What happens when the smartest man in the room (by his own estimation) proves too clever by half? What happens when a one-man band puts on a third-rate show? What happens when a "brilliant strategist" is so full of uncontrollable resentment and meanness that he keeps getting himself in trouble by interfering where he has no business?
Whenever it appears that Stephen Harper may be closer to that elusive goal of majority government, along comes Stephen Harper to remind suspicious Canadians they're dead right to be suspicious. That's what the Bev Oda fiasco is really about.
Every time I hear Michael Ignatieff shrieking at the Prime Minister to fire Ms. Oda I want to scream back: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEV ODA. Of course she baldly lied, just as Jason Kenney lied about Kairos policy on Israel and Tony Clement lied when he claimed Statscan approved his crusade against the long-form census. This government lies as routinely as it maligns, and it never apologizes. But Ms. Oda, like Messrs. Kenney and Clement, is just the organ grinder's monkey. Any CIDA minister would have been in the same boat. She just follows orders. And it's those orders in the Kairos case that remind us of the real Harper agenda.
The issue here is the reversal, by Stephen Harper, of a 60-year consensus shared by all previous governments about the central role of civil society in Canada. Every previous government has funded civil society groups and NGOs even when they espoused policies that contradicted the government's own. Governments might have done so grudgingly and not as generously as some of us hoped. But it has been one of the quiet glories of Canadian democracy that our governments have often backed groups that criticized them or had competing priorities.
No more. With Stephen Harper, you either buy the party line or you get slapped down. That's what happened to Kairos (now ironically receiving proper recognition for its terrific work over the years -- eat your heart out, Jason Kenney). That's what happened to the Canadian Council For International Co-operation and Match International. That's what happened, with little media attention, to an astonishing number -- in the many, many dozens -- of other worthy organizations. (An exact figure will soon be posted by Voices, an important virtual coalition of organizations and individuals formed precisely in reaction to the Harper government's attacks on civil society organizations. I am an enthusiastic supporter.)
Never mind that, politics aside, most of these groups were also doing crucial humanitarian work. Never mind that Kairos was working with violated women in the Congo. Never mind that many de-funded organizations were promoting maternal and child health, ostensibly Mr. Harper's big personal cause. Yet because they also pursue issues that Stephen Harper will not abide -- human rights for Palestinians, women's equality, climate change -- they are anathema in his eyes.
The same is true of the international human-rights organization Rights & Democracy. Suddenly, all of its good work around the world counted for nothing compared to small grants it gave to three groups, one of them Israeli, defending the human rights of Palestinians. It's important to remember that R & D was created by Brian Mulroney who chose Ed Broadbent as its independent president. Not to romanticize, but those were the days, and they're dead as a dodo. So dangerously single-minded is Stephen Harper about punishing dissent that he hasn't hesitated to wreck R & D, an institution that had enhanced Canada's reputation wherever people embraced human rights and democracy.
Mr. Harper's devotion to the Israeli government not only dictates what groups he chooses to fund. It dictates much of his foreign policy. Canadians were shamed in recent weeks by the Prime Minister's refusal to demand the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, mindlessly mimicking the position of the Israeli government. There they were, standing outside history, that tiny gaggle of governments who failed to embrace one of the liberating moments of our era: Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Algeria, Israel -- and Canada.
And then a clueless Stephen Harper wonders why Canada lost its bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council.
No one has ever fathomed Mr. Harper's blind obeisance to the interests of the government of Israel. Is it genuine conviction or a brazen attempt to woo a few more Jewish votes? Who knows. Political opportunism, after all, is not beyond Mr. Harper's strategic toolkit. Look at all the trouble our reigning political genius is getting into on the other end of the political spectrum from the NGO world. Having alienated much of civil society, he's now succeeded in making his natural business allies distinctly antsy as well, even while he's gifting them with billions of dollars in tax cuts. This takes a certain special skill.
On foreign-investment issues, Mr. Harper's cherished laissez faire dogmas have been discarded like so many insubordinate NGOs. His handling of these cases has been so erratic and opportunistic that UBS Investment Research -- which boasts that it "draws on its 150-year heritage to serve private, institutional and corporate clients worldwide" -- recently warned that foreign investors "may begin to perceive Canada as not 'open for business'."
