Is Justin Trudeau the long awaited Anti-Harper?

Justin Trudeau and Justin Bieber have more in common than just a first name.

Both guys are also adored by legions of love struck fans.

Except in the case of Bieber the fans are teenage girls, whereas for Trudeau they are the Canadian media.

I mean come on, ever since Trudeau started musing about running for the Liberal leadership, the media has gone completely ga ga over the guy. Coverage has ranged from fawning to ridiculously fawning.

Why is this the case? Why is the media so smitten with a Liberal MP who, let’s face it, has not really accomplished all that much in his short career as a politician.

Well the obvious reason is that Trudeau’s last name carries with it a certain mystique. Media types remember with a nostalgic fondness the reign of his father, Pierre, Canada’s last Philosopher King.

But the media’s adoration of Justin is about more than just his father’s legacy.

It also has to do with the media’s disdain for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. And yes, believe it or not,  many media-types just don’t like Harper. Partly it's because they view him as a conservative, but they also don’t like his tough-guy, antagonistic leadership style. Plus, truth be told, Harper has not exactly done much to endear himself with the press.Quite the opposite, in fact.

At any rate, for a long time the media has been desperately seeking an “Anti-Harper”, and Trudeau  fits the bill perfectly. He is the Ying, to Harper’s Yang; the zig to Harper’s zag; the Abbott to Harper’s Costello.

Just think about it.

Harper is a somber, dull, middle-aged, policy wonk – Trudeau is youthful,  full of fun and does zany things like beat up Senators in a boxing ring.

Harper is seen as a ruthless, cynic – Trudeau is seen as an emotional idealist.

Harper is from the Alberta outlands --- Trudeau is from cosmopolitan Montreal.

Harper has a piercing, glaring stare --- Trudeau has a charming smile and a great mane of hair.

Harper is coldly calculating --- Trudeau is spontaneous and passionate.

Harper is boring --- Trudeau emits radiant beams of charisma.

In other words, for the Canadian media Trudeau is simply too dreamy to resist.

Mind you, if “Trudeau the Adorable” fails to overcome the Harperian Ogre, the media will quickly turn on him just like they turned on their former darlings, Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff.

In the meantime, however, I just wish the media and Trudeau would get a room.

Anti-Harper Narrative Hits a Bump

I feel a little embarrassed for Canada’s media elite.

For the past few years many of their number have been carefully crafting a narrative which cast Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a wannabe-dictator, or as a New World Mussolini, or as an Attila the Hun impersonator.

What I mean is, they told us again and again that Harper and his minions were intent on eroding Canadian democracy and squashing human rights.

Scary stuff!!

But then something happened to upset their apple cart.

The Appeal of Conscience Foundation - a group that believes “freedom, democracy and human rights are the fundamental values that give nations of the world their best hope for peace, security and shared prosperity” - announced it was presenting Harper with its "World Statesman of the Year" award for being a champion of democracy.

Oops.

If Harper was such a despot, why is he getting this prestigious award?

Something clearly didn't make sense.

Thankfully, after this award was announced, the Harper detractors came to their senses and apologized to the Prime Minister and to Canadians for their exaggerated fear-mongering about Harper’s agenda.

Ha, I'm just joking.

Of course, what they really did was attack the Foundation.

A case in point is the Toronto Star’s Bob Hepburn who recently wrote a column explaining why The Appeal of Conscience Foundation was wrong to honour Harper.

It begs for a rebuttal.

Unfortunately, as it’s so chock full of logical fallacies and ridiculous arguments a simple letter to the editor could not do it justice.

Accordingly, I have reproduced the column in its entirety with my commentary  in bold.

Check it out:

  

Stephen Harper’s democracy award a sad joke on Canadians
by Bob Hepburn

The Appeal of Conscience Foundation will give Stephen Harper its World Statesman of the Year award for being a champion of democracy.

With great fanfare, an international organization has announced it is honouring Stephen Harper as its World Statesman of the Year for his work as a “champion of democracy, freedom and human rights.”

Harper will accept the award from the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, which was created by a New York rabbi in 1965, at a reception on Sept. 27 in New York City.

Harper won the award largely because of his support for Israel and his criticism of Iran.

Clearly, though, the foundation either blatantly ignored or didn’t know that Harper is arguably the worst prime minister in history when it comes to defending democracy and human rights in Canada.

Translation: The people who give out this award must be complete morons who probably don’t even subscribe to the Toronto Star or watch CBC TV.

Oh and calling Harper the "worst prime minister in history when it comes to defending democracy and human rights" is so absurdly over the top, it's laughable. What about Mackenzie King’s human rights record when it came to Japanese-Canadians during World War II or what about Pierre Trudeau invoking the War Measures Act?

Indeed, Harper’s record of abuse of democracy here at home over the past few years makes a mockery of his award as Statesman of the Year.

It’s a sad indictment for the foundation, which according to its website “believes that freedom, democracy and human rights are the fundamental values that give nations their best hope for peace, security and shared prosperity.”

In the past, the foundation has bestowed its award on some of the world’s top leaders, including former prime minister Jean Chrétien. The foundation also boasts a distinguished board of trustees and advisers, such as former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker.

I suspect Hepburn Googled the phrase, “Past winners of Appeal to Conscience Foundation Award,” hoping to find the award had been given out in the past to people like Richard Nixon or August Pinochet or George W. Bush, so he could then slam the group as a bunch of right wing zealots. Imagine the massive disappointment he must have felt when he saw Chretien listed as a past recipient!!  Were the Foundation people ignorant when they gave him the award?

