The Patriot Game: The Charter of Rights

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"And we have a Supreme Court, like yours, which, since we put a charter of rights in our constitution in 1982, is becoming increasingly arbitrary and
important ... The establishment came down with a constitutional package which they put to a national referendum. The package included distinct society status for Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a whole bunch of other things." Stephen Harper (1)

In April of 2007, Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms celebrated it's 25th anniversary. Stephen Harper refused an invitation to be the keynote speaker at an event marking the occasion.

The Harper government is passing on a major Ottawa conference marking the 25th anniversary of the Charter of Rights, with the Prime Minister and three Cabinet ministers turning down invitations to speak. In fact, the milestone anniversary will be a muted affair within the government ranks ... Mr. Jedwab said Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, Heritage Minister Bev Oda and former justice minister Vic Toews were also invited to address the April 16-17 event, but they declined. (2)

The fact is that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has always been a thorn in the side of the Reform movement. Preston Manning preferred that it would have been more like the American model.

On the Charter of Rights, Manning takes the position that Canada should have, like the U.S., a concept of rights which makes no mention of race, gender, or language. His support for triple-E Senate is modelled after the U.S. Senate and is proposed for Canada in spite of the fact that a similar model "often makes government impossible" in Australia, according to Desmond Morton.

Last, Preston Manning wishes to emulate the U.S. by including a provision for property rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights. This concept is rooted in American individualism and free-enterprise culture. However, it may be less appealing in Canada, which has had a more co-operative and collective approach to life and to government. (3)

Stephen Harper's views were similar to Manning's but based a lot on the book The Patriot Game by Peter Brimelow, who saw both the patriation of the Constitution, and the Charter as not only an attack on Anglo Canadians, but the endowment of too much power on the judiciary.

Certain aspects of public policy were entrenched, however, notably bilingualism, and a "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" was added .. the new constitution clearly does pose a legal threat to much of its nationalist legislation restricting the use of English. More subtly, the constitution represents a break with the British tradition of common law, custom and precedent, and greatly enhances the power of the judicial branch. (4)

What Brimelow opposed the most, and what was reflected in the views of the Reform party members, was that in his mind the English had conquered the French in Canada, so they should accept the Anglo hierarchy. What he failed to understand was that Quebec and French Canadians, were to be equal partners in Confederation as one of our country's founding peoples.

So the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms set out to right a wrong.

The difficulty Francophones faced in the civil service ... the one addressed by the resulting bilingualism policy, was not discrimination against Francophones as such, but the fact that at the higher levels they had to work in English. Francophones who were prepared to speak English could always in effect resign from their race in working hours, unlike the American blacks. (5)

"Resign from their race in working hours"?

And this was the logic that Stephen Harper found so compelling that he went out and bought ten copies of Brimelow's book to give to friends. And when Harper addressed the Reform Party Assembly in Saskatoon in 1991, and stated emphatically that there would be no special privileges for Quebec, his mind was made up.

And we have to remember that his political views are not organic, but set in stone. He only gave Quebec special status, because he said that he needed to "suck up to them."

Another bone of contention for the movement was the entrenching of rights, including those for women, ethnic groups and Aboriginals, but especially for homosexuals.

One of the Reform Party founders, Ted Byfield, stated that the only thing that should be legislated in Canada was morality, but this charter actually, in his view, attacked morality, by protecting "sin". And protecting that sin was the judiciary.

This would start a war. One that is ongoing.

On June 12, 2000, Harper railed against biased judicial activism. "Serious flaws exist in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and there is no meaningful review or accountability mechanisms for Supreme Court justices" (6)

And on September 2, 2009, at a closed-door speech to Conservative supporters in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., he spoke against judicial independence and made it clear that if he ever obtains a majority, he will stack the bench with judges who are not "left-wing ideologues." (6) "I ask you for a moment to imagine how different things would be if the Liberals were still in power. . . . Imagine how many left-wing ideologues they would be putting in the courts. . . ."

Maurice Vellacott had accused Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of calling herself God, and though it was a lie and he made a meager attempt at an apology in the House of Commons, the sentiment remains.

One of the worst attacks however, has been on Louise Arbour (shown above right). Arbour is the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Court of Appeal for Ontario and a former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. She has since July 2009 served as President and CEO of the International Crisis Group.

Someone all Canadians should be proud of. And yet Harper’s ministers refused to recognize her work, while Vic Toews launched a personal attack, as part of his party's policy.

The Conservative grenade hurlers couldn't help themselves. Next up to the plate was Treasury Board Secretary Vic Toews, whose target was Louise Arbour, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and a former Supreme Court justice. Arbour had a far more distinguished reputation than Toews did, but that didn't stop him from labelling her a national "disgrace" when she praised a new Arab human rights charter and chastised both sides in the conflict between Israel and Lebanon. Toews hollered "Shame on her!" when the matter was raised in the Commons. (7)

Yes shame on her. How dare she stand up for human rights abuses, earning enough of an international reputation that she would be given such high positions.

We need to start recognizing and supporting our public intellectuals, who have been taking a beating since Stephen Harper came to power. Canadians have always taken pride in the accomplishments of it's citizens and this government would prefer that we forget them, so they can be free to pursue their agenda of Americanization.

U.S. style prisons. U.S style courts. U.S. style justice.

Canadians should be proud of their Charter of Rights and Freedoms and proud of the fact that we have for decades been seen as a Just Society. Harper's law and order agenda is a wrong fit for us. It's not who we are, just who he would like us to be.

One of my favourite quotes about the Reform movement came from the Vancouver Sun, and I share it often:

"Reform is somewhat un-Canadian. It's about tidy numbers, self-righteous sanctimoniousness and western grievances. It cannot talk about the sea or about our reluctant fondness for Quebec, about our sorrow at the way our aboriginal people live, about the geographically diverse, bilingual, multicultural mess of a great country we are." (8)

Sources:

1. Full text of Stephen Harper's 1997 speech, Canadian Press, December 14, 2005

2. PM passes on marking Charter anniversary; Rejects invitation, By Janice Tibbetts, National Post, April 11, 2007

3. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin, Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7 4, Pg. 190

4. The Patriot Game: National Dreams and Political Realities, By Peter Brimelow, Key Porter Books, 1986, ISBN: 1-55013-001-3, Pg. 34

5. Brimelow, 1986, Pg. 191

6. The Hill: Harper challenged as silence of the jurists ends, By: Richard Cleroux, Law Times

7. Harperland:The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 130

8. Vancouver Sun, April 8, 1994

The Patriot Game: Western Separation

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

In 1965, a student at Winnipeg College climbed to the roof of the school to hoist a nine-foot Red Ensign when the Canadian flag was first being raised. His name was Doug Christie and he would become a life long separatist, advocating for the Western provinces and territories to split with Canada and strike out on their own.