Then only last week, Maclean's magazine asked: "Are the Tories bad for business?" The answer is as unexpected as the question: "Over the past two years, there have been repeated cases where Ottawa has stunned investors with populist decisions that took precedence over sound policy. The moves raise the question: is ... Stephen Harper actually hurting Canada's reputation as a stable and open market for business and investment?" Maclean's then quotes Stephen Gordon, a professor of economics at Université Laval: "Clearly we're not Russia, but then again, we're not the Canada we used to be, either."
Hold on -- we're somewhere between Russia and the good old Canada of yore? That's some accomplishment in five years. Look at Stephen Harper's record.
He silences whistle-blowers and punishes dissenters.
He treats Parliament with open contempt and brazenly lies when found out.
He suspends Parliament at the first sign of political risk.
He makes a mockery of the accountability and transparency he loudly demands of everyone else.
He makes lying to parliament just another tactical device.
He fakes his budgets by refusing to cost new initiatives.
He transforms vital watchdogs of democracy into mushy lapdogs.
He unleashes ministers to attack judges who make unwelcome decisions. He personalizes attacks on his "enemies".
He blithely smears other parties, groups and individuals as anti-Semitic.
He is impervious to the democratic spirit that has galvanized hundreds of millions of people to stand up for freedom.
He makes major economic decisions on the basis of their impact on his electoral fortunes.
Makes you wonder why Canadians aren't yet out on the streets in the millions. Instead, Michael Ignatieff demands that Bev Oda be fired.
Funny, the UN is only cited as an authority when defending the dubious legitimacy of the original imposition of Israel on Palestinian land.
When it comes to complying with repeated UN resolutions requiring Israel to abide by international law, however, the apologists for Israeli apartheid and genocide suddenly question the UN's legitimacy.
Well, you certainly have an opinion, factual or otherwise. I'm unsure the last time that Israel bombed a school because they wanted to kill children.
Israel is ISRAEL, as brokered by the UN -- it is not "Palestine". It is people like you who refuse to acknowledge such things that unfortunately prevent peace from breaking out. Iran is Persia -- the US should just go invade Persia... Iran can stay out of it.
LOL..But the poor innocent Israelis can blow up hospitals,schools and aid convoys,continue illegal settlements and have the Palestinians living in an open air concentration camp...Yeah...OK.
What do you suppose 'god' would think of that?...Or the T-shirts you can buy in Israel with the picture of a pregnant Palestinian woman in crosshairs with the words '1 shot 2 kills'...Real peaceful sounding peeps...
Anyway,I could go on and on but I can't be bothered..You can make as many excuses as you like,and I'm sure you can,but you're right--my opinion won't change.
As for explaining my position to Santa Clause....I'll worry about that when or if I ever take a trip to the North Pole.
BTW..Israel is PALESTINE.
Shalom.
I am no Israeli apologist. However, once someone says invokes the notion that Israel is a fabrication of the West, it is clear that no amount of rational argument can make any impact on you. The fact that the majority of Israelis have proper modern heritage to Israeli territories never means anything to people who hold your opinion.
I will note for those who are both unfamiliar with your type of belief and who are not yet informed, that the Palestinian Authority under the most aggressive of bargaining positions makes no claim to pre-1967 Israel, and thus also never claims that Palestinians should have regular access to Israel proper. This is in contrast to those who call Israel an Apartheid state. Misinformation is presented that somehow Palestinians should be granted citizenship access to Israel proper, but that bargaining position currently is not being forwarded, nor has it been forwarded for about 25 years, and not even Hamas is forwarding such a position.
But if you believe lobbing rockets indiscriminantly onto civilians is a legitimate form of resistance, then I'll let you explain that position to God. I am not interested in changing your mind.
You're right...If I knew I was talking to a pathological Israeli apologist,I wouldn't have bothered either.
Ahh. Now we get to the bottom of it. You should have said right away that you believe Israel should not exist. The conversation would have been so much shorter.
Spoken like a true blue obedient and hopeless Zionist.
If my response is typical,yours is pathological.
Justify Israel's fascism by pointing the finger at the Arab world.
I guess you'll always overlook the fact that the Israeli 'state' was fabricated by the West after WWII..Whatever makes it easier for you to sleep at night,I guess.
