The Deficit Cure: Acupuncture or Shock Therapy?

When the neoconservative movement in Canada first appeared on the radar of many journalists, it was tied to the administrations of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Both of these leaders launched aggressive attacks on the welfare state, and left devastation in their paths.

Grant Devine in Saskatchewan, Ralph Klein in Alberta and Mike Harris in Ontario, all sought to experiment with the Thatcher/Reagan theories in their respective provinces.

On the federal scene, the Reform Party had their ideology in check, and were just waiting for their turn.

At the time, Thatcher and Reagan were not on tour, so Canada's neocons were taught strategy by New Zealand politician, Roger Douglas.

He held information seminars, speaking to the Harris caucus in Ontario, with Tony Clement, John Baird and Jim Flaherty in attendance; and Klein's in Alberta, indoctrinating Stockwell Day.

But the most important lecture, when it comes to the future of Canada, was presented to the Reform Party of Preston Manning and Stephen Harper, at their 1991 Assembly.

Douglas was introduced by Preston Manning, the only assembly speaker to be so honoured. And Manning told the delegates: There are three basic reasons why we have invited Sir Roger Douglas to be with us ... and three reasons why Reformers should pay close attention to what he has to say ... Sir Roger is an authority in fiscal reform and has advocated and promoted many of the fiscal reforms ... He is not only a reformer in word, he is a reformer in deed. Sir Roger deregulated the financial sector, phased down agricultural and other subsidies .. phased out import controls and drastically reduced tariffs levels. He instituted a 10% flat rate consumption tax (GST)*, with virtually no exemptions ... (1)

And Roger Douglas's most important message to his followers was "don't blink". Once you start cutting, keep going.

And if you developed a case of blepharospasm, uncontrollable eye blinking, a little acupuncture would fix you right up.

Because what Douglas failed to mention was how his policies affected New Zealand.

Dr. John Warnock, travelled to New Zealand to study the effects of what New Zealanders dubbed 'Rogernomics.' The figures tell a story of devastation - a word used by New Zealand's own agricultural minister to describe the state of agriculture in four years after the 'reforms': A 40 per cent drop in farm income; a 50 per cent drop in the value of farm land; a policy of paying 3,000 farmers incentives of $ 45,000 to leave and the suggestion that another 15,000 (out of 79,000) should follow them. Unemployment, which had been at 4 per cent before Douglas's reforms, jumped to over 12 per cent in just over a year and is still increasing.

"Douglas completely eliminated regional development grants and subsidies to rural services. Says Warnock, 'They had things like subsidized petroleum - regardless of where you were the price was the same - subsidized train service, bus service, airport service. They privatized all these things and the prices immediately skyrocketed.' A massive de-population of the countryside resulted, and approximately 40,000 New Zealanders per year have since left the country for Australia to find work ... (1)

He should have blinked.

Shock Therapy

While Roger Douglas may present us with a little trip down memory lane, Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty will probably forgo acupuncture for shock therapy.

This is the remedy prescribed by Milton Friedman, and articulated at places like the Fraser Institute. Friedman believed in taking advantage of disasters, like Katrina, but when none presented themselves, they could simply be created.

His most famous induced disaster, was the Chilean experiment.

In 1970, when a socialist, Salvador Allende, was elected president, many of Chile's elite, were not pleased.

Allende, a physician by training, understood the cost that malnutrition imposed upon the poor and set out to alleviate the grinding poverty in which so many Chileans were trapped. He ensured that every Chilean schoolchild had access to at least a half-liter of milk each day, and that their parents had access to jobs and the means to feed and educate their children. Median incomes began to rise dramatically in the first two years of Allende's term.

To pay for these social programs designed to create opportunities for the poor, rich Chileans who had lived all their lives off of rents, dividends and interest and who had never paid a dime in taxes, found themselves paying taxes for the first time and being forced to morally justify their lives of luxurious leisure at the expense of the poor. They didn't like it one bit. And they began to complain to their friends in Washington. (2)

Fortunately for them Washington was already aware of the situation, and with the help of several corporations, engineered a coup to oust Allende and place the murderous Augustus Pinochet in the presidential palace.

Friedman then took over, encouraging Pinochet to implement "shock therapy" on the people of Chile.

