Lies Become Truths When Enough People Believe Them

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

"Those who tell the stories rule society." — Plato

One of the books I'm currently reading is Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, a collection of reflections on the 2008 coalition attempt and Stephen Harper's reaction to it.

One of the book's contributors, Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Toronto, Lorraine E. Weinrib, discusses the lies used to justify the resulting prorogation, and how they became believable, simply because the government refused to address anything that might contradict their version of events.

In this way they were able to persuade the Canadian public of the truth of the lie. In religion mythology becomes fact when enough people believe in it, and the same can be said for history and politics.

Weinrib focuses on John Baird, but includes much of the false information that was never corrected, not the least of which was the fact that this was not a Coup d'Etat as the Conservatives claimed, but a legitimate action in a functioning Parliamentary democracy.

The near collapse of a minority government is not a significant event. The circumstances that surround this near collapse, however, signal that there may be further serious repercussions arising from the events of December 2008 to January 2009 ... these events reflect a pattern of disregard by Harper of a number of deeply embedded constitutional principles and practices. Each individual element poses cause for concern. The accumulation suggests that Harper is capable of precipitating a serious constitutional crisis to avert responsibility for his own mistakes and miscalculations and to stay in power. (1)

And after getting away with this, he has continued to challenge our constitution. Another self-serving prorogation, refusal to hand over documents relating to the torture of Afghan detainees, killing a climate change bill that already had the approval of Parliament and his latest attempt to extend the war in Afghanistan, without debate.

But back to the 2008 contrived "crisis".

When talking to Don Newman, John Baird suggested that the acceptance of the throne speech was proof that his government had the confidence of the House, but as Newman reminds him (video below): "You only have the confidence of the House until you lose the confidence of the House". Baird simply ignores this.

Weinrib wonders how far they were willing to take this. Would they replace the Governor General with one more compliant, if their request was denied? We have since learned from Lawrence Martin's book, Harperland, that they were actually going to go to the Queen if they didn't get their wish.

Ultimately their success was sticking to their lies, and repeating them often enough until they became fact. The fact that they weren't fact, but fiction, was not important.

And one of these was the notion that the coalition was with separatists who would have veto powers. But as Weinrib reminds us:

Harper had engaged in a similar coalition-building plan to oust the Liberal minority government of Paul Martin, a plan that included a signed agreement with the leaders of the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois. The taint of support from a separatist party didn't seem to bother Harper when that support worked in his favour.

Every time this was brought up, the Conservatives changed the subject. They didn't have to call it a lie, simply because they couldn't. There was irrefutable proof. But by screaming "separatist" loud enough, they were able to keep the "truth" from the conversation.

I remember being particularly upset, when Gilles Duceppe brought in a letter showing that 2004 was not the first time those from the government side of the House had approached him about forming a coalition. In 2000, when Stockwell Day was leader of the Alliance, he presented a letter of intent, should Jean Chretien win with a minority. (he was returned with a majority)

Day not only denied that he had done such a thing, but stated that it was not in his DNA to join forces with separatists. He must have chuckled to himself, given that his father, a contributor to that DNA, belonged to the Western separatist party of Doug Christie, the Western Canada Concept. And in fact the Sr. Day ran as a WCC candidate against Tommy Douglas in 1972 (2).

But little of that came out in the media. Headlines were filled with "coup", "socialists" and "separatists". A few tried to correct the disinformation, but they were mostly ignored.

Harper played on the ignorance of the Canadian public as to the constitutional framework within which our parliamentary system of government operates. Polling at the time confirmed the public's lack of familiarity with the working of a minority government, in particular the governor general's role in the changing of governments. It is a matter of concern that a prime minister would feel comfortable exploiting, indeed encouraging, views that were inconsistent with some of the most basic features of our system of government. (1)

The hyperbole also had an impact on those already on the fringe. I watched a video on YouTube by a citizen who called this an attempt by Marxists to take over Canada. And Dennis Pilon, a political scientist at the University of Victoria, stated that : "the actions of this prime minister are coming dangerously close to inciting mob rule." (3)

There has been much discussion over whether or not Michaëlle Jean did the right thing, or whether the coalition would have provided a stable government. But that is not the issue here.

What is at issue is that our prime minister deliberately perpetrated a fraud to save his job. Repeating Weinrib: "... these events reflect a pattern of disregard by Harper of a number of deeply embedded constitutional principles and practices. Each individual element poses cause for concern. The accumulation suggests that Harper is capable of precipitating a serious constitutional crisis to avert responsibility for his own mistakes and miscalculations and to stay in power." (1)

Allan Gregg in his review of Martin's Harperland, shares this concern.

Even though it has become a cliché to refer to Stephen Harper as a control freak, the power of Martin’s argument hits you like a jackhammer. Those of us who follow these things quite closely remember a number of occasions when the Conservatives have found themselves in hot water because of allegations of abuse of power, but we tend to forget just how frequently this has occurred ... In total, Martin cites some 70-odd cases of these types of abuse and the combined effect is almost dizzying. (4)

It's the accumulation and frequency of the assaults on our democracy that are at issue, along with the ease with which this government can lie to us.