Since he became prime minister in 2006, however, Harper has systematically assaulted democracy in Canada, overlooking — and in some cases condoning — clear cases where our democratic institutions and traditions were undermined.

So outraged are Canadians by Harper’s actions that many of them have started to fight back to save our democracy, launching letter-writing campaigns, tweeting politicians, signing petitions and joining local and national organizations promoting citizen engagement.

Yes indeed, “tweeting politicians” and “signing petitions” are sure signs of massive national outrage!! The anti-Harper Revolution must be just around the corner. On the other hand, there are subtle signs Canadians are actually less than outraged with the government’s agenda. One such sign, which Hepburn may have missed, is that Canadians recently gave Harper a majority government.

Harper’s record of abuse and assault on democracy and rights in Canada is long and well documented.

In April, his government killed the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development (Rights & Democracy), which for 24 years had promoted democracy and monitored human rights around the world.

In 2010, Harper slashed funding for the Canadian Human Rights Commission so deeply that the agency had to close its offices in Toronto, Vancouver and Halifax.

In 2009, the prime minister approved cutting funds to Kairos, an organization of church groups that advocated for human rights, after it criticized Israel for bombing a Gaza health unit.

In 2006, Harper’s government severely chopped funding to Status of Women Canada, resulting in the closure of 12 of the agency’s 16 regional offices. Also in 2006, the Conservatives shut down the Court Challenges Program, which had worked on behalf of the rights and equality of women, immigrants and gays and lesbians by helping to fund court challenges to discriminatory laws.

OK  Hepburn’s proof to bolster his preposterous claim that “Harper is arguably the worst prime minister in history when it comes to defending democracy and human rights in Canada” is essentially that the Harper government cut a bunch of bureaucratic budgets.  But in a democracy doesn't the duly elected government have the right to set spending priorities. Maybe the money cut from Kairos went to fund hospitals. Would that be wrong? My point is no government agency has a right to unlimited tax dollars. Resources are scarce; choices must be made. Besides, since when does democracy depend on a bloated government bureaucracy?

 At the same time, Harper orchestrated two controversial prorogations of Parliament in less than a year, became the first prime minister ever to be found guilty of contempt of Parliament, and approved the distribution of a handbook on how Tories can disrupt committee hearings, such as by barring witnesses with potentially damaging testimony.

Sorry, but prime ministers have the constitutional right to ask the Governor General to prorogue Parliament. So why is that undemocratic? Here's another question: Did Hepburn think it was  undemocratic in 2009 when three Opposition Party leaders plotted to create a "Coalition"so it could replace the government without benefit of an election?

In addition, Harper and his cabinet have flagrantly ignored freedom of speech and information tenets by muzzling senior bureaucrats, withholding and even altering documents, launching personal attacks on whistleblowers and lying to voters.

Also, there’s the anti-democratic robocall affair in the 2011 federal election, with allegations of voter suppression by the Conservatives. The Federal Court of Canada will start hearings into the allegations on Dec. 10.

Boy, if launching personal attacks and lying to voters were signs of despotism, then every prime minister in history must also have been a dictator.  And correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t a Liberal MP engage in voter-suppressing robo-calling in the last election? Heck, didn't even Liberal media darling Justin Trudeau use the phones in this manner? Does that make the Liberal Party an enemy of democracy too?

Note: Hepburn leaves out instances when Harper won victories for human rights, such as when he disbanded the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, which infringed on the economic rights of Western grain farmers.

  

This is far from an exhaustive list, but it’s a good starting point for officials at the Appeal for Conscience Foundation if they want a more complete picture of their 2012 award winner.

Canadians understand that they should never take their democracy for granted. Given that, the foundation should have known that anointing Harper, who has displayed such a casual disrespect for democracy at home, as its World Statesman of the Year would be seen as a sad joke on all Canadians struggling to protect their democracy.

I will resist the urge to call this column a "sad joke."

Obviously, it’s too late for the foundation to revoke the award. But Harper could at least have the decency to be a bit contrite when he officially accepts it.

Hepburn is right about one thing. Citizens must never take democracy for granted. That means we absolutely must keep an eye on Harper and his government. Indeed, I have no confidence in any party to truly protect my rights and freedoms. The nature of government, after all, is to chip away at our rights. And the Harper government is no different, I have certainly  taken it to task when it has threatened freedom. Yet, let’s please be realistic. When it comes to human rights and democracy, Harper is certainly no more dangerous than any other prime minister of the past 100 years or so. My point is, it’s OK to criticize Harper for his failings, but just leave out the over-heated, partisan hyperbole. Or at least for the sake of consistency use similar language when talking about other political leaders.

Otherwise, you might just get embarrassed. 

Standing up for Canada's Sausages

Politicians in Ottawa have long ignored a sizzling, simmering, serious problem that's afflicting far too many Canadians.

I am referring, of course, to the terrible trauma of exploding sausages.

How many summer backyard barbecues have been totally ruined thanks to over-cooked sausages splitting asunder on the grill?

Probably too many to count.

Yet, amazingly no government has ever dealt with this national sausage crisis.

Until now.

In case you haven't heard, the Conservative government is doling out a whopping $826,000 to an Ontario meat processing company so it can buy the advanced technology required to produce a non-explosive sausage.

Yes, that's right; the Harper Conservatives are actually stuffing your tax dollars into a fancy meat grinding machine.

As the government put it in a news release, this "investment ... will help the company purchase new manufacturing equipment that will produce a higher quality sausage that is more resistant to splitting or bursting while cooking."