His movement would gain some support in 1980 when Quebec was holding a referendum and the government of Pierre Trudeau had announced the National Energy Policy. However, it wasn't the NEP that created the uproar but changes to the tax laws in Alan MacEachern's budget.

MacEachen's senior advisers soon focused his attention on how billions of dollars were being lost yearly to scores of dubious corporate tax breaks. Finance officials put together a tax reform package designed, among other things, to eliminate 165 of the most costly and counter-productive tax expenditure measures and in the process increase revenue by close to $3 billion.

When he introduced the legislation it caused a firestorm of protest from the corporate elite. Neil Brooks, now professor of tax law at Osgoode Hall Law School, was working for the finance department on the tax reform package and has recalled the tactics of the large corporations. "It's almost a classic example of what's called a capital strike. I mean, business simply said to the government that if you go ahead with these measures we will stop investing in Canada." The development industry reacted instantly. "Literally the next day they were closing jobs down and . . . pulling cranes off construction jobs."

Life insurance companies had their own strategy. The industry, which for years had paid income tax rates of close to zero, wrote to every one of its policyholders, telling them the new measures to tax investment revenue would greatly increase their premiums. "The government," says Brooks, "at one point was receiving thousands of letters a day from people across the country."(1)

But in the west, they couldn't sell it as the wealthy fighting against tax increases, so instead made it about Ottawa pandering to Quebec and Ontario, at the expense of the western provinces, especially Alberta. The National Energy Policy then became the enemy, despite the fact that many wealthy westerners liked the new policy, because it promoted 50% Canadian ownership and allowed further development of government lands.

Soon after the announcement of the NEP, [Alberta Premier Peter] Lougheed fired three effective salvos: a constitutional challenge to the natural gas tax; a staged reduction in shipments of oil to other provinces; and a freeze on the oil sands, whose development the NEP encouraged. Although the Petroleum Club and the radio talk-shows in Alberta cheered the premier, and bumper stickers declared "Let the Eastern Bastards Freeze," [energy minister Marc] Lalonde had included provisions in the NEP that attracted key Albertan players.

These entrepreneurs and their lawyers rightly saw the provision that there must be 5o percent Canadian ownership on the Canada Lands —those potentially rich areas under government control—as highly beneficial. Dome Petroleum, Nova, and Petro-Canada therefore complained about the new taxes on gas and oil but did not join Lougheed's general denunciation of the NEP. The influential Bob Blair of Nova, a major figure in the oil patch, openly declared his Liberal allegiance and remained in close touch with both Trudeau and Lalonde. "Smiling Jack" Gallagher of Dome most enthusiastically embarked on the acquisition of foreign oil companies, which were eager to abandon Canada in the wake of the NEP. (2)

Unfortunately, after the 1980 election that ended Joe Clark's brief governance, those fuelling the separatist campaign, went into action.

Highlighted against the rise and fall of the abbreviated Tory reign, the 1980 election aroused immediate anger and concern in the West. In Alberta, a sixty-year-old Edmonton millionaire and car dealer, Elmer Knutson, sent an angry letter to the Edmonton Journal the day after the election."' The letter, which has acquired an almost mythic stature in western separatist folklore, adumbrated a series of themes which were to be the staples of western separatists and other right-wing elements in subsequent years."' It especially complained of a French-dominated Ottawa, as exemplified in such policies as bilingualism, and the fear that Trudeau's majority Liberal government would now proceed with constitutional reforms which would reinforce French domination of the rest of Canada. Knutson's solution to this perceived threat was simple: Quebec must be made to leave Canada.

Knutson was not a stranger to political matters. In the late 1970s he had been co-chair of the One Canada Association, an organization 'committed to increasing police powers, ending bilingualism, and tightening immigration policies. Then, in December 1979, Knutson lost the Edmonton South Tory nomination to incumbent Douglas Roche, whom Knutson once described as 'a socialist masquerading as a conservative But the response to his Journal letter — 'One lousy little letter,' in Knutson's words — astonished even him. In one month, Knutson received 3800 replies, most of them positive.' As a result of this public response, Knutson formed the Western Canada Federation (West-Fed) in March 1980. At almost the same time, the results of the federal election breathed new life into the faltering political career of a thirty-four-year-old Victoria lawyer, Doug Christie. (3)

Peter Brimelow, author of The Patriot Game, the book that was a Bible for Stephen Harper's early political leanings, saw things a little differently. This was an attack on English Canada:

In the fall of 1980, after the federal Liberals' return to power and their imposition of the National Energy Program, reports began to filter back to Central Canada that the natives on the western frontier beyond the Ontario boundary were unusually restless. Several organizations had sprung up advocating that the West - the Prairie provinces, British Columbia and the federally administered Yukon and Northwest Territories - separate from Canada. The two most important were the Western Canada Concept Party, begun in British Columbia and headed by Doug Christie, a Victoria lawyer; and the Western Canada Federation Party, based in Alberta and led by Elmer Knutson, an Edmonton farm equipment millionaire.

Both these parties argued that, to adapt Joe Clark's Shawinigan comment during the Quebec referendum campaign, the Canada to which they had wished to belong no longer existed. The conditions of Confederation had been changed, and they wanted out. Less active but worth a footnote was the Unionist Party, which directly advocated joining the U.S.: it was founded by Dick Collver*, until 1979 leader of the Saskatchewan Progressive Conservatives, who shortly afterwards acted on his beliefs and moved to Arizona.

Suddenly, Christie and Knutson were attracting crowds of thousands to their meetings. Prominent Western figures were expressing sympathy, notably Carl
Nickle, a well-known oilman and former Tory federal MP, who had even been considered a candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Alberta the previous year but who told a luncheon gathering of 700 Calgary businessmen in October that after the NEP he had "sorrowfully" become a separatist. At the same time, the Edmonton Journal ran a poll showing that a startling 2 3% of Albertans supported an "independent West." There were angry exchanges in the House of Commons in Ottawa when Tory leader Joe Clark drew attention to the phenomenon. He was immediately accused of thereby "aiding and abetting" it. Pierre Trudeau offered the helpful opinion that Western separatism was "nil and non-existent," being at, root "a fight about money" in no way comparable with Quebec's grievances. This naturally inspired redoubled efforts to prove him wrong. (4)

He was right of course. The uproar was over the closing up of the tax loopholes, but instead was channeled against the NEP. And Quebec's grievances were completely different. Many of the French-Canadians had been living like plantation slaves in their province.

