Why Harper-Con Values are Distinctly Un-Canadian (Part Two)

Actions Speak Louder than Words:

In the first part of this article, I focused on two key facets of the Harper "persona" and how they shaped his party's values. With absolute power over a party that is Conservative in name only, I highlighted the fact that  when Harper mentions Conservative Values, he is really referring to his own.  I also talked about Harper's devout Evangelical faith and how the Harper-Con values are firmly rooted in right-wing Christian Fundamentalism. Of course, I had to contrast the Harper-Con  against the Canadian Values I grew up with and why the two are absolutely nothing alike.

As I mentioned in Part One, Canadians are generally considered to be a pretty "stoic" lot. It comes with our harsh extremes of climate I suppose. One can't change the weather so one might as well make the best of it. Also born of that stoicism is our "live and let live" attitude toward life and those with whom we share the planet. As such, we tend to be a very egalitarian bunch. It's cool to be, think, look like or believe in anything we desire. It's even cool to share in and partake of our diverse range of human experiences. It is very un-cool however, to force anyone to think, live or be anything or anyone they don't want to be such  as the social order the Harper-Cons seem hell-bent on inflicting upon our country. That in a nut shell is oppression. And nothing awakens us from our stoic existence to dizzying heights of unequaled passion, like the glorious fight against oppression....that and a hard fought game of hockey of course.

So because of our attitude towards life and our "Earth-Mates", Canadians tend to have a good reputation through out the world as being good citizens not just of Canada, but of  the global community as well. And we put such stock in being good citizens and maintaining good relations with almost everyone, that these concepts are introduced and reinforced in our schools. We try to "teach" what it is to be a good citizen. And central to the concept, is "ethics".

The Canadian concept of ethical behaviour is really nothing new. Many of our most treasured values can be found in the Ten Commandments. Don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't kill and don't covet your neighbor's ass. So noble have we come to think of these basic tenets, that they have become measurements or guide posts for our existences. Whether we succeed or fail in our endeavors is not as important as how we go about achieving them.  Or in the Hockey sense, "it's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game".

Now all of this is of course, a glorious generalization. Not all Canadians would agree with or adhere to the notions I have just expressed. But I think that if we were hard-pressed to describe our National Value Set to say... a race of aliens, they would look pretty similar to what I've described. They are the noble ideals that we aspire to and try to teach our children to embrace.

Now all of this brings me back to Stephen Harper and his values as opposed to those of the average Canadian . Leave us not forget that the Prime Minister asserts that the Conservative and therefore his values are Canadian values. This is where the actions of Stephen Harper and his subordinates comes into play.

We tend not to like liars in this country. It goes against one of the basic tenets of our way of life. Lying is a human failing to be sure, an easy fall back for any person who finds themselves in a tight squeeze with no other way out in sight. But telling the truth no matter what, is one of those noble attributes we all aspire to. It makes us better people and better citizens. It's an enlightened plateau we never stop trying to achieve.

Now the Harper-Cons, if you will recall, were not long ago, found to be in contempt of Parliament. It's what caused the 41st Canadian General Election. But what did this contempt look like? What did it consist of? Well for one thing, it involved money as most conflicts do. The Government of Harper failed to divulge to total cost of certain aspects of it's budget and expected the members of the House of Commons to vote on it. They did not say, all the figures were not there, they merely tabled the budget as it was and expected it to be passed. And when it was found out that there were some significant figures missing, The Government of Harper continued to refuse to divulge these numbers sighting Cabinet Privilege. So was this lying then? Is it inherently dishonest to give only half of a story and expect that others will perceive it to be the whole truth?

And this brings us to the famous "Not Girl", Bev Oda. International aid agency "Kairos" had it's funding denied by Stephen Harper via Cabinet Minister Oda. It appeared that a memo had been initially issued stating that Kairos had qualified for funding, but mysteriously, the hand written word "not" was inserted into the sentence that changed the agency's funding status from "approved" to "not approved". At first, Ms. Oda told Parliament she had no idea who doctored the already signed document. It later was revealed that She not only knew who doctored the document, she authorized them to do so. Bev Oda  lied outright to Parliament, and with the full support of Stephen Harper.

In the end, the Prime Minister asserted that the Contempt of Parliament was a political move by the opposition parties who out voted him, and by the Speaker of the House who was a Liberal. Even if the most cynical political observer were to believe this, it does not take away from the fact that the Government of Harper lied both through omission and by commission. And this is only one example of the Harper-Cons dishonest handling of affairs. It does not even touch on the Afghan detainee issue, the G8/G20 fiasco nor the true burden on the environment of Harper's love child, the Alberta Tar Sands.