"The elite must, in a word, lie to the masses; the elite must manipulate them—arguably for their own good. The elite employ "noble lies," lies purporting to affirm God, justice, the good. ... These lies are necessary in order to keep the ignorant masses in line." - Leo Strauss

Sources:

1. Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, Edited by Peter H. Russell and Lorne Sossin, University of Toronto Press, 2009, ISBN: 978-1-4426-1014-9. 2, Pg. 65-68

2. Stockwell Day - Early life and career: Encyclopedia II

3. Losing Confidence: Power, Politics and Crisis in Canadians Democracy, By Elizabeth May, McClelland & Stewart, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-7710-5760-1, Pg. 226

4. Negative Statesmanship: Stephen Harper may end up being known for what he does not do more than for what he does, By Allan Gregg, Literary Review

Implosions Help Jason Kenney's Christian Coalition to Explode

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

By 1996, Preston Manning was in trouble. The tight control he attempted to keep over his caucus was crumbling and the party was rife with dissent. Early party members who feared that extremism would prevail, were being proven to be correct, and yet absolutely nothing was being done to curtail it.

Manning's anti-government rhetoric that inspired Newt Gingrich, may have helped in his political success, but at some point you've got to prove that you can actually govern if given the opportunity. But instead the Reformers were only proving that the opposite was true.

Upon his retirement, Don Newman, former Senior Parliamentary Editor for CBC, was asked about the toxicity of politics today, and when it changed. Calling it the "politics of suspicion", he stated:

Of course, Parliament worked because elections in those periods also produced majority governments and sooner or later majority governments get their way. But it also worked because MPs made it function. They seemed to understand that they were there to get things done. That is not the case today ... The fraying was not — it might surprise some I'm sure — the fault of the Bloc Québécois who, while preaching their own view of both history and the future, always treated Parliament with respect. Rather it came from the Reform Party led by Preston Manning. (1)

His comments wouldn't come as much of a surprise to anyone following politics then, including many of the early Reform Party members. They saw what was supposed to be a populist party turning into a totalitarian regime:

"Dissidents in the party ... openly claimed that the party was being run by a 'Calgary clique' "A lot of people are frustrated - we're seeing the inevitable erosion of grassroots politics into a smaller more domineering group at the top...' " One of the key members was thirty-two-year-old Stephen Harper, a founding member of the party, it's Chief Policy Officer, and the man who became known as Manning's chief political lieutenant. (2)

In fact he was challenged for the leadership in the beginning, because many feared that something like that would happen.

Manning left nothing to chance. He was determined to defeat his only opponent, Stan Roberts, who was not only more charismatic and eloquent but better known and better equipped financially. Reluctant to enter the race, Roberts was finally convinced by [Francis] Winspear that a leader-ship contest was necessary to ensure the legitimacy of the outcome. Roberts also was becoming increasingly concerned about the direction the fledgling party's supporters appeared to be taking, fearing it was becoming too extreme on both economic and social policies. He also was greatly concerned that the anti-French sentiment of some of the delegates in Vancouver was being given free rein. (3)

But a dirty trick would secure his leadership bid.

The hall was filled with his people when, nearly a day ahead of schedule, Manning urged the organizers — including the chair, staunch Manning supporter Diane Ablonczy — to cut off registration of delegates. When Francis Winspear took the floor to protest this action, moving a motion to reopen registration and noting many of Roberts's delegates had not yet arrived, he was soundly, defeated by the Manning forces. Astonished and shaken, Winspear left along with a furious Roberts, who later withdrew his name.

In an angry press conference the next day, Roberts not only accused the organizers, and implicitly Manning, of "compromising" the new party's commitment to "honesty and integrity," but also alluded to a significant sum of missing funds and accused Manning's supporters — almost all of whom were from Alberta — of being "a bunch of right-wing Christian fanatics." (3)

They were being referred to as "a bunch of right-wing Christian fanatics" even before the real fanatics joined them. A great deal is made over how the opposition is "anti-Christian", but accusations of religious fanaticism were more common within the party itself.

Enough was Enough

Preston Manning was having major troubles with his caucus ... The carefully orchestrated and near-absolute control of the party he had exercised for nearly ten years began to dissolve ... but his unsuccessful attempts to rein in his caucus were already widely known and ridiculed long before then. .. The conflicts with Stephen Harper were not the only problems Manning encountered with the leading lights of his caucus. For many of his critics, these conflicts were further proof of Manning's inability to tolerate dissent and his need to be the only one in charge. (4)

Harper would leave Reform before the next election to join the National Citizens Coalition. There has been a lot of speculation as to why. Did he feel he could do more to help the movement on the outside? The NCC spent a great deal of money advancing Reform during the 1997 election.

Or was it because of a battle for control with Preston Manning? I suppose it could be either. However, the final showdown came about when he went public with accusations that Preston Manning was abusing his expense account and the party sent him a four page letter (4) criticizing his actions. I suspect that was the trigger, because Stephen Harper never could stand criticism.

However, he wasn't the only one to exit stage left (or right?)

The cases of Jan Brown and Jim Silye were typical. Among the most progressive and cosmopolitan of the Reform MPs, they also became known for their ability to shine in Question Period. Both were urban moderates and excellent communicators who developed positive relationships with the media and, in the case of Brown, a degree of national name recognition. Both were often unhappy with the "racist redneck" element in their caucus, and endured much criticism from other caucus members for their continuing attempts to broaden the base of Reform policies.

