save Canada’s honour, and in doing so also that of the world.

That would be great story, wouldn’t it? Unfortunately, this is not a dream, this is a nightmare. The Conservative government so far has been a nightmare instilling terror into the hearts of thousands of Canadian citizens. When it comes to upholding human rights, women’s rights, and minority rights, the Conservative government has done Canada, or at least the idea people once had of Canada, a huge dishonor.

No matter how imbued with beautiful lyricism the rhetoric is, mere rhetoric cannot change facts. The Conservative government may paint itself as the Fidei Defensor of women and women’s rights all it wants, but that won’t change the fact that more than 1200 Indigenous women are missing or have been murdered, and that the Conservative government has done nothing to prevent this systemic problem, because, in their words, it isn’t a systemic problem whatsoever. If we were to apply Conservative logic here, than the Conservative government would be siding with criminals, rapists and murderers.

As the Conservative government stood-up, shouted, cheered and celebrated their mission in Iraq by high-fiving each other, what were they really cheering for? Were they cheering for the innocent lives would be saved, or were they applauding this historic decision, and the fact that, now, in some deranged egomaniac way, their names would be forever in books of Canadian history? Maybe they were applauding the idea that, after an awful summer and few months, this war would be their saving grace?

One thing is certain: this Conservative government will go down in infamy. If any of the joyous Conservatives thought that the vote on the war was ”their historical moment”, don’t fret about it guys, you already have that covered! For hundreds of impoverished and marginalized communities, and the cuts this Conservative government have made to essential social services, will continue to strike terror in the hearts of many, even after this Conservative regime is long gone. For Indigenous communities, the blatant discrimination of this Conservative government has exacted upon them, will be a wound that Canadian society will have much difficulty in healing. For women, the assault Harper’s administration has launched indirectly against their fundamental rights, is a terrorizing reminder that the misogynist ghosts of Canada’s past are still alive and well.

So this is my little advice to this Conservative government. If you’re really hell-bent on stopping ”terror”, in upholding human-rights, then you have two options. Either vote yourselves out of office or declare a war on yourselves. How can a government that has created such an environment of terror, claim to fight terror effectively on the other side of the world? The war on terror starts by looking at the person in the mirror. It starts right here on home soil.

A luta continua.

News Politics

Okay Mulcair, now you’re starting to impress me

To quote Katie Nelson, “When Global uses ‘unreal’ as an adjective you know it’s worth watching!” Yes, the scene in the Canadian Parliament a few days ago can only be described as unreal or rather surreal.

Thomas Mulcair, the leader of the Official Opposition, New Democratic Party (NDP), was trying to get some specifics out of the government about Canadian deployment in Iraq. Instead of responding to Mulcair’s very clear question, Conservative MP Paul Calandra, the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Secretary, brought up some statement an NDP staffer had made earlier about Israel.

Mulcair’s initial response, before calling on the speaker to intervene after a second non-answer from the Harper government, was priceless. Watch it for yourself:

While I’ve heard Muclair use sarcasm effectively before, this response impressed me for another reason: he didn’t take the bait.

That wasn’t the case a few months ago. Following a struggle with the NDP base over his initial statements on the assault on Gaza that saw office occupations, and culminated with a sort of mea culpa op-ed in the Toronto Star, a lone MP, Sana Hassainia, quit the party and blamed it on Mulcair’s recent support of Israel.

Instead of a simple statement acknowledging Hassainia’s resignation, Mulcair echoed some of the statements the NDP faithful had been criticizing him for, breaking the party peace he had just regained. He took the bait.

It’s not hard to imagine someone in the Harper war room taking note of that and concluding that if a random MP could get a rise out of the leader by bringing up Israel, they could surely do the same. It’s also not hard to imagine a memo going out saying something like: “If you don’t want to answer a question from Mulcair, bring up Israel, it’s a sore spot!”

If that was their plan, it failed spectacularly this week. It did not result in any NDP in-fighting, but Calandra has become the poster boy for CPC caginess when it comes to serious issues to the point that mainstream media called it unreal. I, for one, really would like to hear an actual answer to that question.

Mulcair learned his lesson. But that’s not the only reason he’s impressed me as of late.

