The Fight to Restore Our Democracy Will Not be a Single Battle

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

I attended an all candidates meeting in Kingston last week, where several individuals are vying for the Liberal nomination, to replace Peter Milliken. When it came around to taking questions from the floor, I asked what each one would do to help restore democracy to Canada.

The first person answered simply "get rid of Stephen Harper". Of course everyone laughed but it was not really what I was looking for. In fairness, it was too big a question, when the contestants had no more than 30 seconds to give a response.

One of my favourite journalists, Murray Dobbin, posted an excellent piece on his blog this week, where he suggests that we are now in the fight of our lives.

Individuals and organizations in Canada who recognize that the most critical short term political goal we have is to rid the country of Stephen Harper’s government might want to engage in a kind of political and strategic triage: what are the three or four key issues that we need to focus on to expose Harper’s agenda and to exploit his weaknesses? (1)

While there is no argument that Harper must go, he is only a symptom of the disease that has been eating away at us for years.

It has been like a slow growing cancer, that while it left us weak, did not dramatically hinder our ability to function as a sovereign nation. Then along came Harper and the cancer spread so rapidly that our freedoms are now on life support, with only minimal brain function. And we are indeed in "the fight of our lives".

Stage One: The Erosion is Small and Contained

"A society only articulates itself as a nation through some common intention among its people." George P. Grant*, Lament For a Nation

Sir John A. MacDonald, Canada's first prime minister, was not only one of the people responsible for Confederation, but he also sought to create a unique Canadian identity, while fighting against the influence of the United States. This brought about the character of 'Johnny Canuck', who appeared in political cartoons for decades.

We were the little guy, youngest cousin of Uncle Sam and John Bull. A little naive perhaps, but strong and ready to stand up to the big boys. And this sentiment continued throughout the life of 'Johnny'.

But then Johnny Canuck caught a bug. Murray Dobbin believes that it was 38 years ago (1), when the Conservatives came to power in Alberta, but I believe it was earlier than that, and simply went undiagnosed for decades.

I think the bug that now threatens our existence, first appeared on February 13, 1947, in the oil that was discovered at Leduc in Alberta. Canada then caught the attention of Texas oilmen, and the premier of Alberta, Ernest Manning, became their new best friend. So much so, that Time Magazine began to refer to Alberta as Texas of the North. (2) Other discoveries in post-war Canada of iron ore, nickel, copper, uranium and titanium, also brought us to the attention of southern corporate interests.

Johnny Canuck developed a cough.

Stage Two: A tumour has developed But Has Not Spread Into the Surrounding Tissue

"The imperial power of corporations has destroyed indigenous cultures in every corner of the globe." George P. Grant*, Lament For a Nation

A series of trade agreements followed, based on the needs of the corporate sector, who, as George Grant claimed, "sought to master nature and reshape humanity." (3) Successive Canadian governments, began to work with the corporate sector to develop our natural resources, and in many ways it was a good thing.

But then prime minister St. Laurent introduced legislation to have the Canadian government lend $80 million to the U.S.-controlled Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Ltd., to build a pipeline from Alberta to Winnipeg in order to export natural gas to the United States. This gave the new conservative leader Diefenbaker ammunition:

He accused the government of "playing around with . . . these adventurers from Texas and New York, trading away Canada's national resources at the expense
of the Canadian people." The deal, Diefenbaker said, would make Canada "a virtual economic forty-ninth state." (4)

And he won the next election on a national unity issue. And though he too flirted with the American industrialists, he was seen as a friend to small business and Canadian interests, which made him a foe of the corporate world, that launched campaigns against him.

Johnny Canuck began to run a fever.

Stage Three: The Tumour is Larger and Has Begun to Spread

Can the disappearance of an unimportant nation be worthy of serious grief? For some ... it can. Our country is the only political entity to which we have been trained to pay allegiance." George P. Grant*, Lament For a Nation

Grant referred to Lester Pearson's administration as 'capitalist internationalism", and felt that he was too cozy with JFK. In fact, a young journalist by the name of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, also criticized Pearson, and when he came to power himself sought to restore our sovereignty, and move the country toward a just society. This didn't mean that he necessarily turned his back on the corporate world, but did fight against American interests.

It was during his administration that the National Citizens Coalition was created on the advice of Ernest Manning, and the right-wing media launched an assault on Trudeau, calling him a socialist and sometimes even a communist. Leading the charge was the Toronto Sun, under Peter Worthington, and one of his journalists, Lubor Zinc, was the one who coined the term 'Trudeaumania', though it was meant to have a negative connotation. Another Sun journalist, David Somerville, would eventually head up the NCC.

They earned little credibility, until they were able to place a man, plucked right from the corporate world, to lead the country. Brian Mulroney. He would fling open the doors and announce to the anyone who would listen, that Canada was for sale. His free trade deal devastated the Canadian economy, but paved the way for a corporate takeover.

Johnny Canuck was now bedridden.

Stage Four: The Cancer has Spread to Every Corner of the Country.

"To lament is to cry out at the death or at the dying of something loved. This lament mourns the end of Canada as a sovereign state." George P. Grant*, Lament For a Nation.

Brian Mulroney may have put Canada on life support, but Stephen Harper is the one who will pull the plug. He has been systematically selling us off to American and multinational corporate interests. When he was proroguing he signed the most aggressive trade deal in the history of our country. And the recent potential sell off of Canada's potash is only the latest in what money expert Stephen Jarislowsky, of Jarislowsky Fraser Ltd., calls the "suicide of the country".

We are increasingly becoming a corporate state. Murray Dobbin focuses on the oil industry and the "dirty" oil that is giving Canada the reputation as a corrupt petro-state, but we have to look at all industries.

Corporations have their place in a society. They can keep small businesses afloat, as they provide services to the larger companies. They also provide good union jobs, which provides buying power and keeps service industries afloat. But these corporations, despite enjoying massive tax cuts and exemptions, have allowed greed to dictate. They now often compete with the small business, driving them out, while they outsource jobs overseas.

There needs to be a new and defined relationship that promotes fairness for the good of the country and our citizens.

All fascist regimes answered to their industrialists. They created autocratic governments to keep the people in line, and increased both military and police presence as a deterrent to public dissent.

We are on the brink of becoming that fascist state. And it is being done by embracing the philosophies of the father of neoconservatism, Leo Strauss: Deception, Religious fervour and unbridled patriotism.

Before the 2006 Canadian election, Paul Weyrich, the Godfather of the American Religious Right, told his people not to speak to Canadian journalists for fear that it might spook the Canadian public if they knew how connected Stephen Harper was to his movement. (5)

And Weyrich knew something about political strategy. He had worked on Ronald Reagan's campaign, using divisive politics to weaken the democratic process.