By early 1996, Brown, Silye and Stephen Harper were all reportedly reconsidering their future with the party. When Art Hanger announced he was going on a "fact-finding mission" to Singapore to explore the use of caning and other forms of corporal punishment in the penal system, most Canadians were astonished and amused. Brown and Silye were humiliated, and said so publicly. "I don't want to be campaigning for caning and whipping," said Silye, a millionaire Calgary businessman and former Stampeders star. Brown, another Calgary MP and a corporate consultant with two degrees, agreed with Silye and suggested Reform would lose mainstream voters if it did not shake its extremist image. For their comments the two were raked over the coals at a lengthy caucus meeting in which one MP after another took the floor to lambaste the two, accusing them of betrayal ...

Brown left the three-hour meeting "ashen-faced," escorted by Rick Anderson past the waiting media and saying nothing at the time. Silye stayed to speak with reporters but broke down midway through his mea culpa, in which he apologized to his colleagues for hurting their feelings. Later, however, Brown indicated she did not plan to apologize and refused to be a scapegoat for the party's evident difficulties ... In the end this only delayed the inevitable. The split between the moderates and the rednecks was serious and apparently irreparable. (4)

Brown left the party, citing the rampant racism of the "God Squad" and stating that there was no room for women in this party. Eight others followed suit, all moderates, paving the way for new, even more radical members to take their place.

Jason Kenney and More So-Cons on Steroids

Barely two months later, during debate on the government's proposed amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act protecting homosexuals from discrimination*, the Reform caucus erupted again. When B.C. MP Bob Ringma** told reporters he would move gay or visible-minority employees to the back of the shop if they were costing him business, colleagues such as Dave Chatters, Leon Benoit and Myron Thompson agreed. In fact, Thompson went further, saying "If they were costing me business, I would remove them." Asked for her comments, Jan Brown replied, "I'm so saddened by this," while another moderate, Ian McClelland, suggested Ringma should apologize and promise not to say such things in the future.

Sensing the whole affair was getting completely out of control, Preston Manning decided to come down hard on the miscreants. His decision proved to be the final straw. Not only did he suspend Ringma and Chatters from the caucus for six weeks for their alleged deviation from party policy, but he dealt the same penalty to Brown for publicly criticizing her colleagues. Thompson and Benoit, meanwhile, were unaffected, as was MP Grant Hill, a doctor who said the bill "will produce and allow the promotion of an unhealthy lifestyle," a comment which drew immediate and public disapproval from another Reform MP and the only other doctor in the caucus, Keith Martin.*** (4)

It was this amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act protecting homosexuals from discrimination, that encouraged the formation of the Canada Family Action Coalition by Roy Beyer and Brian Rushfeldt, and the Canadian Christian Coalition, which included Jason Kenney. Both groups were inspired by a Washington Conference of their American counterpart, where the speaker was Ralph Reed.

And with so many new openings in the Reform Party, these motivated fundamentalists saw an opportunity to take control and join the other "extremists" from the "God Squad".

Jason Kenny himself took Jan Brown's seat. Rob Anders, whose nomination was brought forward by Hermina Dykxhoorn (5), president of the Alberta Federation of Women United for Families, an anti-women's rights group and affiliate of REAL Women of Canada, claimed Stephen Harper's.

Other hand selected social conservatives included Maurice Vellacott, Gerry Ritz and Jim Pankiw, who would later get into trouble after writing a letter to the president of the University of Saskatchewan condemning their affirmative action policies and comparing them to the KKK.

Following the Dec. 20, 1999 signing of an agreement between the U of S and the provincial government forming a partnership to work to increase the number of aboriginal people in the University’s workforce, Saskatoon-Humboldt Reform MP Jim Pankiw wrote a letter to U of S Pres. Peter MacKinnon and Saskatchewan Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Jack Hillson condemning the move. Pankiw said it smacked of racism and bigotry, and resembled the former segregationist policies of the southern United States. He said proponents of the agreement could be seen as "modern-day Klansmen". (6)

But besides the influx of fundamentalists, this was also a period that saw an enormous number of non-profit groups emerge, that would back up the agenda, including the Civitas Society. This group was founded by William Gairdner, early Reform Party member, and the hierarchy includes many other far-right Harper supporters: David Frum, former speechwriter of George W. Bush, Link Byfield, Ezra Levant and of course, Jason Kenney.

There was an attempt by some in the party to combat this infiltration of religious extremists, including Nancy Branscombe.

Nancy Branscombe was not successful as the Reform candidate for Peterborough during the 1997 federal election. In response to the CLC election questionnaire,he indicated that she considered herself to be pro-choice, did not oppose the sale and listing of the abortion drug RU-486 and supported legalized doctor-assisted suicide. During that election she was also the Reform party's organizer for 23 Ontario ridings and became known by the pro-life community for her intense social liberal views. Branscombe was one of the party chiefs who forced the removal of a reform candidate's campaign manager simply because the manager was pro-life. (7)

And when she attempted again in 2000, the so-con infrastructure was in place and they took immediate action:

An anonymously published pamphlet titled "Who is Nancy Branscombe?" was mailed to some Alliance members and handed out at the nomination meeting. Among other things the pamphlet claimed:

- "Nancy states she stands for strengthening the traditional family, yet she refers to herself as a feminist and openly supports the killing of unborn children".

- "Many members report that she has demoralized the riding association, manipulating the membership lists to ensure her control."

- "She has repeatedly dishonoured herself, the people she represents and her party with crude, off-colour comments".

