The Fish and The State

 

 

They denounced Raynolds in the House of Commons and Richards further used the story to solicit donations in a fundraising email that accused Raynolds of showing frightening arrogance.

 

They showed no inclination Tuesday to retract their denunciations or apologize to Raynolds, despite demands to do so from Liberal MPs.

 

 

It's unfair to make gross generalizations about groups of people by the actions or inactions of a few, so I'll try not to do that.  I will, however, point out certain observations.

 

Jason Kenney is considered to have his eye on the prize - replacing Stephen Harper as Leader of the CPC.  He's got his fans and his detractors, each of who can easily justify their positions.  In this particular instance, he leapt at the opportunity to pillory an opponent before doing some fact-checking.  Even now, when his source has issued a retraction, Kenney has done no such thing.

 

Why?

 

Previously, Vic Toews made a statement about being with his Party or with child pornographers, then said he never uttered any statement of the kind.  Dean del Mastro was shocked, shocked when people he'd smeared didn't have his back when he got caught out on unethical behaviour.  Peter McKay doesn't seem to get why people may be suspicious about his sincerity, especially given his penchant for hiding behind others in defense.

 

Why?

 

Nigel Wright, upstanding citizen, behaved badly.  So did Michael Sona (whether on his own or not), so did Mike Duffy, Patrick Brazeau, on and on.  Alexandra Constantidis, a young staffer who spent time in the employ of Rob Anders (not particularly a model parliamentarian) has been behaving in a less than ethical fashion. 

 

Why?

 

Why are apologies less than forthcoming from these individuals when they are caught behaving badly, or when the foundation of their attacks crumbles?

 

How they self-rationalize their positions is their business; how they actually arrive at them is another matter. 

 

To leap on an opportunity to tear down an opponent with over-the-top messaging is to dehumanize them.  To expect humane treatment from those you treat inhumanely is a form of narcissism.  To speak through your emotional relationship with a context - ie, Toews denying the words he actually said to Don Martin - is to react before understanding or contemplation has a chance to set in.

 

To fabricate an identity, lie to others and try to disappear so as to avoid accountability is a combination of all of these things.

 

What happens when you believe that the people have short term memories, not like yourself?  Are you setting yourself above the people?

 

What does it say when you suggest people don't care about the way Parliament works - and what are you suggesting they care about?  Beer and popcorn, perhaps?

 

How about when you use false information to get money out of your own supporters?  Is that not treating them as less clever than yourself?  Is that not dehumanizing them?

 

To apologize to people you consider yourself better than is to diminish in self-esteem.  It's humbling, equalizing.  Winning isn't about equalizing - it's about putting others behind yourself.

 

Think about this for a second.  The Tories could push their omnibus bills, close committees, choke off funding for agencies they don't like and whatnot without ever having to directly answer their opponents - just do their own thing and speak over the heads of the institution to which government is accountable (ie government) and make their pitch that way.

 

But they don't stop there.  They have to be tearing strips off their opponents, keeping them down like an alpha male gorilla will take swipes at young bucks who contest their authority.  This isn't a generalization of the actions of a few - these are decisions and frames that get approved by the PMO. 

 

They relish and encourage the administration of beatings to their foes.  They reward those who do so on their behalf.

 

Delivering a beating has nothing to do with the truth, with ethical practice, with democracy or transparency or any of that.  It's about domination.

 

Domination - only the leader can solve our problems, trust them to keep troubles from shores and reject pretenders - is not about democracy.  Democracy is quite the opposite.

 

Destroying any and all dissenting voice isn't democratic, either.  We know what that is.

 

There are those within Canada's government who act as though ethical practices are for lesser beings.  There are clearly young people, even seasoned people who are responding to this culture and acting in kind.

 

It's not the spun arrogance of a Liberal that should concern Canada's conservatives.  There's broad-based acknowledgement from everyone not an insider that our democracy is broken, politicians are lost and the future is more frightening than any threats lapping at our shores.

 

As they say, the fish stinks from the head.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why Open Data Matters

Current Conservative messaging emphasizes a million new jobs created since the recession; Canada's relative economic stability compared with other industrialized countries; and various tax cuts provided to "average" families since 2006.

Sinclair repeated those talking points when asked for comment on the report.

I came upon this Globe and Mail story via Twitter while at Podcamp; I was there to discuss the importance of Open Data.

The quote stood out to me, because it summed up the argument I'd been making rather neatly - that is, that civil servants were being made to serve partisan, not public interests.  I copied it and the link and put them in my calendar as a reminder to post about later.

Jordan Sinclair isn't a Minister's office spokesman, not a partisan - he's from the department.

So, it's later.  I went in to the story and looked for the quote.  It wasn't there.  In its place was this: 

A spokeswoman for Employment Minister Jason Kenney said the report reflect "the period of time under the previous Liberal government," from 1993 forward.  