The NEP wasn't perfect but it wasn't the disaster it was made out to be. But that didn't stop the Reform Party from reviving it for political gain.

Doug Christie's Western Canada Concept Party had one seat in the House of Commons, but only for a few months. He was joined by another disgruntled Anglophone, who had left Quebec during the Quiet Revolution. He would run as a WCC candidate against Tommy Douglas, but of course lost. His name was Stockwell Day Sr. and his son is now in the Harper government.

Footnotes:

Dick Collver moved to Arizona, coming back to testify during the trial of Colin Thatcher. According to Collver, Thatcher had visited him on his Arizona Ranch, asking him where he could hire a hitman.

Sources:

1. The Myth of the Good Corporate Citizen: Canada and Democracy in the Age of Globalization, By Murray Dobbin, James Lorimer & Company, 2003, ISBN: 1-55028-785-0, Pg. 168

2. Just Watch me: The Life of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, By John English, Alfred A. Knopf, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-676-97523-9, Pg. 488

3. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, By Trevor Harrison, University of Toronto Press, 1995. ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6, Pg. 57-58

4. The Patriot Game: National Dreams and Political Realities, By Peter Brimelow, Key Porter Books, 1986, ISBN: 1-55013-001-3, Pg. 240-241

Patriot Games and the Committee for an Independent Canada

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Something strange, nameless, and profound moves in Canada today. It cannot be seen or labeled, but it can be heard and felt - a kind of whisper from
far away, a rustle as of wind in prairie poplars, a distant river's voice, or the shuffle of footsteps in a midnight street. It is less a sound than a sense
of motion.

Something moves as it has never moved before in this land, moves dumbly in the deepest runnels of a collective mind, yet by sure direction toward
a known goal. Sometimes by thought, more often by intuition, the Canadian people are making the final discovery. They are discovering themselves. - Bruce Hutchinson

When Pierre Trudeau called an election in 1972, the country was undergoing a lot of changes. The Baby Boomers were growing up and the voting age had been reduced to 18.

Unemployment was at 6.2%, considered high for the time, and despite generous changes to Unemployment Insurance, the youth were worried.

Also worried were many Canadians seeing a growing American influence, not only in our popular culture, but in the very real U.S. takeover of our natural resources.

One of these was Liberal MP Eric Kierans, who had left Trudeau's' Cabinet in April of 1971, and was an outspoken critic of finance minister John Turner's 1972 budget, believing that the party was moving to the right and was blind "to the sale of Canadian resources to foreigners" (English 2009).

Kierans prefaced a book financed by the NDP called Louder Voices: Corporate Welfare Bums. The phrase "corporate welfare bums" was in response to those who felt that the increase in UI premiums was creating a sub-culture of "welfare bums".

The phrase caught on and NDP leader David Lewis thundered it from the podium, regaling against corporate privilege. And many former Trudeau supporters, joined Lewis, including high profile figures like Walter Gordon with the Toronto Star, Peter C. Newman, Claude Ryan, prominent Alberta Liberal, Jack McClelland and publisher Mel Hurtig.

This group created The Committee for an Independent Canada, and over 170,000 concerned Canadians would join their ranks. As a result Trudeau's Liberal Party was reduced to a minority, with Lewis's NDP holding the balance of power.

But CIC did not only help to influence the election, but they would also steer the Liberal Party to the left, and though Trudeau had at one time been opposed to the nationalization of industry, he allowed the creation of Petro-Canada. His government also began to take on a more nationalistic tone. (1)

The right was enraged, while corporate and business donations for the Liberals decreased substantially.

Harper's Bible Sees it Differently

Peter Brimelow's The Patriot Game lays the blame squarely on the shoulders of Pierre Trudeau, for the country's dramatic shift to the left, though he is not without disdain for the Committee for an Independent Canada.

A case can also be made for 1970. In that year, at a lunch "which is now mythologized in some branches of the movement as The Beginning," according to an account written by Christina McCall-Newman in 1972, three men decided to found a pressure group for their version of Canadian Nationalism: the Committee for an Independent Canada. They were Walter Gordon, the former leader of the Liberal Party's left wing, who as Finance Minister under Lester Pearson had introduced a controversial nationalist budget in 1965; Peter C. Newman, then Editor-in-Chief of the nationalist Toronto Star; and Abraham Rotstein, an academic economist from the University of Toronto. Their creation was something of a nine-day-wonder in the small world of the English-Canadian intelligentsia.

It attracted much joining, signing of petitions, attending of meetings and declarations of support. The Committee itself quickly became moribund, but it symbolized emotions that were coming to dominate Anglophone public debate, and it conveniently marks the moment when the Canadian Liberal elite finally acknowledged that it had reversed fronts and trained its guns on free market economics and on the U.S.A.

The weaknesses of Canadian Nationalism were already present at The Beginning. All three lunchers were Anglophones, all Torontonians, all prosperous members of the bourgeoisie. All, perhaps not coincidentally, represented professions that stood to benefit disproportionately from protectionism: Gordon as a scion of the preeminent Clarkson, Gordon and Company accounting firm, whose relationships with Canadian corporate clients were vulnerable to disruption from takeovers by U.S. firms equipped with their own auditors; Newman and Rotstein as examples of those "producers of Canadian culture" who, in the deadpan summary of a recent academic survey, "are more determined than consumers" to "keep Canadian cultural life Canadian." (2)

And this Canadian Nationalism was viewed as "anti-Americanism" in Alberta, where the U.S. oil industry prospered, and was added to the list of western grievances. This became even more profound when it became about "Toronto" and "elites" and "intervention".

Early Nationalist campaigns were to aim at reserving Canadian university appointments for Canadians and promoting Canadian periodicals through punitive taxation of their American competitors. Two were members of Canada's small Jewish minority, a group normally cautious about nationalism, and one was not even a Canadian by birth but a central European refugee, anomalies which, although not without parallel in other nationalist movements, may help account for the peculiar artificiality of this Canadian variation. They were also all good political progressives and, at least in the case of Gordon and Rotstein, conscious advocates of government intervention in the economy. (2)

Canada was moving toward a just society and the corporate sector saw this as injustice to the almighty dollar.

And like Ted Byfield, Brimelow also held contempt for Pierre Berton. Byfield, because he threatened religious fundamentalism, and Brimelow because he threatened Anglo-Saxon hegemony.