Now, I shouldn't have to defend the government's decision to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce something as important as higher quality, bursting-resistant sausages, but given the predictable complaints that will emerge from the anti-sausage lobby, let's examine the many reasons why this expenditure is a great idea.

Reason # 1.

First, it's all about economics. If we can master the art of producing non-splitting sausage casings, it will give Canada a huge advantage in the highly competitive global sausage casing industry.

Reason # 2.

Secondly, a sausage subsidy will ...Hmmm, let's see ..... OK, I can only think of one reason, but I am sure the government's PR people can come up with several other plausible-sounding rationalizations.

My only question is why didn't the Conservatives make sausages a key part of their election platform? It would have made for a great slogan: "Vote for us and we will improve your sausages."

Mind you, acting on sausage deficiencies should only be the first step when it comes to dealing with Canada's food-related tribulations. The government needs to do much more.

If you don't believe me, check out this list of other problems we should spend insane amounts of money to research:

• Whenever I try to open one of those individually wrapped cheese slices, I always end up mangling the cheese. Clearly we must set up a government task force to investigate easier opening plastic packaging technology.

• We need a national strategy to produce a chocolate bar that doesn't turn into a pile of yucky, goo when you leave it in the car on a hot summer day.

• We definitely should have some sort of government-financed program to deal with the heart-breaking dilemma of tough pizza crust.

• Why, for the love of Pete, isn't the government doing anything to create non-gas producing beans? This should be a national priority!

• Surely all Canadians, regardless of race, colour or creed, have the right to cook a hamburger that doesn't stick to the barbecue grill. (Maybe the advanced non-bursting-sausage technology the government is subsidizing can fix this problem too.)

Mind you, I realize the Prime Minister will not be able to concentrate solely on this foodstuff agenda, as he has many other key priorities, such as financing fake lakes.

That's why I propose we put former cabinet minster Bev Oda in charge of overseeing all government food-related research projects.

After all, she already knows how to spend money on orange juice.

(Please  note, this article was rejected by Huffington Post Canada, because, as an editor explained it to me in an email, the blog site likes to "shy away from sarcasm." Ha, of course, we all know the real reason it was rejected: The Huffington Post is in league with the anti-sausage lobby!)

Fifty Shades of Gerry

Given the success of “50 Shades of Grey” I have decided to write my own “erotica” novel in a literary attempt to become a billionaire.

Here’s what I have so far:

Chapter One

Sterling Nash sat by the roaring fire, a chilled glass of champagne in his hand, when she entered the room.

With her long, cascading blonde hair and her ruby red lips, Sterling thought she looked like a goddess.

“Welcome,” he said in his most sexy-sounding voice.

“Hi,” she responded. “By the way the fireplace isn’t lit and that’s a glass of Pepsi you’re holding.”

“Well, champagne isn’t exactly cheap,” Sterling noted “And the logs were too damp to catch fire. But never mind that, let’s get more comfortable.”

He started to slowly unbutton his shirt.

“Stop that!” she demanded.

“But this is an erotica novel,” he pointed out with flustered exasperation. “Wait till you see what happens in Chapter Two.”

“Yeah, well there won’t be a Chapter Two you pervert. In fact, this book is over right now.”

Sterling watched in dismay as she spun on her heels and marched out the door.

Then in a blatant effort to pad the novel’s word count, he just sat there puzzled for several minutes.

Finally, Sterling took a sip from his Pepsi and muttered, “I wonder why suburban housewives think this stuff is so hot?”

In Politics Nothing is Innocent

Free political lesson: If you want to attack an opponent you have two basic options. You can attack them for a) all the bad and dangerous stuff they do or b) for all the good and harmless stuff they do.

Yes, that’s right, in politics you can actually attack somebody for doing good and harmless stuff!

How is this possible, you ask?

Well, let me give you three recent examples of ways in which Prime Minister Stephen Harper has come under assault for doing things any rational person would see as completely innocuous.

Case Number One: Oh My God!

What Harper Did

The Prime Minister, like millions of other Canadians, belongs to a Church, in this case the Christian and Missionary Alliance. Nothing wrong with that, right? After all, in this enlightened age we don’t attack a person for their religious beliefs, right? In fact, embracing Christian and spiritual values might even be considered a good thing, right? Wrong! Harper’s religion apparently makes him dangerous.

Why It’s Bad

Check out, here, here and here, and you will see why Harper’s choice of churches has some people in a tizzy. Basically, the argument goes like this: 1) Harper belongs to an oddball Christian cult. 2) Harper makes his policy decisions based on this cult’s superstitious teachings 3) this explains why Harper is “anti-science” and why he hates the environment. Of course, it’s all nonsense, but sometimes nonsense works.

Case Number Two: Attack of the Photo Op

What Harper Did

During his visit to Northern Canada, Prime Minister Harper did what all politicians do: he took part in a dopey, innocent photo op. More specifically, he drove an ATV. Lots of people, of course, drive ATVs. It’s a fun, outdoorsy activity, yes? Nope! When Harper drives one, it’s a crime against humanity.

Why it’s Bad  

Turns out ATVs should actually be called “Death Machines” on account of riding one of these vehicles will apparently destroy the planet. Or at least that’s how Harper’s critics reacted to the photo op. While many saw Harper’s little ride as harmless, his critics basically argued that by driving this instrument of Satan, the Prime Minister revealed himself to be someone who derives sadistic pleasure from desecrating our pristine environment. This in turn, means his ultimate goal is to strip mine the entire country! Also bad is that the ATV in question was not (horror of horrors) built in Canada. If you are going to despoil our delicate eco-system, you should at least do it with domestic products!!