But what about cheating? Well one only needs to look at the fact that four top Harper-Cons are under investigation regarding the mis-allocation of advertising funds during  the 2006 election. This is being referred to as the "in and out" scandal. Again, Harper contends that this is a simple administrative misunderstanding. But most involved in this scheme to divert money to the Conservative national ad campaign in 2006 believe it seemed underhanded and verging on fraudulent. One of the most powerful propaganda weapons in Harper's 365 days a year campaign is his television ads. And in 2006, he found a way to be able to spend more money than the other parties on television ads during the campaign, which is expressly against the rules as laid out by Elections Canada. Whether it had a discernible impact upon the election or not, Harper cheated.

And stealing. Tony Clement, one of the most senior Minister's in Harper's inner circle was able to redirect $50,000,000 to his own riding that was supposed to be money allocated for either G8 infrastructure money or Border security enhancements. The vast majority of the money went into projects that had nothing to do with the G8 and Mr. Clement's riding is several hundred miles away from the nearest border. And there is no paper trail which seems to indicate a knowing "contravention" of the rules. This was taxpayers money that was deliberately and underhandedly redirected to Mr. Clement's home riding. In effect, it was stolen.

And while we're on the subject of theft, how about Michael Sona's attempted theft of an Elections Canada ballot box from a special poll at Guelph University. It was only the quick actions of an Elections Canada scrutineer that prevented the theft. Mr. Sona, Communications Director for the local Conservative candidate was never arrested or charged in this attempted theft.

So in summary, given the examples of Harper-Cons lying, cheating and stealing, and let us not forget, Stephen Harper is the New Conservative Party, the actions of his party have frequently been unethical and bordering on, if not out right, illegal. And the above is a mere handful of the "too numerous to list in one place" transgressions. So the actions of the Harper-Cons demonstrates a value set that is far from the noble Canadian values that have evolved over the years. They are not setting the example of what it means to be ethical in all things and  unlike the "it's how you play the game" attitude we attempt to teach our children in an effort to pass on our legacy of good Canadian values and ethical behaviour, the Government of Harper espouses a "the ends justifies the means" philosophy. And their behaviour is anything but ethical and thereby, completely out of sync with the traditional values that Canadians hold dear. 

In Part Three (and hopefully last part) of this run-on blog post , I will examine The Harper-Cons bullying behaviour and why their many transgressions don't stick to them.

Why Stephen Harper's Values are Distinctly un-Canadian

"NOT"!!

Stephen Harper has repeatedly made the claim that Conservative Values are Canadian Values.  

In itself, this seems like a fairly harmless statement, typically political in nature that should probably be instantly dismissed as such.  If it had been made by any other political party, speaking about themselves at any other point in our history, this would be true. But this was Stephen Harper speaking these words and their meaning has far greater implications, beyond mere political rhetoric.

For one thing, Harper controls his party with an iron fist. He sets the tone, he sets the agenda and he sets the speech. Every single party member conforms to this strategy. If they can't, they don't speak, if they speak and contradict the party line, heaven help them. More than one man or woman has found their careers in ruin for doing so. 

To control his party, Harper has employed a cadre of non elected Zealots, euphemistically referred to as "political entrepreneurs". These are the boys in short pants. He has stocked the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) with these henchmen and has given them unprecedented powers. Dimitri Soudas for example, Harper's former Director of Communications and a top adviser had in the past, been given the task of announcing Government Policy on National TV.  This was not an elected official, he was a mere employee, yet he enjoyed greater access to the Prime Minister and possessed "clout" far beyond any Parliamentarian sitting in the House of Commons. This remains true of ANY of the zealots in the PMO, that they have far greater power and control over our country than any of our elected officials, yet they are nothing more than "hired hands" 

So with a short leash tightly around the neck of his party, whenever we hear Stephen Harper utter the word "Conservative" , we should be hearing "I" or "me" or "my" as in,  "my values are Canadian values" .

And lets not forget, this party that Mr. Harper has a choke hold on, is Conservative in name only. They are, in reality, the Reform/Alliance party that usurped the Conservative name from the mortally wounded  PCs in 2003. There is very little in this New Conservative party that resembles the Progressive Conservatives of days gone by.This collection of Neo-Cons would likely consider John Diefenbaker or Robert Stanfield to have been Socialists.