A few weeks ago, after the conservatives refused yet another request for an inquiry into missing and murdered native women, Mulcair promised one within the first hundred days should he be elected Prime Minister. The NDP followed up by forcing a debate in parliament on the issue. Have a look at that, too:

To be fair, Trudeau also wants an inquiry. Honestly, anyone not wanting an inquiry into this is confounding. Trudeau is not prioritizing it, though. The NDP has the lead on this one.

Meanwhile the only thing I see in the news about Trudeau is that he kissed the bride at a wedding, that both of his parents got laid a lot, and that he has a problem with Ezra Levant and Sun News. I honestly don’t think he actually has a problem with them: hate from Sun brings votes on the left.

Sun, along with the rest of mainstream media, is fully on board the Trudeau versus Harper bandwagon, even though very little separates the two candidates policy-wise. Until recently, I didn’t really care, because Mulcair’s NDP wasn’t offering much of an alternative.

Now, that has changed. Now, the NDP is offering a solid alternative to the Harper approach on some issues. I’d love to see Mulcair reverse his position on Energy East, come out strongly for weed legalization, and against Harper’s re-criminalization of sex work, but I accept that he needs to start somewhere and this is a good start.

Many in the mainstream media say that Mulcair is a star in the House of Commons, but loses the soundbite war to Trudeau. Maybe, just maybe, that’s because in parliament, the NDP is given the respect and place in the discourse that should be accorded to the Official Opposition, whereas the media has already bought the Liberals vs. Conservatives angle as they have for years.

I could have been making observations like this months ago, but didn’t really see the point. Now I do.

If Mulcair and the NDP stay on this course and keep fighting the good fights, they will be giving people like me something truly different to vote for.

News Politics

Harper’s Family Values: Silence, violence and social conservatism

This past week sounded the end of the political summer recess, but this week was not only the end of the summer vacations and the start of yet another parliamentary cycle, in fact this past week hasn’t been the start of a new parliamentary cycle, it’s the dawn of what might be one of the longest electoral hauls in recent history.

You know an electoral cycle has started when the Liberals hold their convention in deep blue Edmonton and that the Conservatives start rattling the cage of their social conservative base. This past week both the Conservatives and the NDP tried to define themselves as ideological alternatives to the big tent, supposedly pragmatic, centrist Liberal Party.

Normally when trying to mark a stark difference between themselves and the rest of the political spectrum, Conservatives use the holy scripture of economics. But in the past week the Conservatives have made less reference to their economical record, than to their socially conservative principals and values.

The Conservative government knows that in many ways their base—which is mainly made up of anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-everything that might differ from the 1950s model of society—is angry that they haven’t seen their champions stand up in the house and push forward their reactionary agenda.

But all hope is not lost for them. If this past week was an indication of anything it’s that the Conservative elites want to use the mantra of social conservatism to gain leverage over their rivals in the upcoming electoral cycle.

But die-hard social conservatives who want to see abortion and gay marriage “regulated”—aka gradually banned—here’s a news flash: the Conservatives aren’t the sole defenders of law and order, aren’t the champions of “traditional family values” and aren’t socially conservative anymore.

This week at the same time that Harper and his inner cycle were boasting about their ardent defense of traditional values, yet another aboriginal youth was violently murdered. Families and an entire community were ripped apart.

justice_for_families sisters in spirit Ottawa — Members of Families of Sisters in Spirit, a non-profit made up of family members of missing and murdered Aboriginal women (photo: ipsmo.wordpress.com)

It’s always a very tricky thing to try to retake a moral high ground when you have no footing on those grounds anymore. These Conservatives have, in many ways, actively assaulted “traditional family values” in economic terms, but also indirectly through their silence.

For Stephen Harper, the epidemic of violence targeting native women throughout Canada, which has claimed the lives of over 1200 women, isn’t something to be worried about, maybe because it touches a nerve. The Conservative inaction when it comes to this national tragedy is hideous because it sends the message that violence against native women and women in general is defacto decriminalized.

The cases of Hernandez and Sedinger-Ayala and many more further underline this frightful development. Because of an aberration of Canadian immigration law, mothers that are sponsored by their parent who have legal status in Canada are completely at their mercy; here too violence against women is defacto decriminalized. And the Conservatives who have intensified within the past few years their crackdown on “bogus refugees” use this loophole as a means towards an end on a regular basis thus breaking-up families and tearing communities apart.