A significant description of the brave new Canada that Canadian Nationalists hope and claim to have discerned has been conveniently provided by Pierre Berton in his book Why We Act Like Canadians: A Personal Account of Our National Character. This deeply revealing essay on the Canadian national character and its fundamental differences from the American norm was one of the best-sellers of the 1982-83 season and has influenced several subsequent journalistic commentaries ... the inevitable landscape rhapsodies in Why We Act Like Canadians were quite bearable.

And yet Pierre Berton is still a household name, while most Canadians outside of the Reform/Conservative movement, have never heard of Peter Brimelow.

Sources:

1. Just Watch me: The Life of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, By John English, Alfred A. Knopf, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-676-97523-9, Pg. 130

2. The Patriot Game: National Dreams and Political Realities, By Peter Brimelow, Key Porter Books, 1986, ISBN: 1-55013-001-3, Pg. 131 -133

Patriot Games: Flags, Anthems and History

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Continuing with the story of Peter Brimelow and his book The Patriot Game, that influenced Stephen Harper and Reform Party policy, Brimelow complains about our national anthem and flag.

What was wrong with the red ensign? What was wrong with The Maple Leaf Forever?

And again he uses these things to suggest special favours for Quebec, not understanding that French-Canadians had an equal partnership with English-Canadians and First Nations in the foundation of this country. At least they were supposed to have.

So these changes were not about pandering to Quebec, but an attempt to right a wrong.

But that's not how Brimelow and the party hierarchy sold it to their members. With the help of Jock V. Andrew and his book: Bilingual Today, French Tomorrow, the Reformers were convinced that Quebec was taking over, and the Liberals were helping them do it.

And many believed that it would lead to war.

A political conspiracy has been taking place in Canada which, if it continues, will shortly lead to a Canadian civil war. This war will almost certainly involve the United States. Other countries, Russia and China included, will take whatever advantages they can from it. Many lives will be lost, and much of eastern Canada will be laid waste. When it is finally over, nothing will have been resolved that could not be resolved today, with no loss of life whatsoever. What is it all about?

In 1968, Canada's newly-elected Prime Minister, Mr. Pierre Trudeau, set out with a half-dozen like-minded associates under cover of some very clever double-talk to convert Canada from an English-speaking country into a French-speaking country.

How could such a scheme even be contemplated? How could the second-largest country in the world, almost four million square miles of land and resources, be whipped out like a rug from under the 75% of the population that is English-speaking and be handed in its entirety to the Quebec-centred 25% of the population that is the French-Canadian race? (1)

What Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau attempted to do was create a pan-Canadianism, with a flag to call our own, an anthem to call our own and a culture to call our own.

By the time of our Centenary and Expo 67, we had our flag, and it captured an optimistic mood. It was good time to be Canadian. The Languages Act and official multiculturalism came soon after.

The anthem took a bit longer, but on July 1, 1980, 'Oh, Canada', replaced 'God Save the Queen'

Not everyone was impressed, including Peter Brimelow, who later helped to add that to the list of grievances that fuelled a party built on anger.

And like Andrew, Brimelow believed that there was a conspiracy afoot. Why were the words different in French than English? Why was there no mention of the Queen?

The first point to notice is that this national anthem contains no reference to the Queen. Yet Canada is still nominally a monarchy and the Queen is still head of state. The second point about the national anthem that will occur to observers is: why not just translate from the French? A literal rendition of the first French verse reveals the answer:

O Canada! Land of our ancestors,
Your brow is wreathed with glorious garlands. For your arm knows how to carry the sword, It knows how to carry the Cross;
Your history is an epic of the most brilliant exploits;
And your courage, blended with Faith, Will still protect our homes
and rights, Will still protect our homes and rights.

Although most English Canadians don't realize it, what French Canadians have been singing all these years is an explicit hymn to Francophone ethnic particularism, which is blandly identified with "Canada." It specifically emphasizes the integral importance of the Roman Catholic faith to the Francophone nation, although there are some Francophone Jews and even a historic mini-community of Francophone Protestants in Canada, let alone (of course) the Anglophones. It extols the efficacy of action - including, in the past, violence - to defend "our rights," which in Canadian history has become a code-word for Francophone collective interests within the state. (2)

Cleverly turn the politics of anger into the politics of fear, validating Jock Andrew's claim that there was a conspiracy afoot.

And then Brimelow moves to the suggestion that we should have adopted the Maple Leaf Forever.

In days of yore, from Britain's shore, Wolfe, the dauntless hero, came,
And planted firm Britannia's flag On Canada's fair domain.
Here may it wave, our boast and pride,
And joined in love together,
The Thistle, Shamrock, Rose entwine
The Maple Leaf forever!
The Maple Leaf, our emblem dear
The Maple Leaf forever;
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless
The Maple Leaf forever.

This song was certainly beyond earthly help after its direct reference to the undeniable but unmentionable Conquest of 1759. (2)

Ah yes. There it is. The conquest of 1759. The Anglos had conquered the French, so they had no rights to this land. But what Brimelow and the Reformers fail to understand is that the battle between Wolf and Montcalm, that lasted a mere twenty minutes, meant very little. It's only revisionist history that gives it credence.

Canada's legitimacy was not determined by a single battle, but through centuries of compromise.

Sources:

1. Bilingual Today, French Tomorrow: Trudeau's Master Plan and How it Can be Stopped, By J. V. Andrew, BMG Publishing, 1977, Pg. 1

2. The Patriot Game: National Dreams and Political Realities, By Peter Brimelow, Key Porter Books, 1986, ISBN: 1-55013-001-3, Pg. 39-42

Patriot Games and the Federation of Founding Peoples

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"Reform is somewhat un-Canadian. It's about tidy numbers, self-righteous sanctimoniousness and western grievances. It cannot talk about the sea or about our reluctant fondness for Quebec, about our sorrow at the way our aboriginal people live, about the geographically diverse, bilingual, multicultural mess of a great country we are." — Vancouver Sun, April 8, 1994

After reading Peter Brimelow's The Patriot Game, a scathing attack on Canada's Liberal Party, because of their promotion of multiculturalism; Stephen Harper went out and bought ten copies of the book for friends.

He would then use many of the arguments presented in The Patriot Game, to draft policy for the Reform Party.

And remember, Brimelow is now calling himself a paleo-conservative, but in those days he preferred 'Anglo-Supremacist'.

Canadian neo-conservatives may not have a "Whites Only" sign posted over the doorways of their caucus rooms, but they might as well. Despite their growing sensitivity to criticism which they would have earlier ignored, and some half-hearted efforts to remedy the situation by recruiting more minority members, there have been few takers. Reform's transparent efforts to describe itself as more culturally diverse than it's mainstream opponents have fallen on disbelieving ears. Token evidence of cultural diversity and the party's exclusionary policies have simply not attracted members of minority groups. (1)

Today, Stephen Harper has been able to exploit minorities by creating divisive policies, pitting them against each other. It's the worst kind of prejudice.