In the end Branscombe lost the October 21 nomination by a wide margin of 970 to 555. (7)

These people are now in control and the late Stan Robert's predictions of "a bunch of right-wing Christian fanatics" taking over, have materialized.

Footnotes:

*Stephen Harper voted against the motion and would later say that Bill C-38 to redefine marriage would prevent religious schools from firing gays and lesbians if it was discovered that they were in a same-sex marriage. (7)

**Ringma repeated his remarks at the next caucus meeting and received a standing ovation.

***Keith Martin is now a Liberal MP

Sources:

1. Stephen Harper and the politics of suspicion, By Don Newman, CBC News, November 19, 2009

2. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, by Murray Dobbin, Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 121-122

3. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 295-296

4. Jeffrey, 1999, Pg. 318-319

5. Hold your fire, National Post Thursday, July 03, 2003

6. In response to Pankiw’s attack letter, Pres. says no Aboriginal hiring quotas". On Campus News. University of Saskatchewan. January 21, 2000.

7. CA Parachute Candidate Nancy Branscombe Severely Criticized, LifeSite News, November 9, 2000

8. Harper’s speech makes case for firing gay people … where does Conservative leader stand? Saskatchewan Federation of Labour, February 17, 2005

The Christian Coalition and Jason Kenney Help to Create So-Cons on Steroids

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

James Egan and John Norris Nesbit, were a gay couple who had been in a conjugal relationship since 1948. Their challenge to the courts over the definition of a spouse would pave the way for not only gay rights but equal marriage.

The Old Age Security Act in Canada, provides that a spouse of a pensioner may receive a spousal allowance should their combined income fall below a certain amount. So when Nesbit reached 65, fitting the definition, he applied to the Department of National Health and Welfare for a spousal allowance. However, he was refused on the basis that spouse, defined in section 2 of Old Age Security Act, did not include a member of the same sex.

So Egan and Nesbit delivered a motion for a declaration of unconstitutionality to the Federal Court of Canada alleging that the definition of "spouse" under the Old Age Security Act constituted an infringement of their right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law, entrenched in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Though they were refused by the trial judge and their case was turned down for an appeal, they took the matter to the Supreme Court, who in 1995 agreed, and the two men were granted the supplement. (1)

As a result of this decision, the Canadian government amended the Canadian Human Rights Act to explicitly include sexual orientation as one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.

This inclusion of sexual orientation in the Act was an express declaration by Parliament that gay and lesbian Canadians are entitled to "an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives they are able and wish to have..." (Section 2). The Canadian Human Rights Commission , which is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Act, provides further information about human rights and sexual orientation. (2)

This decision angered many fundamentalist Christians, who feared that legitimizing same-sex marriage would be the next step. Two of them were Brian Rushfeldt and Roy Beyer, pastors of Victory church. Since neither were ordained ministers, they decided to take a correspondence course at Charles McVety's Canada Christian College, but the change in the Constitution to include gay rights, changed their priorities, and they decided to:

... drop everything and build a grassroots political force to demand the restoration of biblical principles to government. At Victory headquarters, their boss arranged for them to fly to Washington for a tutorial from the reigning expert on evangelical organizing, Ralph Reed, the Georgia wunderkind whom Pat Robertson had chosen to build the Christian Coalition. (3)

Also in attendance were Jason Kenney and Don Spratt, the man who would create the Canadian Christian Coalition, based on the techniques used by Reed.

Years earlier, Reed had confided to a reporter that stealth was essential* to his modus operandi. "I want to be invisible," he said. "I do guerrilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night." Warming to the metaphor, he boasted, "You don't know it's over until you're in a body You don't know until election night." Nobody had paid much attention until 1994 when Reed realized that scenario on a national scale. The mainstream media woke up on election night to discover that the Christian Coalition had been instrumental in engineering a Republican takeover of both houses of Congress for the first time in forty-two years. (3)

Beyer and Rushfeldt were also inspired by Reed and they too started a Christian grassroots movement: the Canada Family Action Coalition.

Canada Family Action (CFA) was founded in early 1997 with a vision to see Christian principles applied in Canadian law, politics and society. We provide strategies, networking, training and tools to enable ordinary Canadians to influence government, education, media, and culture.

We work with individuals, churches, other like-minded groups, and businesses to provide a unified thrust in promoting the Christian worldview in government, the media and society. Presently we have over 40,000 individuals who are active supporters, plus hundreds of thousands of others who participate in various major campaigns through phone calls to MPs , petitions, brochure distribution and letters to editors of newspapers. Some even host meetings in their area on issues and invite speakers. Our Mission: To mobilize, train and activate Canadians in defending and promoting Christian principles in Canadian society. (4)

They immediately went into action, when Alberta premier Ralph Klein, called an election, and

... scrambled to put together a homegrown version of a tool that Reed had developed for churches, a political report card aimed at pinpointing acceptable social-conservative candidates without taking a partisan stand that would jeopardize their charitable tax status. Those voters' guides graded lawmakers on how they had cast their ballots on bills close to theo-con hearts. Beyer and Rushfeldt sent out their first edition to ninety thousand Alberta households in what turned out to be a dry run for the federal election that was called months later.

In a burst of enthusiasm, they ordered half a million copies of their new national guides, confident that evangelical corporate leaders would leap at the opportunity to underwrite such an innovative scheme, but Beyer came back from his first fundraising tour empty-handed. "Up here," Rushfeldt says, "the Christian community had bought into this idea that politics and religion don't mix." (3)

(The Canadian Christian Coalition fared much better for the Reform Party).