So Stephen Harper is flaunting his values as being Canadian. So because they are his values, they are his party's and his Zealot's values. But what are Harper's values? Whenever the word comes up, which is often, it's usually connected with the word Family.

When the phrase "Family Values" comes up in the United States, at least in the political sense, it refers to ultra-conservative, right-wing fundamental Christian values. Groups espousing to be supporters of Family Values in the good old U.S. of A.  are also known to be well financed, powerful, intolerant and often racist according to various civil liberties groups. And for some reason, there is a connection between these right-wing groups and "Tea",  though what this connection is, remains unclear to the writer.

So In Canada , when Stephen Harper talks about Family Values, he is definitely on the same wavelength as his American cousins. Both he and his party have received support, both financial and otherwise from these ultraconservative groups south of the border. And we also know Harper to be a staunch Evangelical Christian. So when he makes any reference what-so-ever regarding the subject of values, we should know that Harper is referring to the Evangelical variety and that they have been well financed by folks outside of our borders.

So what are these Evangelical Christian Values? Well, for one thing, we know them to be adamantly pro-life. Which is not surprising in itself, but they aren't content with just Evangelicals being pro-life. Everybody has to be pro life. Which means that women's reproductive rights are non-existent in Harper's Canada.

In fact, women's rights are greatly diminished in Harperland.  Yes, they have a very necessary role in the family. They are the bearers of the children. Very important to be sure, but it is their primary role. Meaning for a good portion of their adult lives, women should be pregnant and left at home to raise the kids. State supported and licensed day care is an abomination you see.

So once a woman, according to the Government of Harper has outlived her reproductive usefulness, then and only then is she free to pursue other interests and ambitions. But she must at all times remain subservient to the man in the family. 

If they can't be converted,
non-believers are shunned
and left to die on their own.
No State support for these
"losers"

All Non-Evangelicals are to be pitied and saved. Meaning we non-believers must be convinced to adopt the same world view as our enlightened brethren.  But if we will not be saved, we must be shunned, exiled and left to our own pathetic devices, hopefully to die off and rid the world of our horrible socialist sins.

Homosexuals under Evangelical dogma, are the lowest form of life. As such, they should not expect to have any rights in Harper's Canada. They are not even to be pitied and saved like other non-Evangelicals. They are to be shunned, and hopefully, to die slow painful deaths. Which might explain why the Government of Harper would not allow cheap, generic AIDS medications to be produced for shipment to needy developing nations. Most likely, the Prime Minister believes that Aids is a scourge brought on by the evil of homosexuality and as such, gays should be left to be destroyed by their own deadly disease, horribly and painfully.

Unlike the traditional teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the poor in the Evangelical world are not to be pitied and given help. They are to be blamed for their own plight and if they are not capable of becoming useful Evangelical citizens, they should be locked up like common criminals to teach them the folly of their evil existence. Never mind if they are mentally ill or drug addicted or both.

So, given the Evangelical world perspective, it is not difficult to see why Harperland is a very exclusive club. All are welcome to join the club and be saved, but those who won't, can quite literally, "go to hell"!  So the club excludes out of hand: Muslims, Hindus, Baha'i, Buddhists, Communists, Socialists, Feminists, Gays, Lesbians, Transgendered folk,  Liberals of any stripe, Unionists, impoverished, those with mental illnesses or addictions and basically, anyone who holds a dissenting world view.

Oh, and for good measure, Evangelicals don't believe in Global Warming, at least that it is man made anyway. If there really is Global warming so Stephen believes, it is gods will so nothing mankind does, one way or another, will make it better or worse.  Hence the rather archaic policies Harper has regarding the environment, ie: it's here to be used and exploited, not protected, because whatever happens, good bad or otherwise, is god's will!

So, given that Stephen Harper's world view is firmly rooted in his Evangelical beliefs, I would say that his concept of values, Family related or otherwise, are very far from the Canadian values I've grown up with and hold dear to my heart.

The Canada that I know is all inclusive. Everyone is welcome here regardless of their skin colour, religion, sexual orientation, gender. The more the merrier. Despite the fact that we are a cold, drab country for three-quarters of the year, we love lots of colour, pageantry and  displays of ethnic and artistic diversity. And if any newcomers to the country can play hockey, all the better. But conformity isn't the order of the day. Assimilation is an undertaking best left to the Borg...and the Evangelicals apparently. 