In his book Brimelow is critical of Trudeau's repatriation of our constitution, suggesting that it "was not what the Fathers of Confederation had in mind. (2)

And Preston Manning, who considered himself a to be a history buff, shared Brimelow's views:

If subsequent generations of politicians had left the problem of French-English tension within the provincial confines to which the Fathers of Confederation had relegated it and expanded and built on the new foundation of Canada as a federation of provinces rather than a federation of founding peoples, Canada might not be in the dilemma it is today. But unfortunately this was not to be. As each new western province after British Columbia was added – Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta – there was a controversy as to whether the constitutions of those provinces should provide special status for the French minority in the areas of education and language. These provisions were promoted by federal politicians of the old two-nation school and provincial politicians from Quebec, and generally resisted by western politicians, who fully embraced the new vision of one nation from sea to sea.

Then, nearly a hundred years later, after the disintegration of the British Empire and the emergence of the Quiet Revolution in Quebec, Lester Pearson established the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism and revived the concept of Canada as an equal partnership between two founding races, languages, and cultures – the English and the French ... Pearson 'nationalized' the very issue which the fathers of Confederation had 'provincialized' in 1867. This vision was pursued with vigour by Prime Minister Trudeau, and it continues to shape the thinking of the current prime minister [Mulroney]

Of course most Canadian historians would disagree with Manning's simplistic view of our history. Confederation did not occur based solely on English-French tensions. It was much more complex. And suggestion that had this conflict been settled, the rest of the country would have lived in harmony is nonsense.

If my father was alive today he could make mincemeat of Manning's logic, but we'll go to a man who has a PhD in history, and whose great-grandfather took part in the debates at the time, helping to bring Nova Scotia into Confederation.

We are a community forged by the primal experience of negotiating terms of settlement among three peoples: the English, the French, and the aboriginal First Nations. This gives us a particular rights culture and it is this rights culture that makes us different. No matter how violently Quebecers and English Canadians disagree, they do so within political cultures that are remarkably similar. So talking about rights is a way of identifying something all Canadians have in common.

Manning deliberately ignores Canada's First Nations.

Pierre Trudeau developed the Languages Act based on the findings of The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, that was established by the government of Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson. But instead of adopting a bicultural society, he opted for a multicultural society that accepted all peoples as equals.

Peter Brimelow saw things in black and white, literally; and Reform Party policy reflected this narrow view. He was an outsider and in many ways so is Stephen Harper. He views Canada in terms of what is "wrong" with us, instead of embracing everything that is so right.

In the following video, Brimelow (though hard to understand - not the best speaker) suggests that the Reform movement created a new party because the federal conservatives refused to curb immigration. He is threatening the same happening in the U.S., which could very well be the 'Tea Party'.

Brimelow is calling for zero immigration for at least a year, and perhaps extending 10-15 years. The anti-immigration rhetoric was certainly accelerated in the mid-term election campaigns.

It's frightening.

The Reformers may have been timid about putting a "Whites Only" sign over their caucus door, but there is definitely a metaphorical one at our border crossings.

Sources:

1. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 388

2. The Patriot Game: National Dreams and Political Realities, By Peter Brimelow, Key Porter Books, 1986, ISBN: 1-55013-001-3, Pg. 32

3. The Rights Revolution: CBC Massey Lectures, By Michael Ignatieff, Anansi Books, 2000, ISBN: 978-0-88784-762-2, Pg. 14

Redefining Populism and the Creation of Social Conservatism

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"The best laid plans of mice and men go oft astray." - Robert Burns

By the 1960s Ernest Manning had become increasingly concerned that Canada was threatened with economic and moral ruin, which he attributed to the rise of socialism. And while he felt that Social Credit principles were the only thing that could save the country, the SoCon party was in disarray, now attracting only those from the right-wing fringes.

And it was this moral and economic decay that prompted him to co-write with his son Preston, Political Realignment, which would combine free enterprise with social concerns. The book was a blueprint for what Manning called 'social conservatism.'

Funding for it's creation came from a newly formed organization, known as the National Public Affairs Research Foundation (NPARF), where Preston was engaged as a 'policy researcher.'

A report by columnist Don Sellar in the Calgary Herald on 21 July 1967 described the NPARF as a somewhat secretive, staunchly right-wing, lobby group funded by several prominent businessmen, including R.A. Brown, president of Home Oil, Cyrus McLean, chairman of B.C. Telephone, Renault St Laurent, lawyer and son of the former prime minister, Ronald Clarke, an Edmonton architect, R.J. Burns, a Calgary lawyer, and A.M. Shoults, president of James Lovick Ltd. of Toronto, all of whom were close friends of the elder Manning." (1)

Besides Realignment, Preston Manning also helped to create the White paper, a social engineering plan that focused on the sovereignty of the individual, to combat what they saw as the threat of collectivism (socialism) that had become quickly accelerated with the introduction of public health care.

Human resources will be treated as being intrinsically more important than physical resources.

Prior consideration will be given to human beings individually (persons), rather than to human beings collectively (society).

Changes and adjustments to changes will be proposed, but these will always be related to fundamental principles.

A free enterprise economy, in which all individuals have maximum opportunity to participate, will be regarded as more desirable than a state regimented economy.

A supporting function, rather than a domineering function, will be ascribed to the state relative to resources development." (1)

And they attempted through NPARF to join the Social Credit and Progressive Conservative parties of Alberta, with aspirations of eventually creating a national party.

Manning's second project with the NPARF was 'an investigation of the possibility of putting together the aging Social Credit Party of Alberta ... with the up-and-coming Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta under its new leader, Peter Lougheed." Erick Schmidt and Preston Manning met with Lougheed's group, represented by Joe Clark and Mery Leitch (later energy minister in the Lougheed cabinet), on several occasions, and eventually produced a draft plan for amalgamating the two parties under the banner of the Social Conservative party. The idea was quickly rejected, however, by officials both within the Manning government and the Lougheed camp." (1)

Joe Clark had a history with both Preston and Social Credit.