"With Reagan's outspoken opposition to the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Republican strategists knew that they would have to write off the black vote. But although 90 per cent of black voters cast their ballots for the democrats, only 30 percent of eligible black Americans voted. Republican ... strategist Paul Weyrich stated "I don't want everyone to vote ... our leverage in the election quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down. We have no moral responsibility to turn out our opposition." (6)

And Weyrich also knew that Canada was ripe for the picking, because we had a system with a fragile structure, that promised democracy based on the expectation of fair play.

So when I asked my question about restoring democracy, it was not only about replacing Stephen Harper, which I already know is an absolute necessity. But it was also about how we are going to keep our corporations in check, and give the power back to the people, where it belongs.

But more importantly, how we are going to close up the loopholes in our system that allowed one man to gain so much control. Michael Ignatieff has suggested that senators should be appointed by a committee made up of a cross-section of Canadians. That's a good start. The same should be done with judges and the Governor General.

Murray Dobbin suggests that we need determined civil disobedience, fully justified by the assault on our country. He's right. But we also need to restore faith in politics and encourage citizens to vote. And to do that we need to cut through the crap. Harper's strength in is keeping us divided and ignorant, because like his pal, Weyrich, he feels no moral responsibility to encourage Canadians to take part in the democratic process.

We are the only ones who can save Johnny, or Janie, or Omar or Hans or Pierre ... Canuck. And I happen to believe that we are worth saving.

Footnotes:

*George Parkin Grant was a Canadian scholar. He had a sister Alison who married Canadian diplomat George Ignatieff. Alison and George had a son Michael, who is now leader of the Liberal Party. When Lament for a Nation was first published, the Grant/Ignatieff family was devastated. The senior Ignatieff had worked for both Diefenbaker and Pearson. But George Grant would later say it was reactionary to the defeat of Diefenbaker, but he did have some very valid concerns.

Sources:

1. The Fight of Our Lives, By Murray Dobbin, Murray Dobbin's Blog, September 13, 2010

2. Texas of the North, Time Magazine, September 24, 1951

3. Lament For a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism, By George Parkin Grant, McClelland & Stewart, 1965

4. Kennedy & Diefenbaker: The Feud That Helped Topple a Government, By Knowlton Nash, McClelland & Stewart, 1991, ISBN: 0-7710-6711-9, Pg. 35-36

5. Harper's U.S. neocon booster changes his story, By Beth Gorham, Canadian Press, January 27, 2006

6. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 22)

Is Christian Paradis Travelling Through History With Bernhard Rust?

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

Two Germans were eyeing a burly lout in the Nazi uniform who was striding through a university hall. First man: "What is the policeman doing here?" Second man: "Sh, sh. That is the man selected to succeed Einstein."

That joke was published in a 1933 Time Magazine, as part of a story entitled 'Science: Jews Without Jobs':

Two German-Jewish winners of Nobel Prizes were without jobs last week. Both are full of years and distinction. Dr. James Franck, 51, was a professor at Gottingen University. He won his Prize in 1925, for experimental physics. Professor Fritz Haber, 64, was director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physical & Electrical Chemistry in Berlin. He invented the important synthesis of atmospheric nitrogen and hydrogen into ammonia which supplied Germany with explosives and fertilizers during the War. Like Nobel Laureate Albert Einstein, Laureates Haber and Franck resigned their German jobs to avoid Adolf Hitler's white pogrom. (1)

Since coming to power 4 1/2 years ago, Stephen Harper has also been engaged in a "white" extermination of knowledge, especially scientific.

So while recent news has revealed that Canadian scientists have now had their muzzles tightened even further by Stephen Harper and his faithful officer, Christian Paradis; it should not be surprising to anyone.

However, it should be extremely alarming to everyone.

Now I know that Dimitri Soudas will immediately cry foul, suggesting that I'm comparing this latest attack on science to the extermination of six million Jews, but this was 1933, when Time assumed that the Holocaust would be benign, and limited to loss of rights.

But it was a period when the Nazis were trying to centralize power, or as Hitler's science/education minister Bernhard Rust remarked, "The whole function of education is to create Nazis."

Besides, Ezra Levant has accused the wonderful Margaret Atwood of collaborating with Al-Qaeda, so the bar has been set pretty low. And in the case of attacks on the scientific communities, then and now, the facts speak for themselves.

Time Travellers

"Our national policies will not be revoked or modified, even for scientists." Adolf Hitler

Christian Paradis is not a scientist. His degree is in corporate law. And yet:

Natural Resources Canada scientists were told this spring they need “pre-approval” from Minister Christian Paradis’ office to speak with national and international journalists. Their “media lines” also need ministerial approval, say documents obtained by Postmedia News through access-to-information legislation. The documents say the “new” rules went into force in March and reveal how they apply to not only to contentious issues including the oilsands, but benign subjects such as floods that occurred 13,000 years ago.

They also give a glimpse of how Canadians are being cut off from scientists whose work is financed by taxpayers, critics say, and is often of significant public interest — be it about fish stocks, genetically modified crops or mercury pollution in the Athabasca River. “It’s Orwellian,” says Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at University of Victoria. The public, he says, has a right to know what federal scientists are discovering and learning. (2)

Bernhard Rust was not a scientist. His degrees were in linguistics and philosophy, and yet:

World great is Max Planck because he conceived the quantum theory, an exploit of pure science. Last week he listened with other German scientists in smoky Diisseldorf to Nazi Minister of Science, Art and Education Dr. Bernhard Rust, who felt called upon to deny that Hitlerism is hostile to Science.

"We are not! Nein!" cried Nazi Rust, "but we do not believe in Science divorced from the people. Nein! They are false scientists who believe that scientific life of a higher order can exist for itself alone while questions of the day are solved somewhere in the lower regions." (3)

So why does this matter? Lets hear the rest of the story of Nobel Prize winning physicist Max Planck:

That night Max Planck's scientific peers made him feel that he must make a bold reply to Bernhard Rust. Sad-faced Max Planck did not fail Pure Science. Next day at the Congress of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society for Advancement of Science he made what was considered a daring speech indeed. To have praised live Jew Albert Einstein would have been madness, but he did praise dead Jew Heinrich Hertz, discoverer of "Hertzian waves." And bold Max Planck said: "History proves that the greatest and most vital discoveries were made by scientists who worked for the sake of pure science only."

Indulgently Nazi Rust did not crack down on Professor Planck, but as president of the Society Herr Planck dolefully reported that 85 scientists have sent in their resignations and are suffering "economic difficulties" under the Nazi regime.