In the Canada that I grew up in, we care for and make every effort to rehabilitate the mentally ill, the drug addicted and the impoverished. Not only is that the truly Christian thing to do, but it is also the morally right thing as well. We have a very firm belief here in Canada, that all are equal, everyone has the same rights and as such, everyone has a right to be happy, healthy and to have a reasonable standard of living. To that end, the State makes every effort to create circumstances where every citizen can obtain these rights of their own accord and if they can't, the state has an obligation to look after and care for them as though they were members of the family, our "Canadian Family". And that is the core of Canadian values. Our society owes responsibility to everyone, regardless of who they are  as though we were all in some way, extended family. To my mind, this is what Family Values truly represents .

In my Canada, we are typically known to be stoic and eternally polite. But we are also known to be hospitable, forgiving, tolerant, accepting and possessing of the ability to turn the other cheek and recognizing that discretion, is often the better part of valor. And curiously, this last character trait  can easily be seen as a Progressive Conservative quality that has nothing what-so-ever to do with the new incarnation of the party known as Conservative.

So no Mr. Harper, your values, while representing a very small minority of Canadians (apparently, there are about 3,000,000 Evangelicals in Canada, mostly in and around Alberta), are very far from being representative of the entire country. But it is my distinctly Canadian values that says you are entitled to your beliefs. But it is also my Canadian mind-set that says you don't have the right to force them on the rest of the country.

Only in Canada You Say?

The scene is a cozy little sitting room, decorated in a quasi Victorian motif. Nick-knacks, fine painted china trimmed with gold and delicate looking vases abound. The furniture, appearing to be far from comfortable, features intricate wooden swirls on which the rather sparse but tastefully decorated upholstery is attached.

Three women, all seemingly past their middle years, sit, sipping tea from the daintiest and most fragile looking of tea servings. They sit in silence, an awkwardness fills the air as each of the three seem to be searching in desperation for a relevant comment to make.

Mrs. Prenderghast, apparently the younger of the three, having chosen not to wear gloves for the occasion, cleared her throat and looked sympathetically at her hostess. 

"Have you considered poison  at all Elizabeth? Surely it would be far less of a mess and dare I say, it would be exceedingly more humane".

The hostess, Mrs. Elizabeth Duval, the more matronly looking of the three in her peacock-blue, wide brimmed sun hat trimmed with lace draws a deep breath.

"Emily, I've been over this and over this in my mind. A knife in the heart is by far the quickest and most convenient method. Poison would require some sort of deception and I am just not the duplicitous type. Not that I care whether or not I look him in the eye as I do the deed, I want swift, and I want effective and bugger the mess"

The third woman in the room, Mrs. Agnes Weatherbie, speaks up for the first time,

" Well if that's all you want then Lizzie, why don't you just blow his bloody head off with a gun?"

"I've considered that option also" said Elizabeth. "But I don't have access to a gun thanks to the long gun registry.  I asked constable O'Malley for his opinion and he said it would be far too difficult and time consuming to apply for a gun license. Plus I've never used one of the blessed things in my life. The good constable recommended just using a good, well  sharpened kitchen knife to a vital organ. Quick and easy he said."

There was a brief silence once again and then Emily cleared her throat in preparation for yet another appeal to her friends better nature.

"But Elizabeth" she began, "Why not just separate? Carve your portion of the house away from his. A good workman could do it cheaply with a chain saw in, dare I say, a day or less. Then you could live your life your way and Henri could live  his his way"

"No Emily, Henri must be done away with. His Socialist nonsense has gone on long enough. He has besmirched my good reputation and has made my family beholden to his good graces. For the good of the family dear Emily, The devilish Bastard must die".

Henri, a tall, distinguished looking French gentleman enters the room. He carries a fresh tray of tea which he sets carefully down onto a serving table just behind the spartan looking couch on which his wife Elizabeth sits.

"So my lovely Elizabeth, are we plotting my demise once again?"

Emily and Agnes look up and away from Henri in unison, feigning innocence.

"Well of course I am you Socialist twit. You are a blight, a cancer on my good family and it's name and you must be done away with once and for all" Elizabeth snapped.

"Well then I do hope your lady friends here have provided you with good counsel as to the best method to bring about my end" said Henri lightly. "The good constable has said he recommended a sharp kitchen knife to you. I dare say I hope you use it swiftly as you know I will not be done away with easily".

"I recommended separation.... with a chainsaw" Emily piped up. "Carve the house up I said so that each of you could live your life in peace"

"Ah Emily" Henri began, "always the conciliatory one. But then who would provide for dearest Elizabeth? And which of us would the family side with? Lizzy here, the disgruntled one, or myself, who has provided for and supported the family through the darkest of times?

