Harper Declares War on the U.N.

It appears that the Government of Harper is going out of it's way to disrupt, discredit and to bring the normal functioning of the U.N. to it's knees. In the last week alone, Canada has thrown a monkey wrench into UN arms trade talks by insisting on unrestricted trade of "hunting and sporting rifles". It has withdrawn in protest from a committee that deals with Nuclear Arms restrictions because North Korea is currently the rotating committee chair and before that, the Canadian delegation at the UN refused to recognize Palestine's right to exist as a state despite more than 100 other UN delegates backing the move.

Previous to this week, Ottawa scuttled the UN Rotterdam convention to have asbestos listed as a hazardous substance. It has refused to change language in any Government Documents that uses the phrase "Visible Minority". The UN claims this infers that Canadian Society is normally "White Anglo Saxon Protestant" and the phrase Visible Minority refers to a person's "non-whiteness".

Upon winning his long coveted majority Government in May, Harper proudly proclaimed that HIS Government will make several unpopular  decisions regarding foreign policy and will "not bow to every petty dictator who has a vote in the UN"

The Government of Harper has gone to great lengths to defy the UN accord on Child Soldiers by refusing to repatriate Omar Khadr (not to mention denying Khadr his rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms)

Of course, since he was first elected Prime Minister in 2006, Harper has done everything in his power to scuttle attempts by the UN led international community to establish meaningful limits on greenhouse gas emissions. And he has succeeded in spades, much to the delight of big oil and to the detriment of our mother earth.

 So Harper has decided to declare war on the UN. This may be a result of  being snubbed last fall when Canada lobbied for a seat at the UN security counsel. Harper's  vindictive war may  possibly be the result of a significant mental health disorder (either Paranoid Personality Disorder or Narcissistic Personality Disorder) that seriously effects his judgment. Then again, Harper may see himself as a champion for global Free Market Capitalism and see's the UN as being too Socialist and  a threat to the large corporate institutions that would benefit  from unbridled world wide Capitalism.  It may well be Harper's Narcissistic tendencies that allow him to believe he is championing the cause of Global Capitalism but in reality, all he has done is earn Canada the label of "Rogue State".

Update on "Diagnosing Harper" - Stephen Harper's Mental Disorder.

My blog post about diagnosing Harper's mental illness has garnered a little attention the past 24 hours. I found this a little heartening after it's slow start. I took this post quite seriously. To me, it was a very disturbing revelation when I stopped looking at the trees and finally saw the forest and subsequently concluded that our Prime Minister may well be suffering from a significant mental illness.


Some of the reaction to the post was a little confusing. Some found it funny. I attributed this to my writing style. But one co-twitterphile seemed to take my observations to heart and in fact, did me one better. This person came up with a diagnosis which also might fit the "Harper profile":  Narcissistic Megalomania.


At first, this diagnosis didn't seem to fit for me. I had a hard time getting my head around the Narcissistic part. Harper is many things, but I felt he was more paranoid then self-absorbed. But I decided to investigate anyway. As stated earlier, I may be pretty good at recognizing deviant patterns of behaviour, but I'm no psychiatrist. So it had to be conceded that others might have a better read on this than me.


After consulting Wikipedia, this is what I found:


Narcissistic Megalomania is a term that was used to describe the condition that is now known as  Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The Personality disorder part seemed to make sense, but I still wasn't sold. But I read on to discovere that characteristics of this malady include:


"To the extent that people are pathologically narcissistic, they can be controlling, blaming, self-absorbed, intolerant of others’ views, unaware of others' needs and of the effects of their behavior on others, and insistent that others see them as they wish to be seen.

People who are overly narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated and threatened when criticized. To protect themselves from these dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any slight criticism, real or imagined. To avoid such situations, some narcissistic people withdraw socially and may feign modesty or humility. In cases where the narcissistic personality-disordered individual feels a lack of admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation, he/she may also manifest wishes to be feared and to be notorious (narcissistic supply)".


"Although individuals with NPD are often ambitious and capable, the inability to tolerate setbacks, disagreements or criticism, along with lack of empathy, make it difficult for such individuals to work cooperatively with others or to maintain long-term professional achievements. 


With narcissistic personality disorder, the individual's self-perceived fantastic grandiosity, often coupled with a hypomanic mood, is typically not commensurate with his or her real accomplishments.

The exploitativeness, sense of entitlement, lack of empathy, disregard for others, and constant need for attention inherent in NPD adversely affect interpersonal relationships".