Friedman advised Pinochet to impose a rapid-fire transformation of the economy—tax cuts, free trade, privatized services, cuts to social spending and deregulation. Eventually, Chileans even saw their public schools replaced with voucher-funded private ones. It was the most extreme capitalist makeover ever attempted anywhere, and it became known as a "Chicago School" revolution, since so many of Pinochet's economists had studied under Friedman at the University of Chicago. Friedman predicted that the speed, suddenness and scope of the economic shifts would provoke psychological reactions in the public that "facilitate the adjustment." He coined a phrase for this painful tactic: economic "shock treatment." In the decades since, whenever governments have imposed sweeping free-market programs, the all-at-once shock treatment, or "shock therapy," has been the method of choice. (3)

And though Friedman and his Chicago School are still being hailed as heroes by Neoliberals/Neoconservative/Free Marketeers everywhere, his remaking of Chile was an absolute failure.

.. The country's period of steady growth that is held up as proof of its miraculous success, did not begin until the mid-eighties, a full decade after the Chicago Boys implemented shock therapy and well after Pinochet was forced to make a radical course correction.

That's because in 1982, despite its strict adherence to Chicago doctrine, Chile's economy crashed: its debt exploded, it faced hyperinflation once again and unemployment hit 30 percent—ten times higher than it was under Allende. The main cause was that the piranhas, the Enron-style financial houses that the Chicago Boys had freed from all regulation, had bought up the country's assets on borrowed money and run up an enormous debt of $14 billion.

The situation was so unstable that Pinochet was forced to do what Allende had done: he nationalized many of these companies. In the face of the debacle, almost all the Chicago Boys lost their influential government posts. (4)

So despite the fact that both of these experiments in economic reform were catastrophes, we know that it will not change Flaherty's or Harper's ideology.

Canadians will probably be subjected to a little "shock" in the upcoming budget, or if not then, in the not too distant future. The convoluted belief being that if we associate pain with social programs, we will not be too quick to want to reintroduce them (Friedman was a nut), especially if they convince us that they have been replaced with something better.

Poverty being good for the soul.

So slap on the electrodes boys. I'm ready.

Footnotes:

*The Reform Party was conflicted about the GST, with most wanting it scrapped if they came to power. Harper himself convinced them to keep the GST but eliminate any exemptions.

Sources:

1. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin, Goodread Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 113-114

2. Free Market Fundamentalism: Friedman, Pinochet and the "Chilean Miracle", By Scott Bidstrup

3. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, By Naomi Klein, Vintage Canada, 2007, ISBN: 978-0-676-97801-8, Pg. 8

4. Klein, 2007, Pg. 123

RCMP: The Illegitimacy of Democracy and the Erosion of Public Trust

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

"Whenever justice is uncertain and police spying and terror are at work, human beings fall into isolation, which, of course, is the aim and purpose of the dictator state." Carl Jung

When William Elliot was named as new RCMP Commissioner in July of 2007, it raised more than a few eyebrows. (1)

And it was not simply for the fact that he was a career bureaucrat, with no police experience, but because he was a Conservative insider, an old crony from Brian Mulroney's days. In fact his brother Richard was married to Brian Mulroney's sister. It's hard to get anymore inside than that.

He was around during the days of the Giga Text scandal, that helped to bring down the Saskatchewan government, something I've written about before. Stevie Cameron, in her book On the Take: Crime, Corruption and Greed in the Mulroney Years, identifies Elliot's position and also reports on a real estate deal that she included as part of that scandal.

It was at this point that Montpetit and GigaText entered into an interesting real estate deal. Bill Elliott, the Regina lawyer, was a senior partner at McPherson Elliott and Tyreman, a leading law firm in the city. The firm's offices occupied a two-storey building in a suburb. The wealthy Hill family wanted to build an office tower in downtown Regina and went to Elliott for a large loan because he was chairman of the provincially run Saskatchewan Pension Funds. Elliott helped them win approval for the loan, and as soon as the tower was up, Elliott's law firm leased two floors. Sixty per cent of the building was rented to the provincial government for offices. Then the law firm sold its old two-storey building to the Hill family for $1.75 million, an excellent price for the firm. The Hill family needed tenants for the old building, too, and fortunately GigaText appeared just in time to fill the space. The lease arrangement made everyone happy. (2)

Nothing illegal, but the optics were damaging none the less, and lent itself to an overall distrust.

Stephen Harper appointed him "to clean up the RCMP", after the damaging tenure of Giuliano Zaccardelli, who not only tampered with the 2006 election, but was also named in pension fraud allegations. The Harper government went well beyond the limits of their powers, to protect Zaccardelli, the man who had handed them their election victory.