"You make it sound as though it were a mere matter of jealousy" said Agnes,  daring to admit her part in the plotting.

"That conceited pea-brain thinks everyone is jealous of him" Elizabeth hissed at her friend.

Henri laughed lightly "I fear the grapes in the south of France have a decidedly sour taste to them this year"

"Laugh all you want" said Elizabeth menacingly as she turned to Henri for the first time, "But your end is now all but certain. And NO LONGER will we all be subjected to your cancerous, Socialist garbage". 

Henri looked down upon his seated wife and frowned. "The vehemence with which you have plotted this course of yours is most disturbing.  I have done no wrong except to provide for our family to the best of my ability. Indeed I have made mistakes over the years that I have come to regret deeply. Some of which have caused many of our clan to doubt my intentions. But there are a great number of our family and friends who understand the intentions of my heart and appreciate still the efforts I have made on their behalf. And for this I must be eradicated? For this you plot my death"?

Elizabeth quickly stood and turned to face her husband. She shook a frail white fist at him as she shrieked: "For that you must perish you devil simply because you will not go away. You will not cease to treat my family as though they should continue to be beholden to you for your charitable nature. I have amassed a far greater personal fortune than  ever you could. I know what is best for my family so I should be their benefactor. Yet many of them still refuse to listen to my good counsel, merely because it is contradictory to yours. So for that dear Henri, you and all your Socialist ideas must be EXTERMINATED once and for all".

"First of all Lizzy, they are OUR family, not just yours" said Henri in a low but slightly tremulous voice that betrayed his consternation for the first time. He paused, his jocular facade seemed to have left him.  " So because you perceive me to be a threat to your idea of how our family should be treated, and to whom they should be beholden, you would stab me through the heart with a kitchen knife? You would bleed me dry and erase all evidence of my existence? This and only this is what would make you eternally happy my pathetically wretched wife"?

Emily spoke up once again " I still think a chain saw would be better....on the house I mean, not on Henri". Emily blushed.

"It is but for the good of my family that by my own hand , I would bring about your death and then carry on as though you had never existed" said Elizabeth in a low but maniacally firm voice. 

"For the love of God Lizzy" said Agnes, "can you not just shoot the bugger and we can be done with this"?

Henri straightened himself up to his full height and with his head tilted skyward looked down his nose at his wife. "As it appears I am not welcome here my dear, I shall leave you and your confederates to your vile plotting. But know this my loving wife, I shall not go quietly into the night". And with that Henri spun on his heals and strode from the room.

Elizabeth slowly sat back down. She removed her hat and began fanning herself with it in an effort to regain her composure. 

"Fear not my friends" she began slowly, "That Socialist swine's end is all but certain the moment I procure a knife...If only I knew where the kitchen was..."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The above story is, to say the least, absurd, that such seemingly polite and well mannered people should openly and unabashedly discuss a plan to murder someone. That the local Constable should be consulted as to the best way to carry out their nefarious plot only adds to the absurdity. 

But here, today in Canada, seemingly polite and well mannered people are openly and unabashedly discussing the manner in which the ruling Conservative party plans to bring about the untimely demise of the Liberal Party. Their purpose seeming to be nothing more than a disagreement with the Liberals "paternalistic" approach to governance. That and the fact that historically,  the Liberals and their ideals have been far more popular than the Conservatives. 

So because the Conservatives view the Liberals as a threat to the way they see the country should be run, they must be eradicated once and for all and every last vestige of their legacy should be destroyed. 

And everyone is ok with this discussion, as though it were as natural as having tea with good friends. Never mind that conflicting points of view are the heart and soul of a democracy and that healthy debate is generally held to be in the best interest of the citizenry. 

With the destruction of the source of one of those conflicting points of view, we are doomed to suffer a one sided conversation that shall become all consuming with the absence of a strong dissenting voice.

Yet still, everyone seems to be ok with this. 

And to add to this absurdity, various other voices are openly discussing carving up our country with "fifty plus one chainsaws". And they do so with all the passion of people discussing the day's weather. 

And I'm quite sure that among foreign observers taking note of our rather blithe discussions about the death and destruction special interest groups intend for our country, at least one of them would be inclined to quote from the old tea commercial "Only in Canada you say"?