So it seems that the Conservative crusade of “traditional families values” got stuck in a moment and can’t get out of it, that moment being the 1920s. Single-mother families are completely omitted by this current Conservative government and yet single mothers are the backbone of many Canadian families in this day and age. The Conservatives have put forward tax reforms: “income splitting” that favors their ideal of “family”—stay home mothers are okay, but single mothers that struggle most of the time with several jobs to get by are not.

The Conservatives seem to apply their social conservatism and their law and order agenda when it suits them. “You’re either with the pedophiles or you’re with us!” shouted our beloved Vic Toews from across the aisle… well either you defend all children, all families, all Canadians from discrimination and abuse or you don’t!

You can’t fly the flag of “family values” and yet in economic and social terms pursue policies that are the most detrimental to families of all walks of life. Maybe it’s because the Conservative definition of family is different from mine. Maybe their families live in Bedrock. One thing is certain: this Conservative government’s outlook on life is stuck in the Stone Age.

Sheila Sedinger Ayala facing deportation (image: Radio-Canada)

We need to break this silence; the greatest threat to our families and to our communities in this day and age is the violence that we perpetrate against our mothers and sisters, girlfriends, our partners, our native sisters, our transsexual, transgender sisters, our homosexual and queer sisters, all of our sisters.

No women, no one should have to endure violence silently.

We are all family.

A luta continua.

News Politics

Stephen Harper to be nominated for Nobel Peace Prize: Unfortunately, not a joke

No, it’s not April 1st, no FTB has not turned into the Onion and yes, you did read the headline correctly. Stephen Harper is to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Yes, that Stephen Harper. The Prime Minister responsible for Canada’s unprecedented shift of focus from peacekeeping to full-on militarization. The man whose administration ruined Canada’s reputation internationally and even got us kicked off the UN Security Council.

This is the same Stephen Harper who clearly isn’t interested in bringing any sort of peace or justice to the homefront, either. He’s set out to augment our prison population by increasing sentences for small drug offenses, re-criminalizing sex work and criminalizing acts of dissent like wearing a mask at a protest.

Clearly there are many reasons why he should not win or even be considered for a prize of peace. But, to be fair, let’s look at the reasons for the nomination, in this case put forward by B’nai Brith:

“Moral clarity has been lost across much of the world, with terror, hatred and antisemitism filling the void,” B’nai Brith Canada CEO Frank Dimant said in the organization’s press release, “throughout, there has been one leader which has demonstrated international leadership and a clear understanding of the differences between those who would seek to do evil, and their victims. More than any other individual, he has consistently spoken out with resolve regarding the safety of people under threat — such as opposing Russian aggression and annexation of Ukrainian territory — and has worked to ensure that other world leaders truly understand threat of Islamic terrorism facing us today. ”

If you read between the lines, it’s pretty clear “the differences between those who seek to do evil, and their victims” refers to Harper’s unwavering support of Israel’s humanitarian crisis-inducing assault on Gaza. Now even if your blinders are so thick that you feel this attack is justified, arguing that support for and encouragement of a military action makes someone a man of peace takes a logical leap much greater than the Canadian North, which, by the way, Harper is also trying to militarize.

The same goes for Russia and Ukraine. Even if you think someone is on the right side of a conflict, being on any side instead of working for a solution should automatically disqualify you from winning a peace prize.

War is not peace. Orwell’s 1984 was meant as a warning, not a guide.

So, while Harper clearly shouldn’t win, stranger things have happened. Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize before he had a chance to do anything. At least it was for the hope of peace in his campaign speeches and not for his drones.

Unless Harper does a complete about-face on most of his policies real soon, I think it’s important that we let the Nobel people know that Harper is in no way a man of peace and completely undeserving of this award. Looks like others feel the same way. There’s already a petition asking the Nobel committee to reject Harper’s nomination.

This is great, but maybe we should go one step further and think of our own Canadian nominees for the prize. It shouldn’t be that hard to find someone more deserving of a peace prize than Harper. If you have any suggestions, please leave them in the comments, or, at the very least, sign the petition.

We shouldn’t let our national embarrassment of a warmongering Prime Minister be celebrated as a man of peace. Even the very suggestion of such an accolade needs to be stopped and quickly.