But it soon became clear that Elliot was not appointed to "clean up" anything. He was there to go after those who blew the whistle, and what he created was chaos. As James Travers reports:

Controversial when announced in 2007, Harper’s choice of a bureaucrat with no policing experience and a Tory background is now an embarrassment with implications stretching beyond Canada. Elliott’s dictatorial management style and the resulting mutiny are focusing unwanted domestic and international attention on the shaky leadership of this country’s security services. (3)

And what was also clear, was that Stephen Harper was politicizing the RCMP and bringing them under his control. A dangerous act in a democracy, as a letter by David Hutton of Ottawa suggests:

Only tinpot Third World countries — and Canada — have their national police force reporting directly to the government of the day. ... Most developed countries ensure that the police have an arms-length relationship with politicians, in order to uphold the law impartially, without political interference or favour. Yet our Mounties report to a minister and brief him regularly on what they are doing — just as if the RCMP were a government department. No doubt the Mounties also receive regular guidance on their priorities — just like a government department does. (4)

And the RCMP has become a political nightmare, as Elliot played the role of a partisan politician, and not as an officer of what should have remained an arms length agency.

There is a shakeup at the top of the RCMP as senior officers who complained about Commissioner William Elliott's style last summer are quitting or being forced out, CBC News has learned. Deputy commissioner Raf Souccar has been asked to leave the force, with trust cited as the reason. And deputy commissioner Tim Killam has given notice that he will retire in December.

Assistant commissioner Mike McDonell, who left the RCMP in August, wrote to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews last week, saying those who came forward last summer "have simply become sacrificial lambs." Senior RCMP officers complained about Elliott to some of the highest levels of the federal government on two occasions in July. They accused Elliott, who became the first civilian to head the Mounties in July 2007, of being verbally abusive, closed-minded, arrogant and insulting. (5)

Which brings us to why Elliot showed up at the G-20. Was it he who instructed the troops to make security a secondary consideration? Were they told that their primary job was to stifle dissent? To attack peaceful protesters?

After all, he works for Stephen Harper, and learned how to play the game as a Mulroney crony.

A senior Mountie commander told the federal government that RCMP Commissioner William Elliott “disrupted” the federal government’s billion-dollar security operation for the G8 and G20 summits – simply by showing up for the events. “Despite being advised not to attend the summit command centres on June 25, 2010, the commissioner chose to attend, and in doing so, completely disrupted operations,” Mike McDonell, then an RCMP assistant commissioner, wrote in a letter to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews. (6)

"There are only two choices: A police state in which all dissent is suppressed or rigidly controlled; or a society where law is responsive to human needs." William Orville Douglas

Sources:

1. New RCMP boss vows to rise above lack of police experience, CBC News, July 6, 2007

2. On the Take: Crime, Corruption and Greed in the Mulroney Years, By Stevie Cameron, Macfarlane Walter & Ross, 1994, ISBN: 0-921912-73-0, Pg. 254

3. Failed experiment dooms RCMP boss, By James Travers, Toronto Star, October 21, 2010

4. Politicized RCMP represents danger, Letters to the Editor, By David Hutton, Toronto Star, October 20, 2010

5. Top RCMP officers forced out or quitting: They complained about Commissioner Elliott's leadership style, CBC News, October 18, 2010

6. RCMP boss hurt G20 security efforts: letter from senior Mountie, By Colin Freeze and Daniel LeBlanc, Globe and Mail, October 19, 2010

The American Enterprise Institute and Canada's Neoconservatism/Religious Right

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

The American Enterprise Institute is one of a myriad of think tanks that have become part of the infrastructure of the neoconservative/Religious Right movement.

One of the oldest, it was established in 1943, as a spokesperson for big business. Ronald Reagan once stated:

"The American Enterprise Institute stands at the center of a revolution in ideas of which I, too, have been a part. AEI's remarkably distinguished body of work is testimony to the triumph of the think tank. For today the most important American scholarship comes out of our think tanks – and none has been more influential than the American Enterprise Institute." (1)

However, the fortunes of the AEI have fluctuated depending on who was in power, enjoying their greatest success under the Bush administration. George Bush pulled 20 staffers from AEI, including David Frum, the person who organized the Winds of Change, dedicated to uniting the right, and is now a voice in our own neoconservative government.