Rae to Vie for Liberal Interim Leadership

So Rae decides to go for "Interim" Leader position of the Liberals. Which means he can't run for permanent leader, nor talk merger with the DIPs (no slight intended there. I just like the nick-name). In the short term, I would say that Rae, though I really like the Parliamentarian he has become, would not be a good choice for LIB leader. Ontarians have long memories and I doubt he could capture much of the Ontario Centrist vote. However, muzzling any attempts at merger with the DIPS is unfortunate and dare I say, knuckle-headed. To my mind, I think he would be the perfect person to negotiate that kind of rocky, ego laden mine-field. But as all to often is the case, politics defies logic in lieu of partisan sentiment.

The Meaning of the 41st Election or, Pepsi vs Coke

Well it's been a week since the federal election. I've remained fairly silent on the whole affair, making no more than the odd "tweet" of despair on my twitter account.

You see, I've been trying to come to grips with the outcome. It simply makes no sense to me. I foresaw the possibility that the Cons could be returned to power in a minority capacity. This presented all kinds of interesting outcomes including a coalition government and the end of Stephen Harper.  But with all the scandals, contempt of Parliament and ruthless unethical behaviour, I in no way foresaw a majority Conservative government in the cards.

My first response was that Canada has taken an enormous leap to the right, both socially and politically. In many respects, it may have unwittingly. But I felt that Canadians were saying No to:

-women's reproductive rights,

- immigration

- the gun registry

- gay rights

- the environment

- scientific evidence based facts in determining policy.

And that they were also saying yes to:

- Punishment instead of rehabilitation regarding criminal behaviour.

- investing huge sums of money on Jails that will do nothing to make the streets safer.

-investing even more money on unneeded high tech, state of the art fighter jets (with or with out engines).

- an end to our ideal of a multicultural society.

- an end to our public health care system

- unscrupulous and rampant unethical behaviour on the part of our government.

-an end to our all inclusive social values.

- policy based on religious dogma

All that was a lot to swallow. I couldn't believe that the Canada I know and love would get behind those kinds of ideas. And the above is not the sum total of the Con agenda.

The day after the election, the pundits began making excuses and coming up with theories to explain the commanding majority the Cons now have in the House of Commons. They were basically a rehashing of old theories that explained how the Cons ended up with two previous minority governments. Some seemed to make some sense, others not so much.

Some blamed the vote-splitting on the left and subsequent surge of the NDP. In reality, it didn't matter how the votes were split on the left, the left leaning parties were still in the minority. Still others have blamed an unbalanced electoral system that rewards the party "first past the post" instead of the party with the highest percentage of popular votes. It seems the Cons still were just shy of 40% despite their commanding majority. But this is the same system that has been in place since confederation and has worked to the benefit of parties on either the left or the right of the political spectrum.

The short-comings of the Cons were well documented in the media. I felt that this majority outcome was in many ways, an indictment of the mainstream media. That people just don't trust what they have to say anymore. Or failing that, Canadians have become so cynical as to assume that deceit, unethical and dishonest behaviour is the norm for federal politics so no amount of scandals were anything new or out of the ordinary.

There may be a grain of truth in any or all of the above theories or explanations. But I feel that, after having taken some time for consideration and reflection, that the main reason for the quantum Con victory comes down to nothing more than effective marketing.

The Harper-Cons approached this election campaign more as if it were an advertising blitz then a political event. They approached it from a business perspective, using measurable market research and data as well as techniques learned from previous campaigns. They could have been Pepsi-Cola looking to steal customers from  Coke.

Since 2006, Preston Manning, former leader and, with Stephen Harper, co-founder of the Reform Party, has operated a right-wing "think tank" known as the Manning Center. The soul purpose of the Manning center is to allow it's founder and his colleagues to have an effect on Government policy. What better way to achieve that end then by having your colleagues form the Federal Government?

So for the past five years, the Manning Center has been collecting the best ideas and strategies from all the best right-wing thinkers from all over North America.  They bill themselves as being able to create opportunities for "political entrepreneurs" and offer a Master's degree in "Political Management". They employ such rabid Cons as Kory  Teneycke, the infamous vice president of Sun Media and the man who by his own admission, unabashedly suppresses left-wing  educators and political scientists through the use of smear campaigns and threats of job loss.

So despite their statements to the contrary and armed with the data and strategies provided by the Manning Center, the Cons were well prepared and, dare I say eager for this election. They did their research, they knew which ridings they had to target and they knew which consumers they had to ensnare, mainly the mainstream centrist.