I think the "kicker" though regarding this diagnosis was the following paragraph on a behaviour that's known as "Splitting":


"People who are diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder use splitting (black and white thinking) as a central defense mechanism. They do this to preserve their self-esteem, by seeing the self as purely good and the others as purely bad. The use of splitting also implies the use of other defense mechanisms, namely devaluation, idealization and denial."


To me, this last paragraph accurately describes such things as Harper's stance on Israel, who can do no wrong, and The detainee issue, his assertion being that it's critics were un-Canadian.  In addition, the Prime Minister has gone to great lengths to discredit the U.N. since he lost the seat on the U.N security council. A seat that was ours to lose. This would be the "devaluation" or "denial" piece of the puzzle as described above. 


Again, I am not a mental health professional, but I take this notion of Harper being mentally ill quite seriously. Whether you consider his personality disorder to be Paranoid or Narcissistic makes little difference. (Personally, I still lean toward the Paranoid Personality Disorder, but you be the judge for yourself) It is effecting his judgment and it is taking our country down a dark and foreboding path that we will all come to regret for a very long time. I wish that the main stream media would pick up on this reality and that a psychiatrist or two would come forward and go on the record.


^{As with a ship at sea, when the captain appears to have lost his mental faculties, it is incumbent upon  the first officer to step forward and take control of the ship. It's not mutiny, it's duty. So who will step forward and do their duty I wonder?} 

Diagnosing Harper

First of all, I need to say that I am neither a psychiatrist, a psychologist nor any kind of mental health clinician for that matter. But I have  been a Child and Youth Counsellor  for 30 years now, so I've become pretty good at identifying deviant and maladaptive patterns of behaviour. It's a big part of what I do. That being said, what ever I say from here on in is at best, a guess, based on my observations of our current Prime Minister. It can in no way be construed as any kind of clinical assessment or medical diagnosis. It is my opinion only. So.... onward and upward!

I know I'm not the only one who's raised an eyebrow at Prime Minister Stephen Harper's behaviour. I've heard him characterized in the mainstream media and in the online community as being: a megalomaniac, a tin-pot dictator, an autocrat, an ideologue, a control freak, a bully etc. Our country has been labeled as a "rogue state" by the European Union due to Mr. Harper's unfathomable stance on exporting asbestos to developing nations. These are all very powerful comments. But I think they are also indicators of something far more complicated going on with our friend Mr. Harper than just the appearance of being a "tough nut" (pun intended).

I've written about the Prime Minister a fair bit in the last year. It's pretty safe to say that I don't much like his politics and way of doing business. He is turning the clock back on Canadian Society to somewhere around 1950. I believe he is hurting our country. But recently, I started noticing some patterns in the way Harper does things. I say only recently because I never bothered to look for patterns of behaviour with The P.M. before. But they are now as plain as the nose on my face. And anyone who's ever seen my beak would say it's pretty hard to miss.

Let's start with the obvious, Harper's need to control. It's common knowledge that The P.M. controls his caucus with an iron fist. It's his way or the highway all of the time. He sets the tone, the talking points, the script, the policies. And heaven help any party member who deviates from the party line. There are precious few Ministers or MPs who he allows to speak. All others must consult with the PMO first. This was no where as apparent as in the last election. Harper forbade most of his candidates from participating in debates in their own ridings. So the vast majority of the campaign message came right from the top. Only Harper himself and his trusted lieutenants were allowed to speak. He  exercised complete control of his party's message.

Next lets look at Harper's unconditional support for Israel. Other Prime Ministers have stood firm regarding any of our fellow nations and allies who have transgressed in any way. Brian Mulroney and John Diefenbaker's opposition to apartheid in sister Commonwealth nation South Africa comes to mind.  Yet Harper seems wholly incapable of casting any kind of criticism on our international ally Israel. They can do no wrong to him. And what's worse, he has insinuated that anyone who says they do, is probably anti-Semitic. All or nothing for Mr. H. Just as with the Afghan detainee issue. When it first arose, he accused critics of Canada's detainee policy of being more concerned about the enemy than about our own soldiers. He called them "un Canadian". Again, all or nothing. This may well have been a bit of politicking on the P.M.s part, but I also believe it is part of a wider pattern of behaviour.

It is generally accepted that there are two kinds of people where Mr. Harper is concerned. Those who are with him and those who are against him. And those who are against him are enemies to be eradicated. It's no secret that Harper has made it a personal goal to completely destroy the Liberal Party. Results from the last election would indicate he's doing a pretty good job of that.