Same day in Munich, home of dark beer and darker Adolf Hitler. German artists were assured that Hitlerism is not opposed to art by Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda & National Enlightenment. "Since National Socialism looks upon itself as the Art of Politics," crowed Cock Goebbels. "it feels a natural kinship with the other arts and artists." (3)

"Arts and artists" ... "scientists"... has a familiar ring, doesn't it?

"We are not! Nein!" cried Stephen Harper.

In another interesting co-incidence:

Citing actions taken by the Conservative government since winning a minority government in 2006, 85 scientists across Canada have signed an open letter to all national party leaders calling on them to state how they will 'improve Canada’s track record' regarding the objectivity of science. This is the second such initiative within the week, the letter on 7 October being signed by 120 scientists.

The scientists signing the latest letter represent hundreds of researchers such as Deans, Department Heads, Research Chairs, and research team leaders. They come from academic fields of Anthropology, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Biology, Community Health and Epidemiology, Criminology, Earth & Ocean Sciences, Educational Psychology, Environmental & Engineering Sciences, Land Resource Science, Medicine, Nursing, Philosophy, Physics, Psychiatry, Social Work, and Sociology.

"85 scientists across Canada" ... "Herr Planck dolefully reported that 85 scientists have sent in their resignations." Are we going to let it get that far?

Sources:

1. Science: Jews Without Jobs, Time Magazine, June 05, 1933

2. Ottawa’s media rules muzzling federal scientists, say observers, By Margaret Munro, Postmedia News, September 12, 2010

3. GERMANY: False Planck? Time Magazine, June 18, 1934

4. Canadian scientists protest Harper's attacks on science, Wikinews, October 13, 2008

Why we Must Listen to Ron McKinnon and Ignore Dimitri Soudas

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

The story of the S.S. St. Louis is well known in history, and immortalized in the movie The Voyage of the Damned. For those who need a refresher, the S.S. St. Louis was a Jewish refugee ship that set sail May 27, 1939, with 938 Jews from Germany headed for Cuba. (1) The short version is that it was turned away, not only by Cuba but also by the United States and Canada. As a result the ship was forced to take the refugees back to Germany, where many died in concentration camps. It has always been a black mark in our history.

And yet we now poised to repeat history with our government's handling of the Tamil Refugees. Through clever PR and hyperbole, these refugees are being painted as 'terrorists', and Stephen Harper has taken it one step further, by putting "pressure" on oppressive regimes, to make sure that victims of these regimes, never escape again. AKA: we support your oppressive regime and please do what you have to do. Just don't send them here.

Michael Ignatieff has said that "We [Canada] must always be a haven in a heartless world." Jack Layton called their plight "... a symptom of the continued humanitarian suffering in Sri Lanka."

While Stephen Harper "described the vessel as "abnormal", claimed that it created security concerns and warned that he could seek a change in the law to deal with similar arrivals. Canada's public safety minister, Vic Toews, said that it could contain members of the Tamil Tigers and that it was a "test ship ... part of a broader organised criminal enterprise". (1)

And a member of Jason Kenney's Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Maureen Bader, asked "... Do human rights advocates, clerics, and "progressives" really think that our lifeboat [Canada] can be infinitely accommodating? Do they even know that we are living in a lifeboat? ... Since several voices have spoken on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer and the need for public security, let me presume to speak on behalf of Mother Nature. She doesn't distinguish between refugees and migrants. She doesn't notice if they are legitimate or illegitimate, or whether they are skilled or unskilled. She doesn't really care if they will assimilate into our culture or remain apart. Nor does their fiscal burden impress her, or their crime rate, for that matter..."

She is citing potential ecological damage, but speaking for Mother Nature? What a load of crap. Jason Kenney must be so proud.

Canada is a big country. No one is saying that we need to simply allow all refugees to land without proper screening, but to suggest that all claims must be made and processed overseas, means certain death for many. And to paint them all as "terrorists" or threats to national security, sounds more like xenophobia , and has no place in a democratic and multicultural country.

The Voyage of the Damned

On the surface, it appeared that the Nazis were trying to be fair, and allow the Jewish population, at least those who could afford it, to leave. But there were other things at play here.

For one thing, it provided an opportunity for profiteers.

The cost of this trip was exorbitant; most Jews could not afford it. Almost all of them had lost their jobs. The Nazis had forced them to pay steep rents for their homes or apartments. Relatives from outside Germany, in some cases, had sent them money. Several families had to pool their resources so that just one member of the family could leave, thus rupturing family units. Each person was permitted to take the maximum equivalent of $4.00 in cash upon leaving. (3)

And to top it off, visas had to be purchased from a corrupt Cuban government, who told the refugees that they would be processed in Cuba first, and then would be welcome into the United States.

But it was a set-up.

Even before they set sail, it was apparent that they would not be welcomed. "The U.S. State Department in Washington, the U.S. consulate in Havana, some Jewish organizations, and refugee agencies were all aware of the situation. The passengers themselves were not informed ..." (1)

And the reason for this, was that Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, saw it as a perfect opportunity to embarrass other nations who had been vocal about Germany's persecution of the Jews.

The voyage of the St. Louis attracted a great deal of media attention. Even before the ship sailed from Hamburg, right-wing Cuban newspapers deplored its impending arrival and demanded that the Cuban government cease admitting Jewish refugees. Indeed, the passengers became victims of bitter infighting within the Cuban government. The Director-General of the Cuban immigration office, Manuel Benitez Gonzalez, had come under a great deal of public scrutiny for the illegal sale of landing certificates. (1)

But there was also a populist movement in Cuba against accepting these refugees. "Both agents of Nazi Germany and indigenous right-wing movements hyped the immigrant issue in their publications and demonstrations." and "Hostility toward immigrants fueled both antisemitism and xenophobia." (1)

And with the help of right-wing media:

Reports about the impending voyage fueled a large antisemitic demonstration in Havana on May 8, five days before the St. Louis sailed from Hamburg. The rally, the largest antisemitic demonstration in Cuban history, had been sponsored by Grau San Martin, a former Cuban president. Grau spokesman Primitivo Rodriguez urged Cubans to "fight the Jews until the last one is driven out." The demonstration drew 40,000 spectators. Thousands more listened on the radio. (1)

So to recap: Profiteers profited. Governments used it for propaganda. Right-wing groups engaged in xenophobia. Right-wing media inspired demonstrations. And despite all of this, those refugees were still refugees and their claims of persecution valid, as later proven when the horrible news of the Holocaust was echoed around the world.

And yet this week, when a brave soul, Rob McKinnon, President or the Port Moody–Westwood–Port Coquitlam Federal Liberal Association, suggested that the actions of the Harper government were "akin to collaborating with the Nazis to stop the flight of Jews", the media went nuts. Dimitri Soudas went on one of his usual insane rants, and they followed him around with glazed eyes and open mouths.