Nonetheless, the idea of a realignment of right-wing forces stayed with the Mannings ... The book [Political Realignment: A Challenge to Thoughtful Canadians], written in the same style as the White Paper, expressed Ernest Manning's contention that real political choice had disappeared from the federal Canadian scene because the parties —particularly the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives — were not ideologically distinct. Hence, Ernest Manning proposed that political choice be re-established through a realignment/ polarization of political thinking and organization. The end product of such a political realignment would be social conservatism, an ideology that Manning defined as welding 'the humanitarian concerns of those with awakened social consciences to the economic persuasions of those with a firm conviction in the value of freedom of economic activity and enlightened private enterprise. (1)

But the time wasn't right and the proposal not realistic. There had been a lot of social change as a result of the Civil Rights Movement and a search for a more open and just society. This was Trudeau's time.

The problem with Ernest and Preston Manning was that they had almost cut themselves off from the real world. Ernest rarely spoke to his constituents except through his radio Bible program. When Preston attended school, he had to go to his father's office where he did his homework before the two headed to their house.

When he attended university, it was understood that he avoid relationships, except with those who thought as he did. Not a large group.

So their political thought was out of step with modern society.

In many ways, this semi-isolation, also created Stephen Harper's narrow minded thinking. Growing up in what his biographer, William Johnson, referred to as the "quintessential WASP middle-class suburb."

His childhood was spent with mostly white middle-class protestants in a pre-designed community with little "through traffic"

The End of Social Credit

Manning stepped down as Premier in 1968, as the party was losing steam. The reins would be passed to Peter Lougheed and his PCs. In September of 1979, the Camrose radio station, CFCN - the station on which Aberhart had begun broadcasting 'The Back to the Bible Hour' in 1925 — announced that it was dumping the show because of low ratings.

Federally, Joe Clark won the 1979 election for the Tories, only to lose power a few months later, giving Trudeau another mandate. Many blame Clark's obstinance in not joining with the stronger Quebec branch of the Social Credit movement: The Creditistes, led by Fabien Roy.

Had he done that, his minority government would not have fallen. According to Peter Brimelow:

Tory Prime Minister Joe Clark's government was in a minority and could have used Creditistes support, but instead Clark was blindly hostile to them, convinced that if they "faded in Quebec their supporters would find a new home with the Conservatives." He was wrong, of course. In the 1980 federal election, they actually voted for the Liberals - "a party more deeply rooted in French-Canadian society than the Conservatives." (2)

But in his defense, he had no stomach for joining with a party that had become "a refuge for right-wing 'fringe' elements".

The party's nadir occurred in 1983 when its provincial vice-president, Jim Keegstra, was found guilty on charges of spreading hatred against Jews. By the early 1980s, Social Credit remained a power only in British Columbia. (1)

But there was a rumble.

1. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, By Trevor Harrison, University of Toronto Press, 1995. ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6, Pg. 33-38

2. The Patriot Game: National Dreams and Political Realities, By Peter Brimelow, Key Porter Books, 1986, ISBN: 1-55013-001-3, Pg. 1

Patriot Games and Bilingualism: A God That Failed?

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"It is simply difficult – extremely difficult – for someone to become bilingual in a country that is not. And make no mistake. Canada is not a bilingual country. In fact it is less bilingual today than it has ever been... So there you have it. As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions." - Stephen Harper on bilingualism, Calgary Sun, May 6th 2001.

Peter Brimelow's 1986 The Patriot Game, had a profound impact on Stephen Harper's political thought process, and indeed most of the arguments made in Brimelow's book have been presented by Harper at some point during his career.

The title was inspired by the notion of a fraudulent patriotism espoused by the Liberal Party, and in fact throughout the book the author blames the Liberals, especially Pierre Trudeau, for just about everything he deemed to be wrong with our country.

And he puts a special focus on bilingualism.

As a result, the Reform Party made this a focus of their policy, believing that they could further fan the flames of anger over the issue, that many of their supporters felt deliberately targeted the West.

Maybe that's why in 2001, Harper felt comfortable speaking of this in Calgary, while perhaps not being so eager to do so in Ontario, Quebec or the Maritimes.

And bilingualism has remained an important issue for some members of his party, despite the fact that many parents are choosing to send their children to French immersion schools, appreciating a need and even a desire, that their children become fluent in both of our official languages.

Just when we thought we were well beyond the age of angst over French on cereal boxes and the like, in steps Vic Toews with the heavy linguistic lumber. In a fit of pique - uggh, that's a French word - the President of the Treasury Board charged that the Liberals view unilingual Canadians as second-class citizens. "It's clear," he harrumphed, "that the Liberal Party considers those of us who speak one official language to be less Canadian."

The truculent Mr. Toews is responsible for language policy in the federal public service. He blew his anglophone gasket - Quebeckers will not be overjoyed - in a committee hearing on the Official Languages Act when Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez had the audacity to ask whether, given his duties, the minister should be bilingual. (1)

Peter Brimelow would have smiled.

Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism

The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was established by the government of Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson in response to a growing separatist sentiment in Quebec. He wanted to try to bridge the gap between Anglophones and Francophones, to create an equal partnership between what were considered to be the two founding races.

When Pierre Trudeau came to power he adopted many of the recommendations of the commission, creating The Official Languages Act, which meant that:

... francophones could have service in their own language from any federal agency in Canada in jurisdictions where they exceeded 10 percent of the population. The same guarantee applied to English Canadians in Quebec. Opposition leaders supported the legislation, although Progressive Conservative leader Robert Stanfield faced a rebellion from some members who charged that the legislation "stuffed French down the throats" of anglophones.

The Official Languages Act transformed the federal government, where the senior public service now works bilingually and the percentage of francophones in the service roughly equals their percentage in the population. In the 1950s, by contrast, francophones constituted less than 10 percent of the Canadian public service, and the language of work was, with few exceptions, English. ... In Jack Granatstein's apt assessment, its "contributions in detail were not great; what it did do was to help prepare English Canadians for the necessity of change. That was a major achievement, immeasurable as it might be." (2)

But Trudeau did not accept 'biculturalism' as written, but instead; inspired by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he decided to broaden the initiative and create a liberal society that accepted all peoples as equals. This resulted in Canada adopting an official policy of multiculturalism.

In studying many of the groups opposed to bilingualism, more often than not, it was the 'multiculturalism' that bothered them the most. It was just not as easy to articulate in a tolerant society. And throughout Brimelow's book, there is an unmistakable edge to the issue of bilingualism, not lost on the Reform Party.