The Cons knew that most Canadians listen more to sound-bites than to debates or to platforms, so with their bloated coffers, the Con's political entrepreneurs began putting their messages out there well before the election was even called.  They appealed to their target audiences, which did not  include students or women. They were well tapped into the social networking scene, but ignored it for all intents and purposes as it was seen as a mainly youth driven media.

As a result, the Cons were able to take the influence of the main stream media out of the equation by creating doubt in their ability to provide unbiased reports about the election. And as a result of this, all the myriad scandals, indiscretions and even the contempt of Parliament issue were effectively minimized. The image was projected that ALL politicians, parties and governments are dishonest and unethical so the Con's underhandedness was no big deal.

They created an atmosphere of "fear", false or otherwise, then effectively projected themselves as the protectors of the mainstream centrists and their pocket books. And in so doing, were able to convince this mega voting-block that nothing but uncertainty awaited them if they allowed the squabbling parties of the left to form the next government.  Even though Harper's message about the legitimacy of coalition governments was absolutely false, it was put out there often enough and emphatically enough that hordes of voters bought into it. 

And in that lays the Center piece of the Con strategy - strict enforcement of the messages being projected. There was a script. And everyone stuck to that script. And if there was every any danger that they couldn't, such as in candidate debates, they didn't speak. Even rallies were carefully orchestrated so as to eliminate almost all variables. And the press was all but silenced at these events.

So in the end, while the Liberals and New Democrats were seeking to win over hearts and minds, the Cons were effectively winning pocket books and votes. Not because a majority of Canadians necessarily like them, but because they believed them to be the best protectors of their standards of living. That, in essence, was the Con message.

So now it's up to the parties of the left to sort themselves out, to have some sort of joint agreement in place by the next election if not a full merger. And like the right, they need to start employing "political entrepreneurs" and to approach elections like ad campaigns rather than political campaigns. They need a focused message and they need to win back those main stream centrists who once upon a time saw the Liberal Party as the entity best able to look after their best interests.

As I said on the eve of election 41, we are witnessing the birth of a new Canada. And with that, comes a new model for fighting elections and governing the country. It is a decidedly  unpleasant affair, but it is hoped, at least from this corner, that our love of civil rights, equality and progressiveness does not become irrevocably lost in the process.

The Dawn of a New Canada

Well it's election's eve day. The final few hours before the country has a chance to vote in this all important election.

I think I've made it pretty clear what my position is regarding this election. In fact, in the many months leading up to May 2nd's vote, I've been quite outspoken. I haven't liked what I've seen and I've said so quite emphatically.

I hope that my political railings have not fallen entirely on deaf ears. I don't get many page views, but it's enough for me. I would be happy to know that I've caused at least one citizen to stop and think about the issues that have plagued our government for the past five years.

I also hope that my incessant ranting hasn't pushed anyone in the other direction. That's the danger of being outspoken I think. You run the risk of alienating folks and turning them off. You start to sound like an obsessive lunatic.

But if not through me, I hope via some other avenue, that more Canadians are paying attention to the issues that are at play regarding our country and it's social and political future.

Surprisingly, the Globe and Mail, which supports the Conservatives, published an op ed today by independent journalist Bruce Anderson entitled: How This Unnecessary Election Has Changed Canada For the Better. In it, Mr. Anderson makes some compelling arguments as to the good that has come from this election. He contends there are five primary positive effects: 

1) The Bloc Quebecois have been hugely destabilized by the surging NDP, something that can be seen as good for Canada as a unified entity. 

2) The relatively positive nature of the NDP campaign (as opposed to the Tories and the Grits) which instead of speaking to what should not happen, speaks rather about the positive things that CAN happen with a conscientious government in place. This is in stark contrast to the negative messages  and attack adds that have proliferated this campaign otherwise. And people like it.

3) Canada's youth are becoming engaged in the political process again. Like the youth of the 60s and 70s, today's young people have the ability to prove that they can be game changers. All they have to do is vote. Their collective voices can be heard.

4) A national debate on our priorities is occurring. Is it Corporate tax breaks?  The Health Care system? Or education? All very important issues. And Canadians have been talking about them.

5) The stark reality has come to light that if the parties of the center-left want to have a positive effect on Canada's future, they must consider merger. The Liberals can no longer claim themselves to be the "natural governing party" nor can the NDP claim to be the natural choice of the center-left. If they hope to effectively battle their natural rivals in the future, the far right conservatives, they must learn how to function together.