But as Mr. McKinnon pointed out:

...while Canada supports the UN Declaration on Human Rights that provides that everyone has a right to seek in another country asylum from persecution, as well as conventions that clarify our obligations in such matters, it turns out that if refugees don’t reach our territory we don’t have to do anything. So they propose to stop on the high seas vessels carrying such persecuted souls, and turn them back well before they get to Canadian waters; if we build the wall high enough, and make it impossible for refugees to actually get here, we can bask in our warm pious glow and never have to actually face them. (4)

We, as a nation, should be both alarmed and ashamed.

Taking the Moral High Ground

If you want to draw a modern parallel, look at Glen Beck and his Tea Parties. It's not too difficult to see him as a Grau San Martin urging Cubans to "fight the Jews until the last one is driven out." His demonstrations attract thousands, but the issue is now Muslims, women, blacks and Liberals. And in the same way that our media went after Mr. McKinnon, Beck's Fox News* attacks anyone with dissenting views. Facts are optional.

But we also have to take a look at ourselves. As Mr. Mckinnon says, "we can bask in our warm pious glow and never have to actually face them."

In 2008 the Harper government acknowledged our complicity in the St. Louis incident, which was a good thing.

This past week, the government of Canada made a series of important announcements, acknowledging errors of past governments and providing resources to commemorate these blights on Canadian history. Along with an announcement of funds for an educational program related to the St. Louis, recognition was also given to the Komagata Maru ship incident, where more than 350 potential immigrants from India were denied entry into Canada in 1914. (5)

However, you can't apologize for past mistakes, and then continue to make them. This feel good, "pious" act is only candy coating for our new draconian immigration policies. We have to prevent further holocausts, not be seen as promoting or accepting them.

At about the same time as the S.S. St. Louis incident, there was a letter to the editor of Time magazine, chastising the the way that the Nazis treated their refugees. It was from a passenger who had travelled on the Caribia, another Hamburg-American liner. And he says:

It is one of the most exasperating and humiliating things that can happen to a human being in the world today—to travel on a German ship loaded with Jewish refugees. ... At first, you find yourself enraged at the Germans for being so inhuman but gradually you take a deeper and more abstract view of the situation and, while you develop a sense of shame for the Germans, you come to suspect that their treatment of the refugees is just another indication of a reappearance in Germany of that peculiar quality which in the end will always bring defeat on the German nation. . . .

... The lines between the Germans and the Jews and between the Germans and all other foreigners on board were drawn long before I got on in Curaçao. By the time I got on, the ship had divided into two groups with the Germans by themselves and all others on board—English, a few Americans, a few Irish, Venezuelans, Colombians, etc., all siding with the Jews. . . .

The Hitlerites would not swim in the pool with the Jews. . . . The Germans ate their meals in solitary Nordic splendor—all by themselves. . . . The Germans were angered beyond measure when we went ashore with the Jews at Cartagena and Puerto Colombia. . . . I never was so glad as I was this morning to put foot on American soil. (6)

That same American soil that segregated it's blacks, and afforded few rights to African Americans. "No blacks allowed" ... "Blacks to the back of the bus". Those were familiar signs in Mr. Caldwell's America, but he could take the moral high ground because he defended the Jewish refugees. Prejudice is prejudice, and while he himself may not have harboured bigotry, what's that they say about people who live in glass houses? Or a segregated America?

A similar situation, that was even more grave, also proves this point. In his book, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, tells the story of Captain Wolfgang Hoffman. Hoffman was not a member of the SS, but an ordinary citizen; the commander of a Police Battalion, given the task of executing Jews in Poland.

But when the commander was presented with forms that he must have his men sign, promising that they would not steal from the state, Hoffman fired back with righteous indignation:

" it appeared to me a piece of impertinence to demand of a decent German soldier to sign a declaration in which he obligates himself not to steal, not to plunder, and not to buy without paying. . . ." He continued by describing how unnecessary such a demand was, since his men, of proper ideological conviction, were fully aware that such activities were punishable offenses. He also pronounced to his superiors his judgment of his men's character and actions, including, presumably, their slaughtering of Jews. He wrote that his men's adherence to German norms of morality and conduct "derives from their own free will and is not caused by a craving for advantages or fear of punishment." (7)

He took a stand in protecting the honour of his men. The same men whose duty was the senseless slaughter of human beings. Not in self defense. Not as justice for crimes. But for the simple sin of being Jewish.

In the Bible study of the St. Louis incident (3), that I quoted, there is an interesting assumption made by the author.

The S.S. St. Louis incident also underscores the constant need for a strong and secure Israel. Had there been an Israel during the years of the Holocaust, not only would the passengers of the S.S. St. Louis, but thousands, if not millions, of the victims of Treblinka, Auschwitz, Buchenwald, and other death camps could have found a place to begin their lives anew. Regardless of our views of some of Israel’s policies, we must acknowledge that it is the only country in the world that will admit an unlimited number of Jews living under duress at all times. (3)

But they are wrong. Prejudice against Jews was not confined to non-Jews. According to the James Shasha Institute at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem:

Some 90,000 German Jewish immigrants came to Palestine in the 1930s, particularly in 1933 after Hitler’s rise to power. Their impact was felt in almost every sphere of life in the country – academic, social, cultural, industrial, judicial, medical, agricultural and architectural. This was not another immigration of young pioneers, but of people in their 30s or older, who already had established professions, such as, physicians lawyers, merchants, economists, theatre professionals, musicians and artists.Much has been written of the painful absorption process of the German Jews into the local society.

There was a huge clash between these migrants, whose nature was seen as foreign, and the absorbing element, the Eastern European Jews – established, patronizing and holding key positions in the community. For example, Eliezer Yafe, a leading figure in the Labor Movement, wrote: "There is a great danger to the community from the Hitler Zionists, after their Vaterland vomited them out. Is it not possible that they will wish to have their own German schools, a German hospital?"

"Vomited them out"? Again, prejudice is prejudice. Xenophobia is xenophobia. No one can take the moral high ground unless they earn it.

When Canada turned away the St. Louis, we had an arch anti-Semite as Minister of Immigration, by the name of Frederick Charles Blair. And his opposition to the Jews was based on ignorance.