      Case Number Three: At least he didn’t call it the Hitler Expressway

What Harper did

Recently the Harper government named a stretch of Ottawa road after John A. Macdonald. Surely, this must be the least controversial measure any Canadian government has ever undertaken. Macdonald was Canada’s first Prime Minister, he was a Father of Confederation; we name highways, schools and federal buildings after him. His picture adorns our ten dollar bill. He’s a national icon, for Pete’s Sake. Yet, amazingly even this action rubbed Harper’s critics the wrong way.

Why it’s Bad

The Ottawa Citizen ran an op ed by author Timothy J. Stanley who informed readers that Macdonald was actually a white supremacist! And so Stanley urged the Harper government to drop the Macdonald moniker idea and name the road after a former Liberal Prime Minister. And I suppose if Harper refuses to do so, his critics will take it as a clear sign that the Prime Minister must be a racist.

So now you see how political spin works.

You can take a person who goes to Church, who partakes in outdoor activities and who appreciates our nation’s history and turn him into a bible-thumping, white supremacist who likes to trample on endangered flowers.

Aint politics wonderful!

Harper and Flanagan are a couple of wusses

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his onetime sidekick Tom Flanagan are couple of wusses.

I say that because neither man seems willing to take on their ideological opponents in a fair fight.

If anything, they want to use state power to silence their adversaries.

And to me this is extremely troubling.

I come from an era when conservatives were willing and eager on take on the left. The group I used to work for -- the National Citizens Coalition--- certainly wasn’t afraid to tackle all comers.

During my 20 years or so at the NCC, we battled big union bosses, bureaucrats and politicians of every partisan stripe.

True, we didn’t win every tilt, but our opponents always knew they had been in a fight.

Indeed, the NCC of my day left so many bruises on so many sacred cows, the political establishment decided to strike back.

In 2000, then Prime Minister Jean Chretien enacted what we called a “gag law.”

This law had one purpose and one purpose only: to silence groups like the NCC during federal elections.

It imposed strict limits on how much money individuals or organizations could spend on “political advertising”, meaning the NCC could no longer freely or effectively express its views.

Of course, we tried to fight back. Under our then president - Stephen Harper -- the NCC valiantly waged a costly legal battle against the gag law all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Harper argued the gag law was an infringement on every Canadian’s right to free expression; he argued it would give professional politicians a monopoly on setting the election agenda; he argued it would have a chilling effect on democracy.

Alas, this was a fight the NCC and Harper didn’t win; the Supreme Court ultimately ruled the gag law constitutional.

It was a stunning loss for the NCC and an even bigger loss for freedom -- yet all hope was not lost.

In 2004, Harper, who by then was running for the leadership of the Conservative party, signed a pledge to repeal the gag law.

Yet six years have passed since Harper became Prime Minister and still he has not kept his promise to restore free speech to Canadians.

The gag law is still on the books.

And so Harper is now treating his adversaries the way Chretien treated the NCC.

Maybe like Chretien, Harper sees the advantage of a law which censors his opponents.

Or to put it another way, maybe he is just afraid of open, unfettered election debate.

And Harper isn’t the only Conservative displaying intellectual cowardice.

Tom Flanagan, an academic, a prominent conservative and Harper’s former campaign manager, recently wrote a column calling for Ontario to impose its own Chretien-style gag law.

Flanagan, like Harper, once opposed gag laws as attack on free speech.

So why does he support them now?

Well it seems he doesn’t like the fact that a union front group called “Working Families” spent a lot of money on ads in the last provincial election, urging voters not to support the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party.

To Flanagan this sort of advertising is wrong, which suggests he only believes in free speech as long as he agrees with what’s being said.

Of course, if Flanagan and Harper had confidence in the value of their ideals, they wouldn’t need to rely on gag laws.

They would be willing to put their principles to the test and let voters decide.

At any rate, Harper and Flanagan should come out and openly admit their fear of debate.

At least then they would be honest wusses.

Romancing the Bethune

Canada’s intellectual and political elite have a dilemma: how do they deal with Dr. Norman Bethune’s legacy?

On the one hand they desperately want to praise Bethune for his so-called “humanitarian” and innovative efforts as a surgeon, but on the other hand there’s that nasty little historical fact concerning the good doctor’s sordid political beliefs, i.e. he had a crush on Joseph Stalin.

Stalin, recall, is infamous for  butchering millions of people, for creating one of history’s most brutal dictatorships and for ruthlessly terrorizing half a continent – and that’s when he was in a good mood!

Yet Bethune the “humanitarian” thought Stalin was the bee’s knees, so in 1935 he joined the Communist Party.

That’s right instead of joining his local Rotary or Optimist Club, Bethune thought he could best help society by doing such things as advocating cockamamie economic theories, waving red flags and whistling L'Internationale.

Now in the 1960s and 1970s, this Stalinist past actually wasn’t much of a problem for Bethune worshippers. Those were the days, after all, when supporting the communist ideal was still trendy in left-wing academic and media circles.

Sure communism wasn’t perfect, they argued, but anything was better than capitalism, which simply didn’t work and which they confidently predicted would collapse in or around 1985 due to its own obvious internal contradictions.

Yep the super-geniuses in academia had it all worked out.

Except reality didn’t co-operate. In fact, after 1991 it sort of became clear that capitalism was in reality far superior to a system whose existence required generous doses of barbed wire, secret police and Siberian gulags.

Even Ivory-tower-ensconced university professors couldn’t help but notice the Berlin Wall toppling, the once mighty Soviet Union dissolving and China adopting a decadent, non-progressive, quasi-market-oriented system.