Read for example Peter Brimelow's words bemoaning the eclipse of Anglo-Saxon hegemony.'At the end of the nineteenth century, belief in the superiority of the Anglo Saxon values ... [was] the most social norm in every English-speaking country ... For WASP supremacists everywhere, however, the twentieth century has been a most distressing experience. (3)

The Alliance for the Preservation of English

According to Wikipedia:

The Alliance for the Preservation of English* in Canada (APEC) was an anti-French and anti-Quebec hate group in Canada, which campaigned against the Canadian government's policy of official bilingualism.The group was formed in 1977 by Irene Hilchie, a government employee who felt that she was being discriminated against in her job because she did not speak French. The group's most famous member, however, was Jock V. Andrew, whose book Bilingual Today, French Tomorrow alleged that bilingualism was part of a government plot to make Canada a unilingually French country ... APEC also worked closely with the Confederation of Regions Party and the Reform Party, two political parties which held similar views about bilingualism and the role of Quebec in Confederation.

In 1989, a small group of APEC members in Brockville trampled the Quebec flag* at a protest, which became one of the catalysts for the 1995 referendum.

Peter Brimelow quotes J.V. (Jock) Andrew in his book The Patriot Game. All were instrumental in drafting the Reform Party's policies toward bilingualism (and of course multiculturalism, which they also opposed).

Footnotes:

*Bob Runciman, former cabinet minister of Mike Harrris, was also a member of APEC. He is one of the most recent patronage senate appointments made by Stephen Harper.

“The Brockville chapter of APEC successfully opposed a petition to introduce French immersion classes in the Leeds and Grenville school district; not that the school board really needed prodding from APEC to turn down French immersion. Bob Runciman, the local MPP, supports APEC and has addressed a meeting of its Brockville chapter ... Runciman has apparently helped whip up the anti-bilingualism sentiment in the area, and [APEC] members claimed 1,400 people have joined the cause in Brockville and 10,000 across the province.” (Kingston Whig-Standard, July 11 1987)

Runciman called bilingualism “a supreme exercise in social engineering" and later in Brockville:

“On a platform behind the train station, a Quebec flag was spread out. About half a dozen demonstrators took turns stomping and spitting on the Fleur-de-lis before it was set ablaze.” (Ottawa Citizen, October 19, 1992)

Sources:

1. Truculent Toews has too much to say about the bilingualism issue, By Lawrence Martin, Globe and Mail, May 7, 2009

2. Just Watch me: The Life of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, By John English, Alfred A. Knopf, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-676-97523-9, Pg. 130

3. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, By Trevor Harrison, University of Toronto Press, 1995, ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6 3 7.

Patriot Games, Wasps, and Ideology: Where it all Began

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

In his book: Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, William Johnson describes Harper's early life growing up in the Toronto suburb of Leaside.

Leaside boasted that it was Ontario's only municipality built entirely according to a pre-designed plan. Many of its streets were curved, some crescents. Stop signs were frequent, discouraging through traffic. The ubiquitous trees and lawns gave a pleasant green look, and the narrow lots each contained a single-family dwelling flanked by a driveway leading up to a small garage. The Harper home, a red-brick two-storey house with a bay window and a small fireplace in the living room, on a lot that was 33 feet wide, and 138 feet deep. It had a tree growing on the front lawn and another tree in the fenced backyard. (1)

It all sounds so Truman Show. A "pre-designed" normal life, with little through traffic to upset the status quo. It could have just as well been a movie set. And with 85% of the residents being of British ancestry, Johnson called it the quintessential WASP middle-class suburb.

85% White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, with no other ethnic group in notable numbers.

And everyone conformed or else.

The Leaside Council was .. preoccupied with forbidding bowling on Sunday, the day the Lord rested. On February 23, 1963, when Stephen was not yet four, the Leaside Council rebuked two local enterprises that had engaged in commercial activity on Sunday. According to the minutes, "The Theatre of Bayview has been opened on Sundays and now Bowlerama in Thorncliffe Park. A letter will be sent informing them of the violation of the Lord's Day Act." But, already, the community was going to the devil. The minutes of Leaside Council for March 1, 1965, reported: "Tennis was added to the list of games permitted on Sundays." (1)

So when Stephen Harper graduated from high school and headed to the University of Toronto, it must have been quite a culture shock. Is this why he dropped out after only 3 months?

It's very difficult to understand just who he really is. I've read every book I could find on the early history of the Reform Party, but since Harper has given very strict instructions that no one is allowed to discuss his early life, it's hard to determine what has made him who he is today. He is a man with many secrets.

So I've started reading some of the authors and books that were said to have inspired his political thought, and it would appear the most important one was The Patriot Game, written in 1986 by Peter Brimelow. According to Johnson, Harper was so enthused after reading it that he went out and bought ten copies to give to friends. He called it a "journey of discovery". (2)

I'm now reading The Patriot Game and already in the author's notes, something has struck me.

"I am a wandering WASP", says Brimelow, but that is not it. He goes on to say:

My qualifications for writing a book about [Canada] [leaves me] vulnerable to attack from hostile natives. The obvious defense is to point out that there is a long tradition of insight by outsiders into a nation's character. ... There are important human reasons why outsiders can see, and even more to the point say, things that insiders cannot. In the course of this book, I am disrespectful of much that Canadians are nowadays encouraged to identify with their nationhood. Indeed, I argue that contemporary Canadian Nationalism is a fraud, designed primarily to benefit particular interest groups in Canada.(3)

He argues that English Canada does not take pride in it's roots.

This raises the question of my attitude to French Canada. One of the symptoms of pathology in Canadian politics is that any expression of affection for English Canada is automatically taken to imply anti-French "bigotry." (3)

Brimelow is indeed an outsider, who may have thought he was visiting an English colony when he arrived here. Because what he doesn't understand is that as a multicultural country, Canadians take pride in their varied roots. We celebrate our Irish heritage, our Scottish heritage, our Indian, Welsh, Bulgarian, Arab, Aboriginal .. and the list goes on.

It is all part of the Canadian mosaic.

But to a young man growing up in a "pre-designed" WASP neighbourhood, where mothers stayed home and raised their children, and everyone attended the same Church, and no one worked on Sundays; Brimelow's words must have resonated. They validated his thoughts. During the time of a rights revolution, when everyone was demanding equality, he could now justify his objections.

And when he spoke to an American audience, disdainfully calling Canada a 'Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term', he was speaking as an outsider. And when we were 'a second tier socialist country boasting ever more loudly of our second rate status', it wasn't his country he was speaking of.

Too many through streets. Too much access.

Peter Brimelow would continue his campaign of 'English' pride, and now refers to himself as a paleo-conservative, what most of us once referred to as a white nationalist. He argues that white people should be proud of their race, as if skin colour denotes a common heritage.

And this sentiment would be fundamental to the Reform Party, when Stephen Harper drafted their policy and worked behind the scenes to launch the movement.