“I suggested recently to three Jewish gentlemen with whom I am well acquainted, but it might be a very good thing if they would call a conference and have a day of humiliation and prayer, which might profitably be extended for a week or more, where they would honestly try to answer the question of why they are so unpopular almost everywhere...I often think that instead of persecution it would be far better if we more often told them frankly why many of them are unpopular. If they would divest themselves of certain of their habits I am sure they could be just as popular in Canada as our Scandinavian friends are.” (9)

This was not unlike what William Aberhart said on the matter:

Personally, I have little doubt that in working through Jews, the Jewish financial group has sacrificed its own people on the altar of its greed for power and this group is preeminently responsible for the poisonous anti-Semitism which is rampant in the world today. (10)

Or in a report prepared by Ernest Manning tying Communism with Judaism:

If international finance and socialism are travelling in the same direction is it possible that socialism is promoted by the money power to hasten the completion of their plot for world domination? Not only is it possible, but there is a fund of evidence which leads to the inevitable conclusion that there is a plot, worldwide in scope, deliberately engineered by a small number of ruthless international financiers. (10)

It was their own fault. They just needed to be sat down and have the whole thing explained to them. Maybe a day of humiliation and prayer would make them see the light.

What Kind of Country Do We Want to Live In?

That question was asked recently in a column about the closing of Canada's Prison Farms, but it relates to many of the changes made to the Canadian identity, since Stephen Harper and his Reform Movement took power.

Do we want to be "a haven in a heartless world" as Michael Ignatieff suggests and see the symptoms "of the continued humanitarian suffering in Sri Lanka" as Jack Layton reminds us. Or will we simply "bask in our warm pious glow" as feared by Rob Mckinnon?

We have pulled ourselves, for the most part, out of the darkness of anti-Semitism, but now risk jumping head first into the perils of bigotry against others, based on the fear of "strangers". This is the kind of fear that prompts a Florida minister to consider burning the Quran. And it is the kind of fear that prompts right-wing groups, like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to suggest that taking in refugees is a threat to Mother Nauture. (I'm sorry, but that's just nuts).

And it's the same fear that prompts Stephen Harper to tell oppressive regimes to sort out their own "mess" and not send it here. Canadians should not have to be "bothered" with this.

Forget that Sri Lanka is quickly become a "white van" culture, where the police and other government agents engage in intimidation and unwarranted arrests**. Where corruption and police brutality have become the norm. (11) And that Reporters Without Borders have ranked Sri Lanka 165th among 173 countries in its annual worldwide press freedom index***. Or that Human Rights Watch**** research alleged that the Sri Lankan government is responsible for widespread abductions. (Wikipedia)

Instead Vic Toews is focusing on the criminal act of selling passports to legitimate refugees, as the main problem, and not the fact that they are "legitimate refugees." That we have to listen to their stories, and not as Stephen Harper suggests, leave it to the government with the "white vans" to sort out the problem.

The refugees aboard the St. Louis bought their freedom. But by not listening, and assuming the worst, we sent them to their deaths.

Is this really your Canada? Is this really how you want to be defined?

We need to listen to the Rob McKinnon's of this country and ignore the Dimitri Soudases, and the Vic Toews and the Stephen Harpers and the Maureen Baders.

And we need to listen to the Tamil Refugees. Our identity as a fair and compassionate people depends on it.

Something else to think about. The following Nazi poster depicts the heroes of the French resistance as members of an Army of Crime. Something to think about.



Footnotes:

*Canada may soon have out own Glen Beck in Kory Teneycke and Fox News North.

** G-20 anyone? Witch Hunts Anyone?

*** Accurate News and Information anyone?

**** Amnesty International report anyone?

Sources:

1. Voyage of the St. Louis, Holocaust Encyclopedia, United States Holocaust Museum

2. Sri Lankan Tamil refugees spark racism row in Canada: Government accused of scaremongering after prime minister claims 500 asylum seekers aboard boat a security concern, By Duncan Campbell, UK Guardian, September 7, 2010

3. The S.S. St. Louis, Bible Study, No. 148

4. An Evasion of Duty, By Ron McKinnon, Discourse, September 8, 2010

5. Voyage of the SS St. Louis: Journey toward a better future: Canadian government points the way forward by commemorating blights on our history, By: Bernie Farber, Toronto Star, May 27, 2008

6. Letters, Apr. 24, 1939, By: Ben Caldwell, Time Magazine

7. Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, By Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Vintage Books, 1997, ISBN: 0-679-44695-8, Pg 3-4

8. The Migration Experience as Expressed in the Arts, James Shasha Institute at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, June 4 – 8, 2006

9. A Look Back at Canada’s Anti-Semitic History: Frederick Charles Blair, Fight Hatred, March 22, 2010

10. A Trust Betrayed: The Keegstra Affair, By David Bercuson and Douglas Wertheimer, Doubleday Canada, 1985, ISBN: 0-385-25003-7, Pg. 34-38

11. The Tamils in Sri Lanka and the Sri Lankan State, by Ashik Bonofer & David Morgan, South Asia Analysis Group, Paper No. 3786, April 29, 2010

Guest Column by Ashik Bonofer & David Morgan

When Stephen Harper "United the Right", He Solidified the Centre. Just Not For Himself.

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

How Stephen Harper became a "Tory" is the stuff of legend. Or more accurately, the stuff of fairy tales. He did have a brief stint with the PCs in the early 80's, but left the Party because they weren't right-wing enough.

The fact is, that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was not really right-wing at all, at least not in heart and soul. They were just right of centre. And they were 100% Canadian. And in many ways, historically, they were not unlike the Liberal Party in terms of policy.*

That doesn't mean that there weren't fierce rivalries. They were like two football teams (I don't want to use hockey because Harper has done that to death) who battle each other for the prize, but at the end of the day, both teams are in the same league, and committed to the game.

And while they both went after the same prize, the team that won it, honoured it. Showed it off and protected it for the next winner, whether it be themselves or their opponents.

They didn't win it, then smash it, to make sure that no one else could have it. That's how I see the Reformers, whether calling themselves Social Credit, Reform, Alliance or Conservative. They are the party that wants to smash the trophy and terminate the league.

Uniting the Right Was Not About Vote-Splitting

The common belief was that the PCs and Reform-Alliance joined forces to avoid splitting the vote. Sounds good but completely false. That's the way it was sold when David Frum arranged a meeting between Jean Charest then head of the PCs, and Preston Manning, then head of Reform.

In terms of bridging the differences between the parties of Preston Manning and Jean Charest, the conference made little headway ... the chasm in terms of the egos and pride of the leaders; the different attitudes that the parties have towards populist initiatives; Reform's origins in western alienation, Social Credit, and religious fundamentalism; and the fact that Reform emerged in part as an angry protest against the policies of a Progressive Conservative government made a rapprochement unlikely. (1)

A later report by Laurence Putnam confirmed the divide.

The first misconception about the Reform movement is that it is a conservative party. The Reform party has all the characteristics of a Western populist party and very few marks of a conservative party. (2)

And as to the myth of avoiding vote-splitting. In the West, many of those who voted PC did not go to Reform. Most of Reform's gain was at the expense of the NDP, another party that started out as a Western protest movement. But many also went to the Liberals.