The only truly Stalinist state left was North Korea and aside from its snazzy military parades, it just wasn’t all that cool. It’s kind of hard even for intellectuals to idealize a society where the chief leisure activity is known as “Trying not to starve to death.”

Consequently by the onset of the 21^st century communism lost much of its cachet.

Which brings us back to Bethune. For better or worse, the guy will forever be tied to a discredited and blood-drenched ideology, yet oddly, there are still those in Canada who seek to romanticize his life.

And to do so, Bethune groupies have come up with two ways to overcome the "Bethune was a tyrant-admiring communist" problem.

One way is to simply ignore his communist ties. This is the method, for instance, Treasury Board President Tony Clement used to justify his government spending $2.5 million to build a Bethune Shrine in his riding. (Coincidently his riding is also the official federal repository for all things to do with Public Pork and Gazebos.)

Clement basically said Bethune’s communist past didn’t matter. As he put it, “I think we as Conservatives can be comfortable that there’s a message here broader than just his communism, that goes to his humanism and entrepreneurship.”

Well, all I can say to that is ….hey, wait a minute! … did Clement actually call Bethune, the Stalin-loving, Mao Zedong-adoring communist,  an entrepreneur!!!??

Maybe I’m wrong about Clement. Maybe he isn’t a Bethune groupie at all. Maybe he is actually using clever irony to insult the dead doctor.

I mean calling Bethune an entrepreneur would be like calling Thomas Mulcair a member of the Calgary Petroleum Club. As a good communist, Bethune regarded entrepreneurs as bourgeois enemies, as exploiters of the proletariat, as the people who would sell Stalin enough rope to hang everybody.

The best place for entrepreneurs, in Bethune's view, was is in front of a firing squad.

So this leads to the question: why is the supposedly pro-free enterprise Conservative government paying homage to guy who regarded free markets the way Dracula viewed a crucifix.

Well it seems Prime Minister Stephen Harper is really desperate to impress Communist China. The Chinese Communist Party recently gave him a few cute pandas, so the least he can do in return is lionize Mao’s favorite Canadian.

Of course, before the Conservatives could glorify Bethune in this manner they had to first set aside certain facts.

They had to set aside the fact that Bethune supported Mao Zedong, a man who surpassed Hitler in the All-Time Mass Murderer Rankings.

They had to set aside the fact that Bethune turned a blind eye to the horrific atrocities that took place in Stalinist Russia during his lifetime.

They had to set aside the fact that Bethune embraced a totalitarian ideology that had as its goal the destruction of Canada’s democratic values.

And oh yeah, there’s one more thing the Conservatives had to set aside: their principles. 

But I digress.

Let’s get back to whitewashing Bethune’s communist past.

As I said, you can ignore it like Clement did or the other method is just to pretend it never happened.

This is the strategy Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson used in a recent column in which he paid homage to Bethune.

While describing all the supposedly wonderful qualities of the doctor, Ibbitson nonchalantly declared Bethune’s “communist taint” has been “rinsed away.”

Really?

And exactly how and when did this miraculous cleansing take place?

Did historians discover Bethune really admired Groucho Marx and not Karl Marx?

Did any of Bethune’s letters recently emerge in which he wrote something like: “I tried to contact some of my comrades in Russia today, but found out they had all been purged after a series of show trials. Apparently Stalin had them all tortured and then shot. Yikes! I know this might sound bourgeois and all, but it got me thinking that perhaps this working class struggle bullshit isn’t all its cracked up to be.”

If such a letter exists it’s news to me.

Maybe Ibbitson will provide evidence of it in a future column.

In the meantime, I will continue to oppose my government using my money to honour a man who was not only on the wrong side of history, but on the wrong side of morality.

You see unlike Bethune’s apologists like Clement or Ibbitson, I have no difficulty in judging the communist’s legacy.

Nor, I suspect, will history.

Reviewing the CTF Pension Pitch

Call me crazy, but one of my hobbies is dissecting fundraising letters, which I believe are under-rated forms of communication. A good fundraiser has to be informative, concise and most of all persuasive. And believe me, getting people to donate hard-earned cash with written words aint easy.

At any rate, every once in a while I like to review such letters. In the past, I have reviewed a New Democratic fundraiser and one from the National Citizens Coalition.

Now it's the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's turn. Here's my take on a CTF letter that recently turned up in my inbox. My comments are in bold italics.

*************
Dear Supporter,

MP pension reform is a campaign we’ve been waging for over 20 years and we firmly believe that this summer is the last window of opportunity to give this issue the boost it needs.

This opening is OK, but dull. A letter needs more oomph at the top. Why not start with a little outrage over Bev Oda's pension? After all, the retirement of such a wonderful target to a lavish pension is a once in a lifetime opportunity that shouldn't be wasted. Something along the lines of:

"Dear Supporter:
Did you hear the news? Cabinet Minister Bev Oda, who made headlines with her reckless spending on things like $16 glasses of orange juice, has retired and will soon enjoy a massively rich pension!

It's true!

Soon Oda will get a super-rich pension payout that you and I in the private sector can only dream about!

We estimate her pension to be worth a whopping $700,000!

This must never happen again. The gold-plated pension plan must be reformed!!"

OK, that's a little rough but you get the idea.

Prime Minister Harper has committed to bring forward reforms to the MP pension plan this fall.

Why say this? I mean it might be true but it takes away from the letter's urgency. A reader might say,"Well if the PM is going to bring forward reforms this fall, why should I bother making a donation now". Never give a donor an excuse to bail.

If the politicians don’t hear from taxpayers over the summer you can bet that any changes introduced three months from now will be underwhelming.