The point here good Canadians, is that this IS a very pivotal election. The face of our democracy may be forever altered as a result. We could see our first NDP government federally. We could see our first coalition government. Or, we could see constitutional wranglings like never before seen. Come the final tallying of the votes on May 2nd, it's not over. The result will be but the beginning of something very transformational. Where are we going as a country? What are our priorities? What will our democracy look like? And more importantly, will our country continue to be as socially focused as it once was?

So despite the political nattering and smearing, this has been a hugely philosophical campaign, loosely based on the core ideals of the political left and right. And it has been a very passionate campaign as illustrated by the myriad acts of vandalism, fear mongering, slandering, suppression of the press  and overt hate-speech. Not to mention the home stretch surge by the NDP and the huge participation from the social media.  Many many Canadians have very strong feelings about this election, like none in recent memory. So when the dawn emerges on May 3rd, we could be witnessing the birth of a very different Canada.

So if you want to have a say in what out country will look like come Tuesday, get out there and vote on Monday. Make a difference. As Gandhi said "be the change you want to see in the world". 

Did Someone Try to Muzzle Me??

I don't usually think of myself as a paranoid person.  No, it's not because I know everyone is out to get me... Yes, I flirt with the odd conspiracy theory. Mostly because they're fun. But I don't really believe there is any "theory" to the harm that the Harper Cons are capable of inflicting on Canada. I believe this to be very real.

I KNOW that Harper and his Cons lie

I KNOW that Harper and his Cons mislead and misrepresent the truth.

I KNOW that Harper and his Cons are trying very hard to muzzle the press and hence keep the truth about his regime from our ears.

I KNOW that Harper and his Cons systematically dispose of dissenters and ruin their careers.

I KNOW that Harper and his Cons will dispense with democracy in order to get their own way.

I KNOW that Harper and his Cons don't want to tell us what they are spending our money on.

I KNOW that Harper and his Cons employ fraudsters, goons, felons, terrorists and an assortment of petty thugs.

I KNOW that Harper and his Cons decide on policy based on ideology rather than evidence based facts.

I KNOW I don't trust Harper and his Cons.

So there may well be a conspiracy afoot, but there is no theory to it. It's hard fact. Harper wants complete and unchecked control of Canada in order to reshape it into whatever twisted configuration he sees fit. If you'll remember, he promised that we wouldn't recognize Canada by the time he's done changing it. And this is one promise he means to keep. Though what he intends to do with the country once he's ruined it is anybody's guess.

But last night, as I was catching up on the days news- learning about the vandalism and intimidation being perpetrated by Con zealots-  learning about how the Cons had the partisan crowd at a Harper rally shout down the media for trying to press the Prime Minister for answers regarding yet another indiscretion- learning how the Con candidate in Guelph was charging people to attend his rally- a funny thing happened as I was getting myself prepared for a right and proper "social media rant" . I got locked out of my blogs, my Facebook and my email accounts.

The last thing on my mind at the time was that maybe I was being muzzled. I am a pretty loud anti-Harper critic if you hadn't noticed. But no, I was more ticked about the inconvenience. I tried to contact my ISP but they were no help. So I went to bed. Fully expecting things to be back to normal in the morning. They weren't.

Even as my consternation continued on into the morning, the idea of "conspiracy" didn't enter my mind.  But as I started running virus scans and various diagnostic programs, I suddenly remembered the story about how the Cons are in favor of open and random internet surveillance, without a judges warrant. I remembered how citizens were being ejected from Harper rallies based on their Facebook content.  And I remembered that there was never an adequate explanation as to who was doing the online screening of innocent citizens or why they were doing it. And I started to get paranoid.

In this current political climate, with this pseudo- Conservative party that will resort to any measure to silence it's critics, I started to wonder if I really had been muzzled. I found it hard to believe because in the big scheme of things, my dissenting voice is tantamount to nothing more than a fart in a windstorm. But I wondered if I hadn't farted up wind of the wrong person.

But miraculously, almost 24 hours after I lost control of my means of speaking out, I regained control. I have my blogs and Facebook etc. back in my own hands. I don't know what caused this temporary silencing of my voice. My diagnostic checks turned up nothing as did my queries to the ISP. This "black-hole" in time remains a mystery. I would still like to think it was simply an internet glitch, but I still can't help but wonder.

But if any of you fellow pro-democracy bloggers, tweeters or Facebook socializers have experienced the same sort of thing, I would love to hear about it. You can comment on this blog post or for greater anonymity (I think), I can be emailed at 70sfusion@gmail.com. I would love to hear any and all comments.