Since the 2000 election, unity activists in both the PC and Canadian Alliance parties have preached that the PC party lost a major part of its family when the Reform Party rose to prominence, however, this is not exactly true. The PC Party did not experience a mutiny, but rather with the decline of the PC Party in Western Canada, an opportunity was extended for a new crew, the Reform movement, to come to power. In fact, many members of the Reform Party elected in 1993 had never been Conservatives at all. Preston Manning had been a member of the federal Social Credit Party prior to incepting the Reform Party. MPs Diane blonczy, Deborah Grey and Val Meredith were never members of the PC Party ... As these members were not Tories throughout the 1980's and early 1990's when the Tories were at their most successful peak since Sir John A. Macdonald ... (2)

Promoters of unity between the PC and Canadian Alliance parties had argued that if there were either only a PC or CA candidate in your average Ontario riding, they would have beat the Liberals in 2000. But what about Etobicoke North? In 2000, no PC candidate ran in Etobicoke North, but a Canadian Alliance candidate did, and yet they gained only 3.9%, and the majority of the PC votes migrated to the Liberal candidate. This despite the fact that provincially, the identical riding was held by PC M.P.P. John Hastings.

This riding is one example that proves 1+1 doesn't necessarily equal 2 when it comes to defeating a Liberal incumbent in Ontario ridings. Another interesting Ontario result was found in the riding of Markham, where Jim Jones was elected as a Progressive Conservative in 1997. Mr. Jones crossed to the Alliance in the summer of 2000, but lost re-election just months later. Why was Mr. Jones electable to the people of Markham, Ontario, as a Tory, but unelectable as a Canadian Alliance M.P.? (2)

It's because the majority of the Canadian electorate are moderates. The same people who voted for Brian Mulroney later voted for Jean Chretien, illustrating that votes between the Liberals and the PC Party were always liquid, while votes cast for ideologically-driven parties, like Reform/Alliance and NDP**, came from a "base".

The Reform movement only became palpable to Canadians when they shed their wolf's clothing and started calling themselves "Conservative", or worse yet "Tories", cashing in on a century and a half tradition. And for awhile, they were able to fool some of the people some of the time. But unfortunately for them, as their policies became increasingly un-Canadian, their level of support has drifted back to their "base".

They have no hope of drawing votes from the NDP, except perhaps in the West, but they are also losing the votes of moderates ... aka: ordinary Canadians.

So now they have a problem. Instead of eliminating what they thought was their own competition, they have eliminated all competition for the centre, and all of the "liquid" votes are now flowing away from them.

They are a right-wing fringe party. Nothing more. They came, they saw, they scared the hell out of us, and now they must leave.

This brings us to Michael Ignatieff. I see him as the perfect leader to unite the centre. And if I wasn't convinced before, a column by the widow of the late PC president Dalton Camp, has me sold. Ignatieff is not "a bleeding heart Liberal" but will lead a party that will be fiscally responsible but socially aware.

His family has a long history in this country, and come from all political stripes. His G-Grandfather, George Munro Grant helped Sir John A. and Confederation, and later promoted his railway. His uncle George Parkin Grant was also a Conservative, and author of the popular Lament for a Nation, as reaction to the defeat of John Diefenbaker. His fear was that we would become too Americanized and too beholden to corporations, and while this book was reactionary, he would later suggest that he felt that Pierre Trudeau was on the right track. (3)

Michael's father George Ignatieff was a foreign secretary under Diefenbaker, Diplomat under Pearson, and even served as acting president of the United Nations General Assembly***. He was also a peace activist, who fought hard against nuclear weapons, earning him a reputation as a "Peacemonger." (4)

Another uncle was Vincent Massey.

And though Michael Ignatieff's political views are his own, they have been nurtured in the true Canadian tradition.

So while Johannes Wheeldon may ask "Can Iggy Find His Centre?" He didn't have to. He was already there. And as Wendy Camp says: "He has come home to us." And whispering in his ear, will be family voices from the past, making sure that he doesn't screw up what they helped to build.

Footnotes:

*Stephen Harper referred to the PCs or "Red Tories" as "Pink Liberals".

**The NDP has since become more moderate and appealing, though some of their early followers feel that they had to sell out to do so. I like them and remember the greats like Tommy Douglas and Ed Broadbent, and the leader Jack Layton used to be.

***Stephen Harper and the Reformers never trusted the United Nations.

Sources:

1. The Winds of Right-wing Change in Canadian Journalism, By David Taras (University of Calgary), Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 21, No 4, 1996

2. An Analysis On The Differences Between the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada & The Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance, by Laurence Putnam As prepared for the Fraser Institute, December 2002

3. Lament For a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism, By George P. Grant, McClelland & Stewart, 1970 edition with new introduction by author.

4. The Making of a Peacemonger: The Memoirs of George Ignatieff, By Sonja Sinclair, University of Toronto Press, ISBN: 0-8020-2556-0

Why Do the Poor Have a Deep Emotional Attachment to a Party That Serves the Interests of the Rich?

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

In January of this year, the BBC published an interesting article: Why do people vote against their own interests? It was a light bulb moment, and defines to a tee the basis of neoconservativism, as represented by the Republicans in the U.S. and the Reform-Conservatives in Canada.

They are both clearly parties representing the interests of their country's wealthiest citizens, yet most of their "base" support comes from the fringes and those who stand to lose the most if neoconservatism wins.

Last year, in a series of "town-hall meetings" across the country, Americans got the chance to debate President Obama's proposed healthcare reforms. What happened was an explosion of rage and barely suppressed violence ... But it is striking that the people who most dislike the whole idea of healthcare reform - the ones who think it is socialist, godless, a step on the road to a police state - are often the ones it seems designed to help.

Why is that? Political scientist Dr David Runciman is quoted as saying:

If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them. They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best.

The Reform Party built an entire movement based on that theory. "So you don't trust politicians. Neither do we" they cried.

And across the border, when Republican Newt Gingrich watched those TV spots and read those ads he was inspired.

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.' (1)

And using the techniques and talking points honed by Manning and the Reformers (Stephen Harper was chief policy advisor at the time), 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 [1994], 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. (2)

It's ironic that so many people accuse Stephen Harper of being a Republican (including myself), but the Democrats in the U.S. should be calling the Republicans 'Reformers', and accusing them of copying Stephen Harper.

Proud to be a Racist and a Redneck

Vancouver - On his small square patch of Canada, surrounded by a nine-foot fence of English laurel, Reform Man is railing against the Frenchmen who run the bloody government, and dropping remarks about Chinese drivers.

"I admire a lot of those other cultures, but in their own country," said Sid Blanchett, a diesel engine mechanic. Mr Blanchett lives in north Vancouver, a hotly contested riding in the 2 June election. There are two signs outside his fence: one for the Reform Party, and another that says "No More Prime Ministers from Quebec". He's proud to be a racist and a redneck, he said, if that means defending his own culture, religion, and traditions.