Frum was recently fired from the AEI for speaking out against the Republican Party, clearing showing just how "non-partisan" the group is. (2)

But AEI's ties to Canada go back further than Frum. They even influenced the Saskatchewan government of Grant Devine:

The new right's attack on the welfare state included a moral component contributed by the new Christian right, which claims to find sanction for private enterprise economics in the Bible. A good example of this approach comes from Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute: "I advise intelligent, ambitious, and morally serious young Christians and Jews to awaken to the growing dangers of statism. They will better save their souls and serve the
cause of the Kingdom of God all around the world by restoring the liberty and power of the private sector than by working for the state."' The private sector
would not only make you rich, it would save your soul.

Believing as it does that the Bible endorses individual self-reliance, the new right asserts that the solution to society's problems — whether economic or social — is fundamentally moral. (3)

Michael Novak has also spoken at the Fraser Institute and according to Lloyd Mackey has influenced the thinking of Stephen Harper. (4)

Those belonging to the group definitely represent the far-right, including Dick Cheney, his wife Lynn Cheney, William Kristol and Richard Perle.

But what's important and something we need to take note of in Canada is that recently the AEI has begun to attack NGOs.

In June 2003, AEI and another right-wing group, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, launched a new website NGOWatch.org/NGOwatch.org
to expose the funding, operations and agendas of international NGOs, and particularly their alleged efforts to constrain U.S. freedom of action in international affairs and influence the behavior of corporations abroad. AEI states that "The extraordinary growth of advocacy NGOs in liberal democracies has the potential to undermine the sovereignty of constitutional democracies, as well as the effectiveness of credible NGOs." Ralph Nader responds with "What they are condemning, with vague, ironic regulatory nostrums proposed against dissenting citizen groups, is democracy itself." (1)

According to Muzzle Watch: "However, a more straightforward description of their ideological bias comes from liberal Jewish thinker Leonard Fein who says: "NGO Monitor, is an organization that believes that the best way to defend Israel is to condemn anyone who criticizes it." (5)

Next: Jason Kenney and the NGO Monitor on a Rampage to Destroy Humanitarian Organizations

Sources:

1. The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, By Source Watch

2. American Enterprise Institute: Now With 100% Less Frum, Around the Sphere, March 26, 2010

3. Privatizing a Province: The New Right in Saskatchewan, By: James M. Pitsula and Ken Rasmussen, New Star Books, 1990, ISBN: 0-921586-10-8, Pg. 7

4. The Pilgramage of Stephen Harper, By: Lloyd Mackey, ECW Press, 2005, ISBN: 10-1-55022-713-0 , Pg. 94 and 209

5. NGO Monitor: attacking New Israel Fund, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International, By Rob Lipton with Cecilie Surasky, Muzzle Watch, June 25, 2007

Tom Lukiwski, Grant Devine and the Religious Right

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

"I've always been strongly opposed to using religion as a gimmick for gaining political support. I believe in applying Christian principles to politics and to government. But I think one must remember that in a political party there are people of all religious beliefs, just as in every church there are people of different political points of view." Tommy Douglas (1)

Though it is believed that Ralph Klein and Mike Harris led the first neoconservative governments in Canada, Grant Devine in Saskatchewan came before them. I suspect the reason they don't advertise that fact is because of the scandal that has come to define those years. And for many of those years, the executive director for the party was Tom Lukiwski, now in the Harper government. When the old tape, where he is making disparaging remarks about homosexuals came to light, it became about his remarks, instead of the people seen on the video with him, including two who ended up in jail.

However, Grant Devine was also one of the first to bring the American religious right movement to Canada, tapping into religious fervour as a "gimmick" for political gain. Not that he didn't have fundamentalist views. I believe he did. However, rather than in the case of Tommy Douglas, who gave the province and the country so much, Devine was only interested in taking away.

Grant Devine and Neoconservatism


Though traditional Canadian conservatism represented social democracy and a strong sense of community, Grant Devine embraced a conservatism that more closely represented the neoconservatism of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

But with it were elements of American style conservatism that stressed individual responsibilities and an established moral code.