OK -- but again, a little limp. Why not something a little punchier:"If you and I don't put pressure on this government soon, they won't reform this obscene pension".

That’s why with your support we’re hoping to launch a national billboard campaign this summer.

This is good. Always helps to garner donations when you give supporters a chance to contribute to something concrete and tangible ie a billboard ad. But why not include link to a graphic of what the billboard will say and look like? Make it real. Also don't say "hoping to launch" say "we will launch."

As reported by the CTF on June 28th, the most recently released numbers for 2010-11 show that for every $1 an MP contributed to their pension fund, taxpayers kicked in $24.36.

Would have added a little emotional jab after this fact: It's outrageous!

We were reminded yesterday of just how ridiculous this pension plan is with embattled cabinet minister, Bev Oda, resigning her seat effective July 31st. Ms. Oda who was first elected eight years ago in 2004 will instantly start to collect an annual pension we estimate at $52,183. That’s $701,464 by the time she reaches age 80.

Again, Oda is introduced too late.

Making it worse, unlike a normal pension fund, the MP pension fund isn’t actually invested. The federal cabinet has simply ordered taxpayers to pay the “fund” a 10.4% annual interest payment. No doubt many Canadians who lost their shirts in 2008 would have liked that deal.

That’s the message we plan to take to taxpayers and politicians alike this summer: For every $1 an MP puts into their pension plan, taxpayers put in $24.

All good stuff. Gives the letter some meat. Makes it credible. And the populist appeal about Canadians losing their shirts is a nice touch.

Can you chip in $24 to add your voice to MP pension reform? We hope this will be the last time you contribute $24 towards MPs pensions. You can make your donation through our donation website: https://taxpayer.com/donate

I really like this. Asking for a $24 donation to match what taxpayers kick into the pension plan is a great gimmick. On a campaign I worked on in the US, we asked people to contribute $17.76. Get it? But this ask should be explained a little better to lead the donor with a logical progression.

Something like this:
"To make this campaign a reality we need your financial help. You are forced to contribute $24 to the MP pension plan, but we are asking you to voluntarily contribute $24 to our billboard campaign. Make your voice heard!!"

If we don’t push back on this plan now, it could be years before we get another opportunity.

Needs a stronger conclusion: If we don't win this battle now, we never will! 

Thanks for all you do,

 Troy, Scott, Shannon and the entire CTF team

Posting all the names of staff is cute, but it kind of destroys the illusion that this is a letter from one person to another person. Makes it less personal and thus less effective.

P.S. If we don’t take action this summer, MPs will come back in the fall and rush through some minor changes. Moving from $24 to $1 down to $18 to $1 or $12 to $1 isn’t good enough. Join our effort to demand taxpayers match MP contributions for their pension $1 for $1. Donate $24 here: https://taxpayer.com/donate

Always a good idea to include a PS. But at least when it comes to letters on paper, you should assume the PS is the only thing a donor might read. (Often it is) So it should be a stand alone message that gets your point across succinctly. In this case the PS is more like a continuation of the letter. In fact, this stuff should have been in the heart of the letter.

Now if I seem a little too critical of this letter, please understand, I actually like it. Overall it's well written and it gets to the point with clarity. Plus it's focussed. And getting it out while Oda is in the news shows a good understanding of the importance of timing.

It should raise the CTF some dough, which when you come right down to it is the main thing.

Now That's An Awesome History

Today  is Canada Day.

Amid the hoopla, I hope Canadians remember Canada Day is more than just a holiday; it's also a day to remind ourselves we live in a country with the world's most boring name for a national holiday.

I mean come on, with all the government grants we dole out to writers and poets, you would think somebody could dream up a holiday name that was a little less generic-sounding.

I asked my son to suggest a better name for the holiday and he came up with an excellent idea -- "Awesome Day."

Now that's cool.

But of course, the holiday's name doesn't really matter. What truly matters is on July 1 we salute the fact that 145 years ago, a new nation was forged; a nation dedicated to shutting down the oilsands, raising taxes and bringing back the gun registry.

Oops, sorry that's Canada Day according to the NDP.

What I mean to say is Canada is a special and wonderful place -- a place where people are free to follow their dreams, a place where beautiful landscapes delight the eye and a place where everyone regardless of race, creed or colour has the right to cheer for NHL teams that fail to win the Stanley Cup.

And yes throughout our history we have overcome many challenges.

In the 1970s we endured the "Trudeau Years" when former prime minister Pierre Trudeau sought to impose the Cuban economic model on the country through a program of socialist experiments, bigger government and a poorer Alberta.

As if that wasn't bad enough, Trudeau also gutted our military, alienated our allies and dated Barbra Streisand.

We also survived the Mulroney era. Whereas Trudeau tried to wreck our economic system, former PM Brian Mulroney shattered our domestic peace in the name of granting Quebec the constitutional status of a "distinct society."

Mind you, this was done with the noblest of intentions: To win votes in Quebec.

And so, Mulroney pushed the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, both of which enjoyed the backing of the country's media, intellectual and business elites; and so naturally both accords failed.

Mulroney did succeed, however, in unleashing years of tortuous, nation-dividing and pointless constitutional debates which culminated in the 1995 Quebec referendum on independence.

Ultimately Quebecers voted -- by the narrowest of margins -- to continue accepting multi-billion dollar transfer payments from Canadian taxpayers.

After Mulroney, Jean Chretien of the Liberals assumed control. Unlike his predecessors, Chretien stayed away from grand economic and constitutional schemes meaning his government was free to focus on other more important matters, such as corruption.