The Prime Minister has claimed that the mainstream media is biased against him. So much so that he limited the press to only 5 questions at each campaign stop in the last election. He also chose the questions he would be asked and by whom. He forgets how tough the media were on previous Liberal Governments, particularly former Prime Minister Jean Chretien. But Chretien didn't isolate himself or attempt to control the media. Just the opposite. He seemed to like a "good go of it" with an inquiring journalist. Mr. Harper though, is clearly paranoid about their intentions and has claimed that they are all left-leaning and not to be trusted. The media are his enemy now and he is raising funds to combat them.

Harper does not forgive a slight. It was a shameful failure of the Harper Government that Canada did not secure a seat on the U.N. Security Council last fall. This is something he has not forgotten, nor forgiven. He has subsequently thumbed his nose at numerous U.N. accords and committees, most recently, the U.N. Rotterdam convention to have asbestos declared a harmful substance. Canada single-handedly blocked this from happening. In addition, Harper is being called to task by the U.N. for his steadfast refusal to change the phrase "visible minorities" from any government document pertaining to any person or group of people who are of an  ethnic background. The use of this phrase, "visible minority" according to the U.N. infers that the "norm" is white Anglo Saxon Protestant and that it speaks to a person's "non-whiteness". Harper refuses to change this phraseology.

Upon receiving his long sought majority government, Mr. Harper declared that Canada will make several unpopular decisions regarding it's foreign policy in the future and will not "bow to every petty dictator who has a vote in the U.N." "Ouch"!

Then there is the Famous Harper aloofness. This is something his handlers have been struggling with for years.  How to transform a man who presents as cold and distant into warm an cuddly. The handlers don't seem to be doing a very good job in this regard though. He's the same cold, aloof politician as always, only with glasses and a persistent smarmy grin on his face now. He continues to be inaccessible and distant to all who are not a part of his inner circle.

So if we sum up the above behaviours as exhibited by our Prime Minister, we see:

- Need for control
- All or nothing, you're with me or against me. Friends can do no wrong, enemies can do no right
- Paranoia, enemies are everywhere and need to be eradicated.
- Never forgive a slight
- cold, aloof, inaccessible, open to only a small group of people in his inner circle.

So armed with these observations, I went searching for a possible cause for our Prime Minister's behaviour, his being a little beyond the ODD, ASD, ADHD and all those other "D's" that I work with on a daily basis. So after doing some research, this is what I've come up with: Paranoid Personality Disorder.

According to the World Health Organization, signs and symptoms of Paranoid Personality Disorder include:

1. Excessive sensitivity to setbacks and rebuffs;
2. Tendency to bear grudges persistently, i.e. refusal to forgive insults and injuries or slights;
3. Suspiciousness and a pervasive tendency to distort experience by misconstruing the neutral or friendly actions of others as hostile or contemptuous;
4. A combative and tenacious sense of personal rights out of keeping with the actual situation;
5. Recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding sexual fidelity of spouse or sexual partner;
6. Tendency to experience excessive self-importance, manifest in a persistent self-referential attitude;
7. Preoccupation with unsubstantiated "conspiratorial" explanations of events both immediate to the patient and in the world at large. 

According to Wikipedia, people with Paranoid Personality Disorder are characterized by:

"Hypersensitivity, are easily slighted, and habitually relate to the world by vigilant scanning of the environment for clues or suggestions to validate their prejudicial ideas or biases. Paranoid individuals are eager observers. They think they are in danger and look for signs and threats of that danger, disregarding any facts. ( Waldinger, 1997). They tend to be guarded and suspicious and have quite constricted emotional lives. Their incapacity for meaningful emotional involvement and the general pattern of isolated withdrawal often lend a quality of schizoid isolation to their life experience".

In addition, the website www.psychcentral.com states that:

"Because individuals with Paranoid Personality Disorder lack trust in others, they have an excessive need to be self-sufficient and a strong sense of autonomy. They also need to have a high degree of control over those around them. They are often rigid, critical of others, and unable to collaborate, and they have great difficulty accepting criticism".

Well based on the information I discovered above and compared to the observations I've made, I think we have a diagnosis. I should add here that Paranoid Personality disorder is usually treated with antidepressant, antipsycotic and antanxiety medications.   Because of heightened levels of paranoia and reduced levels of trust, psychotherapy is difficult though not impossible.

So we have a Prime Minister who may well be suffering from a significant mental illness. Because of the field I'm in, I am a great believer in rehabilitation and reintegration, even though the subject in question is not. But even I, the die-hard, bleeding-heart Liberal, has to ask: is this a man who should be running our country, Or is this a man who should be made to step down immediately and be compelled to enter treatment?  Again, I'm not a mental health professional, but If asked to vote on the matter, I would opt for the latter.


.