The new right in Saskatchewan has broken with tradition and accepted the superiority of the market over democratic government. In most respects, it borrows its ideas from American and British neo-conservatives. Devine's outspoken moralizing and promotion of family values have an affinity with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and the Moral Majority. His admiration of the American economic system, his eager endorsement of free trade with the United States, his tendency to adopt the style of an American governor, and his disdain for the traditions of parliamentary government all testify to the strength of the American influence. (2)

Everything that Tommy Douglas had accomplished had to be abolished if neoconservatism had a chance. Ironically, while Tommy Douglas was recently named the Greatest Canadian, voted on by Canadians, everyone associated with this movement hated him. Ernest Manning called him a communist. The National Citizens Coalition*, which was founded on the advice of Ernest Manning, was formed to fight against his Medicare, and Stockwell Days' father ran against him, also calling Douglas a communist, and a threat to our country.

Maybe that should tell us something.

But unlike Tommy Douglas, Devine had no notions of taking care of the people of Saskatchewan. Like Stephen Harper, he embraced the teachings of Friedrick Von Hayek and Morton Friedman, Ronald Reagan's financial guru:

Both Hayek and Friedman had been saying for a long time that government activity should be cut to a bare minimum and that the market should rule ... It became fashionable to talk about the theory of incentives and to deplore government assistance for the poor. It was good for people to be poor; being poor made them work hard to lift themselves out of poverty. It was good for people to be rich; the existence of rich people encouraged others to think that if they took risks, were innovative and worked hard, they too could be rich and not have to worry about the government taking the fruits of their entrepreneurship away from them. A less secure social safety net would sharpen the survival instincts of a citizenry too long pampered by affluence and welfare. According to the neoconservatives, government interference in the economy was a kind of sickness; the free market was hailed as a miracle worker. (3)

This was not unlike Ernest Manning's philosophy: "Giving to the individual societal benefits such as free medical care ... breeds idleness... causing a break down in his relationship with God ... where the state imposed a monopoly on a service ... the sinful philosophy of state collectivism scored a victory." (4)

Grant Devine and the Religious Right

Along with the economic principles of the American neoconservative movement, Devine also brought along the religious crusade of the Moral Majority, or Christian Right. He campaigned on a platform of "family values", using the slogan "God first, family second, the Conservative party third, borrowed from Mary Kay Cosmetics, which his wife sold: "God first, family second, and business third". Devine believed that politicians had both a right and a responsibility to provide moral guidance: "I think one of the biggest challenges we face in this country and North America is one of morals."

Adding to the fury of the neo-conservative attack on the welfare state is an alliance forged with the new Christian right, which has become a force to be reckoned with in American politics. The Christian right claims to have Biblical sanction for free market economics, and prescribes moral solutions for the problems afflicting society. Poverty, unemployment, family breakdown, crime, drug addiction, pornography, sexual permissiveness would all end if people were "born again." Because the new Christian right is profoundly anti-government, it is compatible with secular neo-conservatism. Government social programs and anti-poverty campaigns are judged to be useless because all social problems are simply questions of individual morality. Indeed, the welfare state is worse than useless because it takes the onus off individuals and families. The family teaches children individual self-worth and moral responsibility, and prepares young people for the battle of life in a sternly competitive world. Socialism and feminism are the twin enemies of the family, one because it allegedly robs families of their rightful role, the other because it takes mothers out of the home.

Although the Christian right is anti-government in that it opposes the welfare state, it heartily approves of some types of government activity. The power of the state can legitimately be used to curtail individual liberty as long as the purpose is the enforcement of Christian morality, as defined by the Bible and authoritatively interpreted by the new Christian right. Values such as tolerance, pluralism, and freedom of choice are rejected in the name of a higher morality, one that "would make America great again." For the Christian right, morality is not a private but a public matter. On these grounds, it campaigns for coercive state action on such issues as abortion, homosexuality, and school prayer. Neo-conservative economics merged with moral majority values to create a potent political movement. (5)

He also opposed abortion and homosexuality, and like Stephen Harper, took on board pro-life groups, including REAL women of Canada.

Though Tom Lukiwski's father was a union activist and lifetime NDP, his son would adopt neoconservatism, embracing the divisiveness and dirty politics that goes along with it.

Next: Tom Lukiwski: Sex, Lies and Videotape

Footnotes:

* Stephen Harper was president of the NCC
Sources:

1. The Making of a Socialist: The Recollections of T.C. Douglas, Edited By Lewis H. Thomas, The University of Alberta Press, 1982, ISBN: 0-88864-070-7, Pg. 82

2. Privatizing a Province: The New Right in Saskatchewan, By: James M. Pitsula and Ken Rasmussen, New Star Books, 1990, ISBN: 0-921586-10-8, Pg. 7

3. Pitsula/Rasmussen, 1982, Pg. 11-12

4. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, Pg. 9

5. Pitsula/Rasmussen, 1982, Pg. 13

Tom Lukiwski: Sex, Lies and Videotape

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

In November 2003, when Harper's Canadian Alliance Party was in the midst of trying to merge with the Progressive Conservatives, a controversy took place that could have potentially destroyed his plans. His MP for Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre, Larry Spencer; made headlines with an interview he gave, via e-mail, to Vancouver Sun reporter Peter O'Neil.