So scandal-ridden was the Chretien government that Liberal fundraising letters noted donations to the party could be made by cheque, credit card or cash-stuffed envelope.

But we survived that too.

The point I am trying to make is that despite the best (worst) efforts of our politicians, Canada is still the best country in the world.

Yes we have our problems, but can you really think of any other place you would rather live? (Okay maybe southern California, but that's about it.)

Now if only we could change the name of our national holiday to Awesome Day.

Rating the new Tory attack ad

When you get a reputation for running political “negative ads”, people will almost be disappointed if you don’t go on the attack.

Such is the case with the Conservative Party.

Always aggressive, the Tories seem to take great delight in stuffing their opponents into a media meat grinder.  Just ask Stephane Dion or Michael Ignatieff.

At any rate, people either love these ads or love to hate them.

And so naturally, every one was impatiently waiting for them to go after the new kid on the block -- NDP leader Thomas Mulcair.

Well, it’s happened; the Conservatives have at long last posted their first true Mulcair attack video.

How does it rate?

Well, I don’t like it.

Yes it has all the standard ingredients that go into making an effective attack spot:  black and white imagery to make the target look menacing, ominous music and a voice of doom narration.

But the messaging in the ad is vague and confusing; so people just won't get it.

My point is a good political ad starts from scratch and basically assumes the voter knows nothing.

Yet this attack spot more or less assumes voters know what “Dutch Disease” means; it assumes they know what a carbon tax is; it assumes they know about trade policy.

And those are all massive assumptions.

Plus, it’s just plain confusing when the words, “Make them pay now for what they are doing” flash on the screen. What the heck does that mean? Did Mulcair say that? If he did, so what? Who are “they” and what exactly are they “doing?"

How does all this lead viewers to conclude that Mulcair has “risky theories” and “dangerous economic experiments.”

It doesn’t.

Why not just come out and say, "Mulcair has attacked Alberta's oil sands, calling it the Dutch Disease, he wants to kill jobs etc."

Simpler is always better.

In short, this is an over the top ad that will leave viewers scratching their heads if not reaching for the remote.

That’s if they pay attention at all.

These are summer days after all, when the only dangerous experiments occur when people try to create their own barbecue sauce.

Score: 4 out of 10.

What's "American-style" Free Speech?

The Toronto Star’s Haroon Siddiqui recently came up with a baffling argument to defend Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Section 13, of course, is the controversial law which gives the Canadian Human Rights Commission the legal right to annoy Ezra Levant.

But that’s not all. Lots of people also believe Section 13 has empowered government bureaucrats to undemocratically censor free speech. See here and here.

But this doesn’t faze Siddiqui who recently wrote – and this is the baffling part -- that anyone who opposes Section 13 must be an advocate of “American-style free speech”.

Here's the phrase in its full context:

The human rights act and the commission it spawned came into being some 40 years ago as a result of yeoman efforts by the Jewish and black communities. There was to be freedom of speech but also freedom from hate. That was going to be the Canadian way.This was challenged by the advocates of American-style free speech — an unholy alliance of media (that wanted as few restrictions on content as possible) and anti-Semites and others (who wanted to be free to spread their bigotry).

My question is what the heck is American-style free speech? 

I have heard of American-style attack ads and American-style health care and American-style gun laws, but never, ever have I ever heard anyone refer to American-style free speech.

And what exactly is the "Canadian way?"

I am trying to figure all this out.

Perhaps Siddiqui believes each country has its own distinctive brand of free speech. Thus there is a Canadian-style free speech, a British-style free speech, a Mongolian-style free speech, a Bolivian-style free speech and so on.

An interesting idea to be sure, but also kind of confusing.

For example, exactly why do different countries have different styles of free speech? Does it have something to do with different genetic bloodlines?

If so, North Koreans must be genetically disposed to getting thrown into prison or executed any time they utter non-state approved thoughts.  If this is the case, then human rights advocates shouldn't mind if North Korean authorities deal with American-style free speech activists in the "North Korean Way."

But if free speech has something to do with our cultural heritage what happens in a multi-cultural country like Canada? We would have chaos with all those different styles of free speech intersecting and conflicting!

So maybe Siddiqui believes national speech styles are actually the result of local environments.

And so we here in Canada support Section 13 ie "The Canadian Way", because of some natural force which emanates from the Rocky Mountains or from the Arctic Circle.

But if that’s the case, why then did we only enact Section 13 about 40 or so years ago? Surely, the earliest settlers and pioneers were subject to the same environmental forces as we are today. Yet they did not include Section 13-type laws in the BNA Act.

Did John A. MacDonald or Wilfrid Laurier ever talk about the need for Human Rights Commissions?

Don’t think so.

Plus many Canadians actually oppose Section 13. Are they immune to Canadian-style speech? If so why? Are they “unCanadian" because they don't follow the "Canadian Way." Should they be deported?

That doesn't seem all that democratic.

Mind you, maybe there is another explanation for Siddiqui’s comment.

Maybe he actually used “American-style speech” as a pejorative. In other words, when he said American-style, perhaps what he really meant was “dangerous foreign idea”.

Now, I am no expert in this sort of thing, but to me that sounds like an attitude that’s not tolerant of the customs of people who live in other lands. It might even cause Canadians to look less than warmly on our American cousins or on Canadians who oppose Section 13.

Yet, Siddiqui opposes "hate speech."

Like I said, it’s all pretty baffling.

Luckily, we in Canada have an entity that can help solve this puzzle.

Somebody call the Human Rights Commission!

Analyzing Simpson's Analysis

A couple of days ago, the Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson wrote a column bemoaning Prime Minister Stephen Harper's foreign policy.