Well, your response is typical. Talk to someone like you for a short period of time and the perjoratives start flying. I believe all Arab League states prohibit conversion from Islam. Many officially discriminate against Jews and other religions. So go talk to yourself about Apartheid. The only difference between Israel and Islamofascist theocracies is that Jews don't shell civilians in other nations under cover of human shields just because of frustration. If they did, I trust that no one would be calling for a "restrained" response.
Well,anyone who condones an Apartheid or a systematic policy of genocide and oppression is a pretty sad and pathetic excuse for a 'human being' anyhow
Everyone has an opinion about everything...Most people are reluctant in sharing it.
Who's to say that among those who chose not to share their opinion,that a majority of them side with the Palestinian people?
But to be fair it could be the other way around...Nobody knows because nobody is talking.
I remember many many many years ago as a teen seeing some graffitti on the walls of the entrance of a certain metro station with the Star of David = the Swastika and Zionists = Nazis.
At that time,I had no opinion or knowledge of the Middle East etc... I thought it was strange that someone would say that a people who were persecuted by Nazis would be Nazis.
Back then the only thing you'd ever hear about Israel was Israel peace talks (Begin and Sadat for example) or war in Beirut etc..The images and stories of the Jewish occupation and Apartheid was never discussed and I didn't personally know anyone with a vocal opinion about Israel one way or the other.
Fast forward years later and the plight of the Palestinians was being exposed and reported on...
Personally,I now know alot of people with an opinion about Israel...But I never met an unapologetic Zionist in my group of friends,my family,my colleagues or some casual acquaintances of mine
Few have no opinion...
Maybe if the question was 'Do you support the Jewish Occupation or the Israeli Apartheid' you'd get another statistic.
Or how about the flotilla massacre ...I know NO ONE who sided with Israel on that.
Thankfully I don't know anyone who thought that was kosher because anyone who did is a sick fuck.
Well, I don't disagree with much of what you say. The Greens have their good points and bad just like any other party. I'm not on the ballot, so my ideal candidate does not exist.
You don't provide any evidence for your numbers either, so I am reluctant to bother to back up anything I say. I will however, provide some semi useful numbers that I googled in 5 seconds.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/16534/Americans-Stand-Apart-Support-Israel.aspx
If I knew I had to catalog everything I learned about every topic in the event I needed to quote statistics at will, then maybe I'd have tried harder to remember where I get my information from. Since it's my nature to be pragmatic about statistics, I can only reassure you that my numbers are not a figment of my imagination, but rather are formed by unbiased general knowledge I have accumulated over the years.
Well,that cancels out any hope in hell that I'd vote for the Greens...
As for the idea that ALL parties turn into corrupt crusaders of the same goals as every other government before them,you're 90% correct.
We see how the NDP govern provincial governments..Nova Scotia comes to mind...The polar opposite of Social Democracy.
But with the case of Harper,I don't remember a federal government more extremist or more amoral than the Reform party...Never in my lifetime,even the Brian Bologne years.
Harper can have the same view I have in regards to hockey or cats...Great.
But I'm not going to vote for representatives based on their love of sports or kittens.
As for the number you put up on public opinion about Israel,your numbers are no more accurate than mine.
Unless you can back it with some fact,of course.
Alan smithee,
As a member of the GPC, I can tell you that floating a "united left" banner is not going to come to pass. A good third of all GPC voters are strong fiscal conservatives, and at least half (which overlaps the aforementioned third) of GPC supporters know little of the GPC beyond a general environmental policy. Many NDPers despise the GPC and many Greens despise the NDP. A material percentage of the NDP is religiously conservative, are would be aligned with Conservatives primarily because of religious issues if not for the extreme fiscal libertarian view of Harper and friends.
Also, before you go around using perjoratives so freely, you should realize that all party leaders are pompous lying ignoramouses. Do you think if Layton got elected that cronyism and nepitism would suddenly come to a halt? You are naive if you think that. It's easy not to be a crony when you have yet to wield power.
As for Israeli support, there is broad support of 35% each for and against Israel, the remainder being apathetic. However, about two-thirds of the apathetic group consider themselves to be "more supportive" of existing candidate options who are pro-Israel. So you can take that to mean whatever you want, but on *THIS* issue, more people will vote for representatives who agree with the same view that Harper has taken.