Jason Kenney and Don Spratt

Reproductive rights rights in Canada took a giant step backward in January when a provincial court judge gutted the British Columbia's government's new Access to Abortion Services Act, which had established protest-free "bubble zones" around abortion clinics and doctors' homes and offices. The ruling came at a time when the previously disorganized Religious Right in this province was congealing into a B.C. wing of the newly formed Christian Coalition of Canada, inspired by the politically influential Christian Coalition in the U.S. ... a formidable lobbying force in American politics, installing its anti-choice, anti-gay agenda and candidates at all levels of government, from school boards to Congress.

The B.C. chapter is headed up by Operation Rescue activist Don Spratt ... "Advisors" to the new CCC reportedly include Ted and Link Byfield (owners of the ultra-conservative B.C. Report and Alberta Report magazines), Jason Kenny (head of the Canadian Taxpayers Association), and Alex Parachin (head of the Christian Broadcasting Associates in Toronto, the Canadian branch plant of Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network). (5)

As mentioned, Don Spratt was then the leader of Rescue Canada (also known as Operation Rescue), a position he held in "the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, for which he was repeatedly jailed for “contempt of court” for obeying God rather than man ... "(6)

His group fared better than Canada Family Action, perhaps because of the connections of people like Bill Vander Zalm, Jason Kenney and the Reform Party.

The Christian Coalition has established roots in British Columbia, Canada ... Bill Vander Zalm, a former British Columbia premier and one of the more than 20 directors ... announced that the group plans to distribute "voter guides" in churches around the province in any upcoming election.

Vander Zalm notes that the group is already organized in the Okanagan, the Fraser Valley and the Lower Mainland. Vander Zalm has associated in the past with the right-wing Reform Party and the Family Coalition Party of B.C. The B.C. chapter formed after several dozen Canadians attended the fall 1995 Christian Coalition convention in the U.S.

Don Spratt, a member of Operation Rescue, leads the B.C. chapter. Other advisors to the group include Ted and Link Byfield of the right-wing Alberta Report and B.C. Report magazines, Alex Parachin, head of the Canadian branch of Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network and Jason Kenny, head of the Canadian Taxpayers Association.

Jim Garrow, the Ontario-based leader of the Christian Coalition of Canada told reporters that the group will seek allies in organizations such as the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, REAL Women and the Canadian branch of James Dobson's Focus on the Family. (7)

They would build up such a network of think-tanks and non-profit groups, that I'm beginning to feel the way that Lucy did in the following clip. You start off slow, tracking the money and the players, and then they speed up the conveyor belt and you're stuffing names in your hat so they don't fall off your radar.




I'm going to do a list and the end of this chapter, of which, mostly faith-based groups, promoted which candidates for the 1997 election, as well as future ones; but it's pretty clear that this party has been taken over by the Religious Right. I don't think Stephen Harper could stop them now even if he wanted to.

So why should this matter? Well, as Canadian author and activist, Maude Barlow explains:

Sincerely held religious beliefs accompanied by strict morality are obviously not a bad thing, and any Church is entitled to make its own rules about who, for example, it will choose to marry under Church auspices. (Some may deplore a lack of tolerance for alternative lifestyles displayed by particular denominations, but the freedom of religion means that people are free to make such choices.) Civil rights are another matter. Increasingly, however, the sometimes narrow convictions of Christian sects are being exploited by politicians in both Canada and the, United States (where the tendency is highly developed) to introduce into the political realm a degree of inflexibility, passion, and rancour that tend to undermine the spirit of accommodation and tolerance that is essential to the functioning of a democratic society. Our civil liberties are threatened as a result. The point is that people are free to believe what they want privately, but if they enter politics to inflict those beliefs on others, then their religious concerns become fair game.

Intolerance for gays, passionate opposition to abortion and a handful of other "hot-button" issues are pushing a number of born-again Canadians to identity with the evangelical, right-wing views of American fundamentalist groups such as Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition, two of the groups that helped put George W Bush in the White House. (7)

Less than 11% of Canadians are evangelical, and of that probably less than half are of the extreme variety. Yet they now make up more than half of the Harper caucus. But what's worse, they have also been infiltrated into all levels of the public sphere, and are now in the courts, the senate and even the civil service.

If this government is in power much longer, the majority of Canadians risk losing their voice, and all decisions made will be contrary to Canadian beliefs and Canadian values.**

Next: Implosions Help Jason Kenney's Christian Coalition to Explode

Footnotes:

*Stephen Harper would later also adopt Reed's strategy: "The state should take a more activist role in policing social norms and values ... To achieve this goal, social and economic conservatives must reunite as they have in the U.S., where evangelical Christians and business rule in an unholy alliance. Red Tories must be jettisoned from the party ... Movement towards the goal must be "incremental, so the public won't be spooked." Stephen Harper (8)

** "Westerners, but especially Albertans, founded the Reform/Alliance to get "in" to Canada. The rest of the country has responded by telling us in no uncertain terms that we do not share their 'Canadian values.' Fine. Let us build a society on Alberta values." Stephen Harper

Sources:

1. Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513, May 25, 1995

2. Sexual Orientation and Human Rights, Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada

3. The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada, By: Marci McDonald, Random House Canada, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-307-35646-8 3, Pg. 69-70