Part Three. Why Harper-Con Values are Decidedly Un-Canadian

Reconciling Harper's Majority:

 My apologies for taking so long to produce the third installment in this series of blogs about why the Harper-Con values are so distinctly un-Canadian.

Truth be told. This has been the hardest of the three installments to write. After demonstrating why the Harper-Con values just don't jive with those of the average Canadian, I have had a hard time reconciling how and why they have succeeded in being elected to a minority government twice and to the majority government they currently enjoy.

I started writing about the Harper-Con's bullying tactics but found it was just one more example of how un-Canadian the Harper-Cons really are. The topic did nothing to help me explain how such an un-ethical party could have gained such a hold on government.

In one article I wrote in May , I theorized that the Harper-Cons simply did a better job of "marketing" themselves. It was my attempt at explaining what to me was unexplainable, the Harper majority. While  I still hold this theory to be true, I've continued to  struggle with how such a blatantly unethical party with such little regard for the Canadian Democratic process can have been elected to a majority government. Their almost daily malfeasance was well documented in the media during the campaign while the parties of the Left seemed to have been doing a good job of  identifying themselves with the voters of the middle class.

So it seems to me that two things had to have happened for a party with such an appalling record to have been handed a majority by the Canadian people: The effect of the mainstream media had to have been eradicated and reasonable doubt about the Harper-Cons poor track record had to be cast. Again, this was the bailiwick of the "Political Entrepreneurs", the political professionals produced by the Manning Institute.

Harper gave as good as he got from the media during the campaign. At each stop, he permitted only five questions from the press and was very selective of what the questions were and who would ask them. While this control of the media was absolutely unheard of and seems in itself, to be yet another example of Harper-Con  unethical behaviour, ie: restricting freedom of the press,  it proved to be quite successful in allowing Harper to have almost complete control of his "message" throughout the course of the campaign. This, and the fact that he forbade almost every candidate from participating in debates in their ridings.  The Lack of Tory presence at each of these debates was in the end, less damning to the Harper cause then the potential damage un-coached candidates could have caused by actually speaking. So better for them to say nothing at all and let the big-dogs in the Harper camp do all the talking.

The Harper camp also did a good job of casting the main stream media as being biased. Truth be told, there were probably more news papers in the country that supported the Harper-Cons then those that didn't. But he was quite effective at having the press gallery pigeon-holed as a bunch of left-leaning mudslingers and himself as their innocent victim. So much so, that by campaigns end, Harperites at various rallies were prone to shouting down and intimidating any real questions of accountability from the press. Hence, the media, who documented well the Harper-Con heavy-handed behaviours, were effectively neutered.

Secondly, "plausible deniability". Harper was able to cast sufficient enough doubt about each and every Con wrong doing as to make their impact negligible. The Contempt of Parliament issue for example. No other Government in the history or Parliamentary democracy anywhere in the world has ever been found to be in contempt of Parliament. Yet when asked about it, Harper and his prime lieutenants would casually cast the issue off as a bit of opposition chicanery that resulted in the Cons being out voted. He also pointed his boney finger at the fact that the Speaker of the House, who made the Contempt ruling, was a Liberal and obviously incapable of making a non-biased decision.  So casual and consistent was this message that despite the seriousness of the ruling, it's negative impact was completely negated.

In the end, the Harper-Cons did such a good job of casting dark shadows upon each and every one of their enemies, the media as well as the opposition parties, that EVERY one's credibility seemed to be in doubt. No one seemed to be believable anymore and the Harper-Cons - who are Conservative in name only, being nothing more than yet another twisted incarnation of the Reform Party - were able to convince the electorate that, since they ARE called the Conservatives, they simply must be the best ones to negotiate the economic mind-field that inevitably lays ahead. In short, they painted themselves as being the lesser of all other evils.

The Harper-Cons were so successful at making the electorate so cynical about Canadian Democracy and the political process seem so sleazy and hyper-partisan, that no matter what they did (and continue to do) nothing sticks to them. Canadians seem to now have the feeling that no politician of any stripe should be trusted. All politicians lie, cheat and steal. The Cons are quick to play the Sponsorship scandal card in that regard as if to say "see, it's not just us"!

So the mind-set now of Canadian voters in this confusing and disturbing political climate seems to be not so much to elect the best person for the job, but rather the one that will inflict the least damage. And as long as political parties rely on "Political entrepreneurs" and are allowed to bestow more power onto them then onto elected officials and election campaigns are a 365 day a year endeavor, this climate of political negativity won't change. In fact, it will only get worse and our politicians will ALL be seen as the worst possible examples of what Canadian values are all about.

Have a "One Fine" Canada Day Y'all

One of the all time Great Canadian bands playing an all time great Canadian Song.

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.