Obama and the western nations who formerly backed Mubarak and suddenly supported his replacement by a military regime are the great allies of your favourite country, Israel. You know, that shining beacon of democracy in the middle east? Their influence on Egyptian politics has absolutely nothing to do with "enlightenment" (as you admit), and everything to do with propping up the imperialist settler state of Israel, their proxy and standard-bearer for western imperialism in the region, by making sure that Egypt's rulers are compliant to their designs. The thing they and Israel fear the most is an enlightened and democratic Egypt.
That's what your pal Stephen Harper stands for.
He 'represents the MAJORITY of Canadians with his foreign affairs policies'?!
This prick can hardly pull his head above 35% of popular support with a solid 15% of that number concentrated in Alberta and The Prairies.
So where you get the idea that the 'majority of Canadians' support this intellectual eunuch is wishful technicoloured thinking.
Yes,Harper's views represent the majority of Canadians west of Ontario and East of BC,THAT may be true...But seeing that Harper's popularity is at barely 20% in the rest of the country hardly gives him popular consent.
Harper's reign in Ottawa has nothing to do with the cretin's popularity...It's the sad shape the Opposition is in and the disconnection of the Left.
If a 'Unite The Left' campaign were to start and there was a merge involving the Greens,the NDP and the Liberal Party (much like how the Reform Party swallowed the PCC) Harper's days would be numbered.
Anyway,without Quebec there's no majority to be won unless he can get the same numbers in Ontario as he gets in Alberta...I'm not convinced that'll happen.
There is plenty wrong with Harper, that is for certain. But let's not forget that he is a Conservative. He represents his party's interests, not the Liberals, the NDP nor the Greens.
To your own admission, Harper is inching toward a majority. This in spite of the many errors that perturb the population at large. Many of the errors perturb straight across party lines, and yet here we stand with Harper nearing a majority. I like what Harper could be doing as a Conservative, not what he is actually doing, and I fear a majority would see the span between what he should be doing, and what he ends up doing would only increase. And increase dramatically, it likely would be.
So, now I look at what you, Mr. Caplan have written above, and I can only shake my head. Harper gains his strength by having chosen, ideologically, to support Israel over its enemies. It is clear that at least a majority, and probably then some supports this move. Conversely, there is a smaller, but far more vocal minority that does not support it. Say what you will, but opinion polls don't lie (or at least they don't lie that much over such a long period of time.)
Harper has made his agenda on this topic quite clear: Israel is a constitutional democracy friendly to the West; all other nations in the middle east, not so much. Egypt, is not on the path to modern socialist enlightenment. Harper rightly stayed out of Egypt's business. First off, it is *NOT* his place to intervene in Egypt. Because if it were his place, then it is equally his place to now intervene in Iran. I don't here anyone clamouring for Harper to stick out his neck and call for the Ayatollah to be brought in front off the ICJ. Anyway, let's narrow the point: Egypt is not on the path to enlightenment. Obama in collusion with some western nations arranged for the quick ouster of Mubarak. In his place we now have a military dictatorship that has made it clear that September's elections will now be jeopardy. For some reason, Egypt, while under martial law will find it MORE difficult to arrange for elections as opposed to before, even though the elections were scheduled, and never before has Egypt had to defer elections. In Egypt we also have two totally irresponsible options. The first is that elections are simply held and inevitably, Sharia law is made law. Also, inevitably, women would face additional oppression, as would minorities, both ethnic and religious. The alternative is for there to be fixed elections where a Mubarak-lite replacement magically wins. Either scenario is dreadful.
There of course is a third scenario that I fear horribly. A fair election is held, and Egyptians, are unable to come to terms that democracy means you have governments that are still unable to please everyone at all times, and so Egypt will descend into chaos like northern Pakistan. This is why Harper need not have stuck out his head. And this is why, when Harper looks for friends in the middle east, he looks to Israel.
None of this makes Harper a good leader for everyone. And to Conservatives, he has been as much a disappointment as to everyone else, but ultimately, he does succeed in representing a majority of Canadians with his foreign affairs policies.