4. Canada Family Action, Mission/Vision Statement, Accessed June 25, 2010

5. The Christian Coalition Comes to Canada, by Kim Goldberg, The Albion Monitor, May 5, 1996

6. For Truth, Life and Liberty, DonSpratt.org

7. Too Close for Comfort: Canada's Future Within Fortress North America, By Maude Barlow, McClelland & Stewart Ltd., 2005, ISBN: 0-7710-1088-5, Pg. 24

8. Harper, Bush Share Roots in Controversial Philosophy: Close advisers schooled in 'the noble lie' and 'regime change', By Donald Gutstein, The Tyee, November 29, 2005

Jason Kenney, Reformers and Republicans Continued

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

In 1993, the Reform Party had it's first big electoral success, winning 52 seats, all but one from the West, including the seat of Stephen Harper, with the help of a $50,000.00 campaign against his opponent and former boss, Jim Hawkes, paid for by the National Citizens Coalition.

The Reformers ran on a platform of anti-government, anti-Ottawa.

Having a clear critical dynamic, focused on the corrupt Ottawa establishment, was of the first importance to Reform's recent success. In this, as in so many other ways, this party has a similar focus to the United States Republican Party in its present mood ... Part of its appeal is to anti-Quebecois sentiment "let Quebec either secede", Reform says in effect, "or, preferably, stay in Canada but without any of the special privileges it seeks." Outside Quebec this message is extremely popular. It might be noted that Reform did not bother to run candidates in Quebec. (1)

Other policies that appealed to many in the West included:

- Giving over to the private sector as many functions as possible (including Petro Canada and Canada Post, for example). Government would manage any remaining publicly-funded enterprises, but not operate them. It would cut at least 25 per cent off subsidies to Crown corporations like the CBC.

- The government should have no role in job-creation apart from clearing obstacles for the private sector.

- "The treatment of every motion in most of our legislatures and Parliaments as confidence motions

- Giving voters the right to recall their MP if the MP fails to represent their views adequately. "So you don't trust politicians?", Manning asked during the campaign. "Here is our money-back guarantee: we'll put the power in your hands to fire your elected MP." Recall is the Party's single most popular policy plank, according to its direct-mail surveys, and certainly its most constitutionally radical, and one may expect it to be implemented should Reform win the next Canadian elections. As the Party says in its advertising literature, "Recall will obligate MPs to listen to their constituents between elections." (This one was soon abandoned when his own party wanted to recall him)

- Cancelling government subsidies for special-interest groups.

- Pulling the government out of unemployment insurance, and letting employers and employees fund it themselves. This policy reflects that same concern shown by the Republicans for making people more responsible for themselves.

- In general, allowing each person to be the major provider of his or her own basic needs, including most social services and medicare. This means, in effect, that more social services should be user-pay, and that relatives and private charities should bear more of the welfare burden.

- Slashing immigration.

- Not giving any government seal of approval to homosexuals, abortion-on-demand, and political correctness generally. "Reform", Manning told one rally, "refuses, and continues to refuse, to be intimidated by the extremists of political correctness".

- Abolish the policy of official bilingualism. (1)

Throughout the campaign, which became increasingly an attack on Ottawa and the federal government, often making them just one Montana Freeman away from a stand-off, there were several people south of the border who were paying attention, including Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist.

"Indeed, Canadians became exporters of neo-con innovation in the 1990s. 'I would say Margaret Thatcher and Mr. [Preston] Manning are the two non-Americans we learned most from'', said U.S. Republican House Speaker, Newt Gingrich in 1995.'I know him [Preston Manning] because I watched all of his commercials. We developed our platform from watching his campaign.' (2)

And using the techniques and talking points honed by Manning and the Reformers, Gingrich's team created their "Contract with America".

It is thus not difficult to understand why the Republicans, in the run-up to the mid-term elections of last November, made such a point of dissociating themselves from Washington and identifying instead with popular sentiment on such issues. The dividends of defining Washington as the source of false values are seen in the results of the elections, which gave the Republicans control of both the House and the Senate.

In the months preceding these elections, the House Republican leadership under the direction of Newt Gingrich developed their "Contract with America", a promise to introduce, in the first ninety days of a Republican-dominated House and Senate, a set of ten bills based on their careful reading of what a majority of Americans were signalling they wanted. (1)

And several of these bills were adopted right from Manning's play book, including: a "Personal Responsibility Act", drastic cuts to social programs and privatization of several services. And two men who helped to draft this "contract" were Grover Norquist and Frank Luntz.

Norquist, of course is the anti-tax guru who inspired the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and Luntz is the Republican pollster who told Stephen Harper that the best way to get a majority was to stay on message about tax cuts and accountability, and talk hockey every chance he got.

"By February 1994, many Republicans ... were upbeat about their chances of doing well in the mid-term elections scheduled for November ... An optimistic group of members of the House of Representatives met in Salsbury, Maryland, to discuss their platform ..."Overwhelmingly male, middle-aged and white*, with a large contingent from rural and southern states, they could hardly have claimed to be representative of the American people, but they were certainly indicative of the constituency that elected them." (3)

They did win what Newt Gingrich called 'the most shattering one-sided Republican victory since 1946.'