Spencer, a Baptist Minister, spoke of a gay movement, and stated that it was a "well-orchestrated conspiracy that included seducing and recruiting young boys in playgrounds and locker rooms, and deliberately infiltrating North America's schools (as teachers), judiciaries, entertainment industries, and religious communities..." He also stated that it would lead to polygamy and pedophilia and that he would support any bill to criminalize homosexuality.

Needless to say, Harper was infuriated. According to Spencer in a book he published in 2006; entitled "Sacrificed? Truth or Politics", he was called into a meeting with Harper, Harper's Chief of Staff, and Opposition house leader, John Reynolds; on the morning his comments made the news. Spencer stated that Harper was glowing bright red, and quotes him as saying: "Who put you up to this? Do you know this could stop the unity vote coming up? You knew we wanted to run on the preservation of the traditional definition of marriage in the next election, now we can't do that."

Spencer was immediately placed under a "gag order", stripped of his "family affairs critic" job and temporarily removed himself from caucus. Spencer said "I retracted the statement I made indicating I would support a bill to criminalize homosexuality" but he made no retraction of his claims about a gay conspiracy.

When an election was called the following year, Spencer was astounded when he was told he would not be allowed to run for the new Conservative Reform Alliance Party; but instead was being replaced by Tom Lukiwski. And then this videotape surfaced:

In an attempt to deflect attention away from the other people on the tape, members of the scandal ridden Devine government, Lukiwski went public, sobbing, apologizing and promising to make it up to the gay community. He never did.

In fact, though the tape had been made seventeen years prior, his record on the issue speaks for itself:

Looking at Hansard for June 28th 2005; just prior to the vote on same-sex marriage, he made the following statement:

"I firmly believe that by passing this legislation, we start on a very slippery slope which could affect societal change in a very adverse way. I see things which have been expressed before that could come down the pike, things like polygamy and others, while hiding behind the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am fearful that societal change could happen.

"I also am a firm believer in the fundamental definition of marriage as we have known it all our lives. Marriage is and should continue to be between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. I was brought up in that environment and I will continue to believe that until the day I die."

"Until the day I die", sounds like a really long time; and hardly the words of a man now devoted to spending the rest of life making up for his 1991 'lapse of judgement.' Also when suggesting that same-sex marriage would provide a basis for legalizing polygamy (and other things, which he leaves vague) he sounds eerily similar to the Alliance candidate, Larry Spencer, whom he replaced.

In another long term goal of the Reform/Alliance Party, making abortion a crime, Lukiwski was designated anti-choice during the 2004 and 2006 elections; openly opposed the Order of Canada being given to Dr. Henry Morgentaler and voted for Bill C-484, (a re-worded initiative to outlaw abortion) at second reading. Lukiwski is clearly not sorry for his homophobic remarks, just sorry he got caught.

Ironically, Larry Spencer when asked how he felt about Lukiwski's remarks, stated:

“I didn’t think that it should have happened to me and I don’t think it should happen to him,” Spencer said in a phone interview Thursday. “We’re rapidly giving up our freedoms of our own opinion. We do it in the name of political correctness and that it might be offensive to someone. But have you ever stopped to realize that to me as a Christian how offensive it is to hear the foul language and the cursing and the swearing that you hear every day in the workplace and the attacks that I hear and see and read of people attacking Christianity and the Christian faith?” (1)

Clearly he hadn't listened to the entire tape or read the transcripts, or he would have seen and heard a lot of cursing and swearing. You can find both here, and I counted the "F" word 14 times.

Next: Tom Lukiwski: From Mouseland to Dirty Rats

Sources:

1. Larry Spencer offers words of advice for Lukiwski: After Larry Spencer was turfed from the Canadian Alliance Party for making controversial remarks about homosexuals in 2003, Conservative candidate Tom Lukiwski criticized Spencer and approved the revoking of his party membership, By Leader-Post, April 3, 2008