... the notion that some Reform members may have strong Anglo-Saxon nativist inclinations is supported by more than merely the background profiles of its leaders, members and supporters. It is supported also by the words of many of its ideological mentors who depict Canada as not only historically an Anglo-Saxon country but also part of a wider Anglo-Saxon culture that is in need of recognizing and re-establishing its heritage.

Read for example Peter Brimelow's words bemoaning the eclipse of Anglo-Saxon hegemony.'At the end of the nineteenth century, belief in the superiority of the Anglo Saxon values ... [was] the most social norm in every English-speaking country ... For WASP supremacists everywhere, however, the twentieth century has been a most distressing experience. (4)

It was also through Brimelow and The Patriot Game, that Harper refined his visceral hatred for the Liberal Party. In fact the book was based on that contempt. Brimelow blamed the Liberals for fixating on federalism and prolonging "Trudeau's fantasy" of blending Anglophones and Francophones into one bilingual whole.

He refers to it as "Liberal ideology" and the name Patriot Game came from this "radical mutation".

And throughout his book he capitalizes Liberal in his diatribes, obviously meaning the party and not simply liberalism as a whole.

So maybe by reading this book I can get a better idea of what this prime minister has in store for us. So far, it's almost frightening, how clearly Harper's thoughts came from this Brit. The wandering WASP, viewing Canada as an outsider. An outsider who thinks we should be acting more like a British Colony than the mixed up multicultural mess of a wonderful nation that we are.

Continuation:

Patriot Game and Bilingualism: A God That Failed?

Patriot Game and the Federation of Founding Peoples

Patriot Game: Flags, Anthems and History

Patriot Game and the Committee for an Independent Canada

The Patriot Game: Western Separation

The Patriot Game: The Charter of Rights

Sources:

1. Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, McClelland & Stewart, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3, Pg. 5-6

2. Johnson, 2005, Pg. 52

3. The Patriot Game: National Dreams and Political Realities, By Peter Brimelow, Key Porter Books, 1986, ISBN: 1-55013-001-3, Pg. 1

4. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, By Trevor Harrison, University of Toronto Press, 1995, ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6 3 7.

The Politics of Hate: Where Will it Lead?

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status, led by a second-world strongman appropriately suited for the task." Stephen Harper (1)

A friend just loaned me Harperland, and in the first chapter there was something that hit me.

It wasn't the revelation that Stephen Harper is a "different Conservative", with no ties to the party of Sir John A. or John Diefenbaker. I already knew that, though I think it was an important statement to make for those who vote for Harper's party believing that they are Tories. This was more of a hostile takeover of the Progressive Conservatives by the Reform-Alliance movement.

As Martin says:

The merger was a ruse of sorts. This was no equal partnership. The merged party had five times as many Alliance MPs as old Tory ones. In the election before this merger, the Alliance Party had won sixty-six seats, the Tories only twelve. Before long, Harper won the leadership of the new party, making the domination of the Reform-Alliance wing even more pronounced. This wasn't so much a merger as the Alliance Party's annexing of an auxiliary group. (2)

But what struck me was his reference to Stephen Harper hating Liberals. Not competing with, but a deep-rooted visceral hatred. Where I believe Martin is a bit misguided though, is in his belief that Harper simply hates the Liberal Party. It's much more fundamental than that.

Stephen Harper hates liberalism in all of it's manifestations, including the former Progressive Conservatives. What the right-wing Brits, especially Margaret Thatcher, would refer to as "wets", he called "pink liberals".

The opening quote referring to Canada as a "second-tier socialistic country" is seen often, but usually ends at "status". However, I think the rest of that quote is more important, as he refers to Jean Chretien as a "second-world strongman".

The term "second-world" was usually applied to the Soviet Union or Communist Block, though it's not a term used much since the Cold War. But it does reveal the Harper mindset.

I once thought that he played the 'socialist' card like a silent dog whistle to his base, but I now believe that he himself, is personally driven by a fear or loathing, perhaps both, of Communism. And it may go back to the time before the Reform Party was established, but accelerated after his involvement with men like Peter Worthington, Lubor Zinc, Peter Brimelow and David Somerville.

Worthington was obsessed with the belief that Pierre Trudeau was a Communist. Guy Giorno fell under his spell after hearing him do a radio interview, and it helped to impact his political thought. Stephen Harper joined the Northern Foundation (3) which was not only anti-communist but also anti-gay, anti-abortion and pro-Anglo; when Worthington was a member and Peter Brimelow a regular speaker at their conventions. (4)

Lubor Zinc was also a member of the 'Trudeau is a Communist' crowd, a Reform Party member and the man who coined the term 'Trudeaumania', though he meant for it to have a negative connotation.

Peter Brimelow calls himself a Paleoconservative and his book The Patriot Game so inspired Stephen Harper that he went out and bought 10 copies to give to friends. (5)

Brimelow also detested liberalism and says of Trudeau that while he espoused the notion that the individual must be protected from the State, he was alarmed when he also noted that the "State has to intervene to protect the weak members of society, minorities, those who need protection from the State against stronger forces than themselves." (6) And of course this was reflected in the Charter of Rights.

All anathema to the far right.

And then there's David Sommerville, the man that Stephen Harper replaced as president of the National Citizens Coalition. When Ernest Manning and Colin Brown first decided to create this right-wing advocacy group, they chose him to head it up, inspired by Somerville's anti-communist columns, and his book Trudeau Revealed was a Bible to the 'Cold War' crowd.

At the time, these men were considered to be crackpots by most Canadians, viewed under the shadow of McCarthyism, but to an impressionable young man just entering active politics, they were his mentors and they would have used terms like "second-world strongman".

So while Martin agrees that Harper is a different conservative and a different political figure, driven by hate, and a desire to destroy the Liberal Party (aka liberalism), he also reminds us:

Given that party's domination of the power structure through time, the Liberal order and the Canadian order were almost one and the same. To take down one was to take down the other. (7)

He had already destroyed the Tories as "pink liberals" or "wets", by swallowing them whole, and is determined to anhilate the Liberals.

The only thing standing in his way then would be us.

Sources:

1. "It is time to seek a new relationship with Canada", By Stephen Harper, December 12th, 2000

2. Harperland:The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 2

3. Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper demonstrates continued ultra right wing affiliations by blocking pro social justice Toronto candidate, by Dr. Debra Chin, The Canadian

4. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, By Trevor Harrison, University of Toronto Press, 1995, ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6 3, Pg. 122

5. Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, McClelland & Stewart, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3, Pg. 52

6. The Patriot Game: National Dreams and Political Realities, By Peter Brimelow, Key Porter Books, 1986, ISBN: 1-55013-001-3, Pg. 49

7. Martin, 2010, Pg. 6