No one disagreed with him. Certainly not Canada's Preston Manning, the leader of the like-minded Reform Party, which a year earlier had taken the fifty odd seats in the federal election. Not only had Manning visited Gingrich for a photo opportunity, but Gingrich now attributed his electoral success to techniques he had learned from Manning and his Reformers. (3)

But the Reform Party also paid attention to something that Gingrich had done:

In this election, the Republicans were closely in tune with prominent conservative media personalities like Rush Limbaugh, a no-holds-barred, technically brilliant and aggressively comic articulator of anti- Washington, anti-elite, pro-mainstream sentiment who appears nightly on national television, and Pat Buchanan, a Congressman and television and radio personality who takes the conservative side on the nightly verbal sparring match, "Crossfire".

More significantly, the Republicans tapped into the nation's religious heartland, gaining the overt support of the powerful Christian groupings which make up the Christian Coalition. The Coalition, while mainly evangelical, embraces a wide spectrum of the devout from Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network, to prominent traditionalist Catholics. According to Ralph Reed, Christian Coalition's executive director, "One of every three voters was someone who attends church regularly, who is socially conservative"**. The Democrats, according to Reed, "badly miscalculated how to handle" this important segment of the electorate, and tried to "marginalize and stereotype these voters and their leaders". (1)

And:

"Amoung these organized religion was clearly uppermost in Gingrich's mind. The role of the evangelicals in assuring Gingrich's victory was far greater than it had been for Reagan. As Rosalind Petchesky points out in an article on anti-feminism and the New Right, this heightened emphasis of moral conservatism in the American neo-conservative movement was unprecedented. It was also producing a situation in which the party's platform was being increasingly designed to meet the requirements of these supporters." (3)

Enter Jason Kenney, who the following year would attend a major convention of the U.S. Christian Coalition, then headed up by Ralph Reed who was hired by Pat Robertson. (4)

... Even more ominous for democratic rights ... is the recent hatching of the B.C. clone of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition. With 1.7 million active members and a $25 million (US) annual budget, the U.S. organization has become a formidable lobbying force in American politics, installing its anti-choice, anti-gay agenda and candidates at all levels of government, from school boards to Congress. The B.C. chapter is headed up by Operation Rescue activist Don Spratt, and claims among its founding board members former B.C. Premier and ardent anti-choicer Bill Vander Zalm ... "Advisors" to the new CCC reportedly include Ted and Link Byfield (owners of the ultra-conservative B.C. Report and Alberta Report magazines), Jason Kenny (head of the Canadian Taxpayers Association) ... (5)

So by the time the next Canadian election rolled around, Jason Kenney and his gang were ready to "become a formidable lobbying force in [Canadian] politics, installing its anti-choice, anti-gay agenda and candidates.

That coming up next.

Footnotes:

"... 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." (5)

** Reform is a mass-base party (110,000 active members, 1993, and rapidly rising) of social conservatives led by an evangelical Christian, Preston Manning. (1)

Sources:

1. Policy from the People:Recent Developments in the USA and Canada, By Philip Ayres, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of The Samuel Griffith Society, April 2, 1995

2. Slumming it at the Rodeo: The Cultural Roots of Canada's Right-Wing Revolution, Gordon Laird, 1998, Douglas & McIntyre, ISBN: 1-55054 627-9, Pref. xiv-xv

3. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 36-37

4. The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada, By: Marci McDonald, Random House Canada, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-307-35646-8 3, Pg. 5

5. The Christian Coalition Comes to Canada, by Kim Goldberg, The Albion Monitor, May 5, 1996

6. 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. 170

Ted Byfield and the Company of the Cross

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

In June of 2003, little more than a year after winning the leadership of the Alliance Party of Canada, Stephen Harper told members of the Civitas Society that he would now be embracing the support of the Christian right in Canada. Looking on with approval was long time mentor, and a founding member of the Reform Party, Ted Byfield.

He had been there in the early days when Harper was first cutting his political teeth and was in attendance when he delivered his "Achieving Economic Justice in Confederation" speech at the opening assembly of the Reform party on October 1, 1987.

In his presentation, Harper recited a litany of western grievances, from Macdonald's National Policy to 'the unlimited appetite of the Welfare State for tax grabs' and 'the special treatment accorded the Province of Quebec' in the form of transfer payments 'paid exclusively by Western Canada.' He then stated his reasons for believing that the existing political parties were incapable of correcting these injustices ... But Harper's comments regarding the Conservative party were the most telling, revealing implicitly where the new party believed its greatest potential support lay:

"... the Mulroney government has shown itself far too willing to back down on the issues that matter to its political base. We must serve notice to the Red Tory leadership that we will provide its Western supporters an option they can desert to en masse should they, for any reason, fail to successfully deliver on [free trade] or any other major initiative of importance to Western Canada. (1)

Manning would call his throwing down of the gauntlet speech the best of the weekend and Stephen Harper would then be named the head of Reform policy, and would serve as Manning's lieutenant. The same role that father Ernest Manning had played for William Aberhart, decades before.

Ted Byfeld had played an integral role in the formation of the party, through his Alberta Report magazine. He not only advertised their conventions and assemblies but before it's formation, he began running columns suggesting that it was time for a new Western party. The seed was planted and bore fruit on that fateful weekend in Winnipeg.

Things could have gone quite differently for Ted Byfield after a tragedy and controversy that continued to rage for several years after. It ended on a lake in Ontario but began several years before.