Covering Reform can be like waking up in a Monty Python sketch, as one Vancouver journalist said this week. Old-fashioned caricatures pop up and say the most extraordinary things. Members belt out Oh Canada at party meetings, and while they drop clangers about blacks, gays, or Sikhs, the race they really detest is the French. (3)

Preston Manning and the Reform Party played on those prejudices:

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.

Preston Manning is a smart guy and I have no doubt that he is not racist. But in the same way that his father's Social Credit party fed off anti-Semitism, Preston knew how to feed off people's insecurities. And when his MPs were quoted making racist remarks, he'd simply say that the Reform Party does not condone Racism, but rarely did anything else.

This explains his handling of the Jan Brown/Jim Silye incident.

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.

[Then] when [Reform MP] 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 ... (4)

And:

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..." (4)

In response, Manning did reprimand Ringma, but also suspended Jan Brown. Instead she quit.

We might wonder at the logic behind this, but it goes back to the party's basic philosophy of "us against them". The Jan Browns did not fit into this, but the Rob Ringmas did. They were the people who kept the party faithfuls motivated to call themselves The Reform Man and display a sign on their lawn touting the party line "No More Prime Ministers from Quebec".

This Brings us Back To Why the Most Disadvantaged Oppose Those Wanting to Raise Them Up

Thomas Frank, the author of the best-selling book What's The Matter with Kansas ... believes that the voters' preference for emotional engagement over reasonable argument has allowed the Republican Party to blind them to their own real interests.

The Republicans have learnt how to stoke up resentment against the patronising liberal elite, all those do-gooders who assume they know what poor people ought to be thinking. Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. [my emphasis] The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest.

Watch the following video and listen to how many times the Fox News personality uses terms like "elites in the media and academia", "academic circles" in a piece suggesting that Obama is a socialist.

And in condescending language, make any notions of offering a hand up, as a socialist plot. "These people believe that folks are poor because other people are rich." "Wealth redistribution" "drawing emotion from guilt, jealousy and envy" (all sins). So if God and the Republicans want to ignore the poor, it's only for their own good.

This guy even goes so far as to say that history has buried more bodies from the envy of socialism than the greed of capitalism, which of course is completely false, but they are playing to their "base". The people who should be demanding better from their government as equal citizens, instead are being led to believe that they should not be demanding anything at all.

"Glen Beck and the American people". They are on an even plane. Forget that Glen Beck works for a multi-national corporation, and earns 50 million dollars a year. He is still one of them. And those socialist academics, who are advocating for the lowest levels of society, are "elites". They don't belong to the club. It's "Glen Beck and the American people". Wink, wink.

At the Reform Party's opening assembly, many people left, especially seniors; when they realized what their policies, wrapped in a veil of ambiguity, really meant. An end to subsidies for farmers. An end to public health care. An end to unemployment insurance, Canada Pension and Old Age Security. (5) Those who stayed never really thought it through.

It was "us against them". They spoke their language. And if they felt any tinge of doubt, the Rob Ringmas would come out to remind them.

And while the Reformers preached that everyone was responsible for their own destinies, it enabled them to promote policies that hindered those destinies. The end to things like public health care and public education.

At the 1991 Reform Party Assembly, a guest speaker was William Gairdner, author of the book The Trouble with Canada, which journalist Murray Dobbin stated ".. helped lay the groundwork for Reform Party policy." (6) Reform Party policy which was then being drafted by Stephen Harper.

The Reformers gathered in Saskatoon saved perhaps the loudest cheers, whistles, and applause for Gairdner's last shot: 'And my favourite proposal, by the way, is returning choice to education by privatizing every school in the country'.(6)

Of course making all schools private, would ensure that the disadvantaged remained disadvantaged, and the country's wealthy would remain at the top, while "the poorest citizens continued to serve the interests of its richest."

Gotta' love neoconservatism, which has been dubbed "the revolt of the rich", who use the poor and disadvantaged as their foot soldiers. Brilliant. Wrong. But still brilliant.

Sources:

1. 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

2. 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

3. Racists, rednecks and the reform of Canada: With a poll imminent, reactionaries are out in force, By Tim Cornwell, May 26, 1997

4. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, By Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 318-319

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

6. Dobbin, 1992, Pg. 165-166

The Reform Movement Was Populism, Not Conservatism

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

"The first misconception about the Reform movement is that it is a conservative party. The Reform party has all the characteristics of a Western populist party and very few marks of a conservative party." - Laurence Putnam 2002

I wrote yesterday about a 2002 article published for the Fraser Institute, that laid out the reasons why the so-called "unite the right" movement was misleading. Written by Laurence Putnam, it was entitled: An Analysis On The Differences Between the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada & The Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance.

But despite the fact that the Reformers have always sold this to the Canadian public as a union of two right-wing parties, to avoid vote-splitting; it was no such thing. It was a new, corporate friendly, hard right populist fringe party, with money to burn; taking over a centrist party with a century and a half tradition.

And it was done with the sole intent of pushing an extreme right agenda, dressed up in comfortable familiarity. Think of it as the Big Bad Wolf pretending to be granny to lure in Little Red Riding Hood.

"My what a large number of lobbyists you have Stevie" ... "The better to hear you with"

"My what a large number of photo-ops you have Stevie" ... "The better for you to see me with.

"My what a lying two-faced person you are Stevie" ... "The better to fool you with"

Decades of Trying to Take Over the PCs

In the late 1960s, several wealthy businessmen approached Ernest Manning with the idea of creating a right-wing, free market party, but Manning suggested that instead of trying to launch something new, they would be better off trying to work through the current Conservative party. He and his son Preston wrote Political Realignment, which described two political rivals. One left, one right, with clear ideological differences. (1)

The Mannings attended the PC national convention in 1967, with the intent of selling their ideas, but they had overestimated their importance, and the party wanted nothing to do with them. Ernest then had his most popular party member, Robert Thompson, run on a PC ticket, to work on the inside to move the party right.

Thompson won the seat but had little luck doing anything more than that. So they put the idea on hold, waiting for the next wave.

When the resulting Reform Party had their first electoral success in 1993, it has always been thought that they did it at the expense of the PC Party, when Brian Mulroney's coalition self-destructed. But in his paper, Putnam largely refutes these claims. In fact, in the West, it was often at the expense of the NDP.

Citing BC as an example: in 1988, the NDP won 19 seats, but in 1993, only 2. The PCs went from 12 to 0, while the Liberals from 1 to 6.