Now, I'm certainly no expert on international relations, but his piece just seemed a little off to me.

To show you what I mean, I have reprinted Simpson's column below with my observations in italics:

Canada is 'back' on the world stage? Hardly
by Jeffrey Simpson

           

For those who care about Canada's international reputation and Canada's ability to influence others in the pursuit of Canada's self-interest, these are discouraging days.

Sorry Mr. Simpson, I am pretty sure very few Canadians actually care about Canada’s international reputation or its ability to influence others, unless, of course, you are talking about international hockey tournaments.

Everywhere, there is penny-pinching that makes no sense, a hectoring tone not appreciated by others, and a misunderstanding about how international affairs really work. For a government that has proclaimed Canada is “back” on the international stage, what is actually happening would be funny were it not serious.

Most things governments do would be funny, if they were not so serious.

For some time now, the euro zone has been in various states of crisis. To observe that the European Union, and particularly those member states using the euro, needs to improve its internal arrangements is obvious, as is any observation that the crisis there is a long way from resolution.

Translation: Europe is heading down a fiscal toilet.

But if that crisis deepens, Canadians, like people everywhere, will be adversely affected. And so, concerned countries outside the euro zone have been pledging what we might call “just-in-case” money to the International Monetary Fund to use, if necessary, to stabilize the world economy and assist the euro zone.

Pledges of $430-billion have been made. More are to come from large emerging countries such as China, Russia, India and Brazil. Countries that have already pledged include Japan, South Korea, Britain, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Australia and Singapore.

So let me get this straight. The people who created this fiscal nightmare of European overspending and massive debt have come up with a solution: more spending!!

The Harper government, however, rejects the idea of contributing to an IMF fund. Canada, therefore, stands alone with the United States, which unlike Canada is in terrible fiscal shape. Worse, various Canadian politicians, rather than at least using a sympathetic tone, prefer a hectoring, morally superior one toward Europe – a tone ill-becoming a G8 country.

Oh true. Canada has never, ever used a morally superior tone to any other country in its history, unless, of course, you count the million or so times Liberal Prime Ministers have denigrated, insulted or otherwise lectured the United States of America. But maybe that doesn’t count since the US was only a major trading partner and a key military ally. At any rate, why should we give our money to the Greeks, wouldn't it just be easier to waste it ourselves?

Where, except on the Conservative backbench, would one get someone like Pierre Poilievre, MP? He said: “This Prime Minister will not force hard-working Canadian taxpayers to bail out sumptuous euro welfare-state countries and the wealthy bankers that lend to them.” Here is blind ideology blended with profound parochialism of the kind that is giving Canada a well-deserved reputation for being increasingly an outlier, except when it comes to military interventions.

Hmmm, I wonder if any other Canadian politicians have ever made blind, ideologically blended comments? Hey, what about the time former Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien seemingly blamed American "greed" and "arrogance" for the 9/11 terrorist attack? Oops, sorry that was an anti-American comment uttered by a Liberal and is therefore allowable blind, ideology.

Canada under this government failed to win a seat on the UN Security Council, a stinging rebuke. Canada's once-sterling reputation for caring about Africa is over. Canada's reputation in the Arab world is mud, because although ministers never criticize anything Israel does, they never miss a chance to lecture the Palestinians.

Oh no, the UN, that corrupt nest of despots, dictators and pathological killers, doesn’t like us!!! And before Prime Minister Harper came along the “Arab world” loved Canada, did it?  I guess that’s why, back in 2004, Al Qaeda put Canada on its hit list.

Canada is about to be spurned in its efforts to join the emerging trade bloc, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Canada's Commonwealth partners are worried the Harper government might wreck the next meeting in Sri Lanka because of its hectoring of that country's government, a policy that curries Conservatives' favour with the large Tamil community in Toronto. Canada's feeble non-climate-change policy is universally panned.

Yeah, imagine Canada "hectoring" a government to recognize basic human rights. How shameful! 

In the current budget, the government is cutting foreign aid by $319-million and taking $170-million from Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The government is selling off residences (that, properly used, are essential for making contacts with key people in other countries, which is what diplomacy is all about), hollowing out staff at missions abroad, closing consulates (in the U.S.), reducing budgets for outreach overseas. (How do you think Mr. Harper was one of the first world leaders to phone the newly elected President of France, François Hollande? Because the Canadian embassy in France worked hard to get Mr. Hollande's personal cellphone number. That's called diplomatic work.)

So we need to spend $170 million to get a guy’s phone number! Seems to me a phone book would be cheaper.

The government is eliminating the small but effective program encouraging the study of Canada in foreign universities. It has ended the annual trip to the Canadian Arctic for ambassadors posted here (for which the ambassadors partly pay) – a briefing trip that gave ambassadors an insight into that increasingly crucial part of the country they would likely not otherwise receive.

Actually, I agree with Mr. Simpson here. Imagine how it would help Canada’s international reputation if, say, Syria’s ambassador to Canada was mysteriously eaten by a Polar Bear!

It is all so penny-wise and pound foolish, especially for a country that once prided itself on punching above its weight and, more important, understood that this is a relatively small country with huge international interests. Now, Canada has retreated into an anglospheric worldview coupled with a focus on trade deals, but lacking any sense of a wider conception of international affairs.

Not sure what an “anglospheric” world view means, but if it includes annoying the French, I am all for it!

Hectoring and lecturing undoubtedly appeals to the Conservative Party's core voters. It does not impress other governments, including friendly ones.

Unfortunately, for Mr. Simpson, no Canadian Prime Minister has ever lost an election because he was unpopular in Paris or Berlin.