Company of the Cross and the St. John's Schools

Ted Byfield was a journalist who began his career as a copy boy for the Washington Post. Returning to Canada in 1948, he wrote for the Ottawa Journal, the Timmins Daily Press and later the Winnipeg Free Press. In the 1950s, he underwent a religious conversion after reading books by C.S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton.

Inspired, he joined the Anglican Church and working through them opened a private Christian school; Saint John's Cathedral Boys' School, and in 1962 left journalism to teach there full time. In 1968 he opened another near Edmonton and later a third in Ontario.

The schools were said to be cult like, run by a lay religious order, the Company of the Cross, who lived in a communal apartment building, and were paid a mere dollar a day. When Byfield started his magazine in 1973, he used the same group to create and deliver the publications, which regaled against things like homosexuality, abortion, the public education system, crime and prostitution.

The students at his schools didn't fare much better than the staff. They did all the janitorial work, cooking and serving food, cleaning the kennels of the sled dogs they raised, and even making and selling processed meat products door-to-door for fundraising (hopefully not from the sled dogs they raised). Byfield and co-founder of the schools, Frank Wiens, believed that boys were not challenged by the education system or by society in general, so pushed them to their breaking points to "build character", and if they didn't toe the line, they were dealt with a "flat stick across the seat of the pants."

In 1974 the National Film Board produced a glowing documentary about the schools:

St. John's Cathedral Boys' School, at Selkirk, Manitoba, is the most demanding outdoor school in North America, but it cannot accommodate all the students who would like to enroll. Boys of thirteen to fifteen begin with an initiation tougher than they have ever faced: paddling canoes through some five hundred kilometers of wilderness in two weeks, portaging and camping all the way, learning not only outdoor lore but cooperation and self-confidence as well.

But then in 1978 a gruelling canoe trip turned deadly for the Ontario campus. "The tragedy occurred after a group of 27 boys, aged between 10 and 15, and four instructors from St. John's School of Ontario, in Claremont, northeast of Toronto, began canoeing up Lake Timiskaming, about 370 kilometres northwest of Ottawa." Twelve boys between the ages of 12 and 14 and one instructor were drowned. (3)

There had been storm warnings earlier in the day that had either been ignored or missed.

James Raffan wrote a book about the tragedy, and took issue with the schools, that he stated were little more than sweatshops. He also expressed surprise with the attitudes of the parents and staff after the deaths. They seemed to be very defensive of the school's program, and unwilling to cast or share blame. (4)

However a law suit filed years later revealed the horrendous details of life at one of the schools.

A private Christian boys residential school near Edmonton, renowned for its tough discipline, has been sued by a former student for alleged physical and mental torture during and after a wilderness trip more than a quarter-century ago ... in the 14-page document he "was forcefully exposed to experiences on the trip that put his life, health and safety at risk."

The 10-day trip, which began on Sept. 2, 1976 -- the day after the then 13-year-old boy arrived at the school near Stony Plain, 30 kilometres west of Edmonton -- was comprised of a 100-kilometre hike through steep mountain passes and a 500-kilometre canoe trip through some of the most treacherous parts of the North Saskatchewan River.

"The plaintiff states that the defendant's putting his life at risk by forcing him as a 13-year-old boy, untrained, unprepared and unsuitable to participate in the dangerous and unsafe physical activities of the wilderness trip, such as the long and arduous canoe trip often through treacherous waters, as well as its other conduct and treatment of him, amounted to a callous and wanton disregard of his safety and well-being and of his civil rights and a betrayal of his trust," the claim alleges.

The claim says the school's staff picked on and encouraged other students to pick on the weak, subjecting Birkin to "public ridicule, contempt, humiliation, degradation and sadistic and verbal abuse." Birkin spent 10 days in Stony Plain Hospital following the trip, suffering from ulcers on his feet and legs and blistering on his thighs. According to hospital records, the claim says, when Birkin was admitted he had a large bruised area and linear marks on his buttocks which he told a doctor had come from being beaten with a stick to make him hike faster.

He claims that while he was on the canoe portion of the trip, when he was exhausted and unable to keep up with the five other student paddlers, he was
repeatedly struck in the lower back with a heavy wooden paddle. ... It is not the first major claim of negligence against Saint John's School, which has an enrolment of about 130 students and 30 staff and is located on 110 hectares of bush, park and farmland.

A 15-year-old boy, Matt Riddel, sued the school for $1.7 million in 1996 after he lost nine toes to frostbite on a winter camping trip. He sustained his injuries during a four-day, 50-kilometre snowshoe and dogsled expedition, under the supervision of the school's teachers, in which temperatures dropped to -28 C.

The schools are all closed now and his magazines defunct, but Byfield has moved on to other things. Besides being a founder of the Civitas Society, he also helped to found the Canadian Christian Coalition, based on the American counterpart, after attending a Washington Convention in 1995. Jason Kenney is also a founder of CCC and a founding member of Civitas.

Sources:

1. Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada. By Trevor Harrison Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6, pg. 116

2. Harrison, 1995, Pg. 60

3. Ville Marie, QB Canoe Accidents, Winnipeg Free Press Manitoba , June 14, 1978

4. Deep Waters: Courage, Character and the Lake Timiskaming Canoeing Tragedy, By James Raffan, Harper Collins, 2002

5. School sued after 26 years, By Daryl Slade, Calgary Herald, February 08, 2003

6. The Christian Coalition Comes to Canada, by Kim Goldberg, The Albion Monitor, May 5, 1996