Prime Minister Kim Campbell's loss of Vancouver Centre, a traditional Tory seat (H.H. Stevens, Doug Jung, Pat Carney, Kim Campbell) to Liberal challenger Hedy Fry. The Liberal gains in the West during the 1993 election came chiefly at the expense of the PC Party, whereas most Reform party gains came chiefly at the expense of the NDP, as was witnessed in Lorne Nystrom's shocking loss in the Saskatchewan riding of Yorkton-Melville to Reform challenger Garry Breitkreuz .... British Columbians who supported the NDP in the 1980's and supported the Reform Party through the 1990's did not expediently shift their political views from the left to the right, but rather they were voting for the populist, anti-establishment party that best represented their views at the time.

In other words they did not go conservative, never believing that Reform was a conservative party.

Since the 2000 election, unity activists in both the PC and Canadian Alliance parties have preached that the PC party lost a major part of its family when the Reform Party rose to prominence, however, this is not exactly true. The PC Party did not experience a mutiny, but rather with the decline of the PC Party in Western Canada, an opportunity was extended for a new crew, the Reform movement, to come to power.

In fact, many members of the Reform Party elected in 1993 had never been Conservatives at all. Preston Manning had been a member of the federal Social Credit Party prior to incepting the Reform Party. MPs Diane Ablonczy, Deborah Grey and Val Meredith were never members of the PC Party. North Vancouver Reform MP Ted White came to the Reform Party after having left the Western Canada Concept* party, an unsuccessful Western separatist fringe party.

Western voters were looking for something entirely different. They always distrusted the East, so the Reform Party was seen as a vehicle for them and them alone. The PCs, Liberals and NDP, all represented Ottawa now, and the Reform battle cry hit home: "So you don't trust politicians, neither do we."

And former conservative voters did not go to Reform believing them to be another conservative party. They never would have voted for them if they thought that. They saw Reform as something completely new, but if it was with any feelings of tradition, they were with the Social Credit Party.



Footnotes:

*Stockwell Day's father was also a member of this party.

Sources:

1. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, By Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 28-29

Fraser Institute Paper Reveals That Stephen Harper is Not a Conservative

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

Throughout history there are a great many myths, and of course those myths then become facts and those facts become history. But for our time, one of the biggest myths is the labelling of Stephen Harper as a Tory, and his party as conservatives.

Anyone who has ever voted Progressive Conservative in the past, must know in their gut that this party is absolutely nothing like the Progressive Conservative Party that we are familiar with.

Can you imagine the wonderful Dalton Camp, former conservative strategist, ever working with someone like Stephen Harper? When he first learned that there was a movement to unite the Alliance Party (formerly Reform Party) with his conservatives, he was adamantly opposed, suggesting that the two parties had no common ground and that then leader of the Alliance Party, Stockwell Day, was "viewed by most Tories as embedded in the lunatic fringe." (1)

Lawrence Martin recently asked: Is there an old-style Tory in the House?

Is there a moderate Tory left in this land? There are many, of course. It’s just that they have no voice. They might as well be in cement shoes at the bottom of Lake Nipigon. This year, in particular, it has become evident just how much the old Tories of Robert Stanfield and Dalton Camp and Brian Mulroney and Joe Clark have been vanquished.

During their first years of governance, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives paid heed to the views of that progressive breed. But the party’s hard right now appears, with a few policy exceptions, to have assumed control of the agenda. And that agenda is about keeping out boat people, letting in Fox News, building new jails, reviewing affirmative action, killing the gun registry, playing down climate change, revamping the census and giving more voice to social conservatives.

However, I came across a decade old article published for the Fraser Institute, that lays it all out succinctly. Written by Laurence Putnam, it was entitled: An Analysis On The Differences Between the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada & The Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance.

I was a bit confused at first, because the Fraser Institute, with people like Jason Kenney, David Frum and Ezra Levant, worked very hard to unite these parties, and yet clearly this report detailed why such a union was wrong.

This analysis has been prepared in answer to pleas from various political personalities in Canada to unite the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance. It is the goal of this paper to illustrate, with evidence of past elections, voter migration patterns, an examination of each party's culture and historical evidence to prove that any such unity between these two parties would alienate the moderate support base the Progressive Conservative Party enjoys and which must be captured to form a government.

It is the intention of this paper to successfully show how the Reform Party rose to prominence ... and how the Conservatives can work to ensure that movements such as the Canadian Alliance are not allowed to grow in the future.

What Putnam showed was that this would not be about "uniting the right", because the PC Party was not a right-wing party. I had mentioned this before, that in most ways there was little difference between the Liberals and PCs on policy, so elections were always about platform and personality. But the divide between the Reform/Alliance and the PC was a veritable chasm.

And they knew that.

So why did they do it, and why was it so successful?

I remember years ago reading an article in a May, 1939 issue of Liberty Magazine: Why Germany Will Not Go to War. In it the columnist laid out all the reasons why Adolf Hitler would not declare war in Europe. And what I found interesting was that everything predicted came true, and they lost as a result. And that's becasue what wasn't factored into the prediction was profiteering.

A lot of people stood to become very rich off that war, and they in fact did, including many American corporations. (George Bush's grandfather made his fortune financing the Nazis)

And this union of the right, as erroneously as it was labelled, was poised to make a lot of wealthy people wealthier. That's what neoconservatism is all about. And it's why they plucked Stephen Harper from the National Citizens Coalition, a group financed and run by multi-national corporations.

Stephen Harper himself has said that he got back into politics because he felt that the NCC no longer had any allies in government, with Brian Mulroney gone. And the NCC held his job open for four years, before naming another president. He was now working for them on the inside.

I'm going to break down Putnam's paper into several posts, because there are many startling revelations. I then intend to edit it down for a chapter in my E-Book, but for now the important thing is that Stephen Harper and his people deliberately perpetrated a fraud on the Canadian people, when they engineered a hostile takeover of the PC Party.

It puts so many past quotes and stories into perspective.

What was revealed to the Fraser Institute was that there were no grounds for a union. So instead they changed their strategy. And for that they went to Tom Flanagan, the Calgary School and founding member of both the Reform Party and Civitas Society, Ted Byfield.

Ted Byfield, the unabashed voice of the West since the Calgary School’s professors were pups, sees it another way – in terms Leo Strauss might have approved. “All these positions which Harper cherishes are there because of a group of people in Calgary – Flanagan most prominent among them,” Byfield says. “I don’t think he knows how to compromise. It’s not in his genes. The issue now is: how do we fool the world into thinking we’re moving to the left when we’re not?” (2)

I guess "you can fool some of the people some of the time", but who are they really fooling now? Harper's base has been reduced to those who know and relish the fact that he is not a Tory.

Sources:

1. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 381

2. The Man Behind Stephen Harper, by Marci McDonald, From the October 2004 issue of The Walrus