The line about a public servant parroting partisan messaging was gone; in its place, a partisan attack directed at a previous government.

Did I read and copy the quote wrong?  That doesn't seem right, as after a Google search I still managed to find it over at the CBC website.  But I didn't read the CBC story until now - I got the quote from the G&M story and saved it in my calendar along with the hyperlink I pulled from the very same page - the very same page that doesn't feature that quote at present.

There are all kinds of creepy implications about this turn of events, but the one that should alarm us the most is that evidence and consequence are being ignored when they contradict partisan messaging.

At some point in the not-too-far-distant future, the consequences of ignoring the facts will come back to haunt us.  I don't know about you, but I'd much rather solve a problem before it emerges rather than wait and place blame after the fact.

Especially when I know what the truth is.  That makes me accountable, too.  It doesn't matter what self-serving shenanigens the partisan people are up to - if I know there's a problem and choose not to act, I own some of the blame.  So do we all.

So, yeah - Open Data.  

The peaceable revolution can't come fast enough.

Jason Kenney's Paradise

Jason Kenney ‏@kenneyjason23h

Its estimated that at least 200,000 political prisoners are in North Korean Gulag concentration camps, some 50,000 for being Christians.

They say I got to learn but nobody's here to teach me

If they can't understand it, how can they reach me?

Although we've come close, I've not yet had the pleasure to chat with the Honourable Minister Kenney as of yet.  What's meant to be, will be, etc.  

Kenney's pretty good about getting out of the Ottawa safety zone and putting himself in the line of fire.  The fact that he's so liberal about using his Twitter account is a great thing; it makes him feel more accessible to the common Canadian social media user.  In fact, it was a recent tweet back-and-forth about this 2012 story about  Kenney referencing "foreign gangsters" and gun violence in Toronto that led me to looking at his stream and landing on the entry posted above.

Yes, Kenney's an ambitious political animal and his public presence is designed to enhance his profile - you can't hold that against him, because that's what someone with his goals is supposed to do.  But consider this - there are no votes in North Korea.  The vast majority of Canadians have no idea nor in-depth interest in how bad things are there.  There are a growing number of Korean-Canadians, many of whom will harbour some concerns about their kin in the Hermit State, but it'd be hard to argue this is a topic he can truly milk for political advantage.

So - out of all the topics, demographics and communications stratagems he could be dedicating his tweets to, why this? 

And what does some 50,000 for being Christians have to do with foreign gangsters?

Today's crop of leading Conservatives have a habit of using "with us or against us" rhetoric; not just in terms of partisan or urban/rural divides, but in terms of who they see as real Canadians/real people and those they don't.  In this world, there are people like us, there are threats, there are marks and then people who simply don't matter.

With us or with the child pornographers.

Terrorists aren't human beings whose behaviour can be understood, remediated and avoided in the future - they're a cancer to be wiped out.

Don't fall in line with our demands?  You don't get a choice, pilgrim.

And who can forget the Opposition wants to destroy our country?

Some of this is wedge-politics, certainly, designed to engage some voters, dismay others.  But when you consistently push the "fear The Other" button, a pattern of underlying beliefs starts to emerge.

When Jason Kenney - or Rob Ford, for that matter - assumes that the people committing gun crimes in Toronto are foreign-born, it's for the same reason that Birthers have such trouble accepting that Barack Obama is a real American; real Americans aren't supposed to behave (or look) like that.

Yes, it's discrimination, but discrimination doesn't come out of the blue; there's a cognitive basis for stigma that serves a purpose in some cases, but leads to false assumptions in others.  As with his colleague Vic Toews, the ambitious, driven and True Conservative Kenney doesn't feel the value in committing sociology; not when his gut instinct provides such clear and emotionally resonant answers.

All people are created equal, start from the same playing field and therefore, have the chance to achieve success if they pull up their bootstraps and work hard.  Poverty, racism, postal-code stigma and societal nurture don't, in fact, exist - they're constructs of lazy people (or non-people) who need to either be kicked in the ass or somehow removed.  When they're out, there somebody else's problem.

It's like marginalized Canadians, be they youth or "special interest" groups - they keep whining like their lot in life is someone else's problem, right?  If they can't get their own act together, why should we help them?  Should they get to a point where they threaten the rest of us, well, that's why we're serious about getting tough on crime.

North Korea is about as far "out" as you can get - there's zero public anywhere in the West to actively do something to stop the human tragedy that plays out there, daily.  But when you hear stories from real, live human beings that humanize these atrocities, you begin to feel their pain and realize that, by doing nothing, you are complicit in their pain.

Then the cognitive dissonance sets in.  If they're like us, then we have to act.  Do unto others, etc.  But acting is not in our best interests; it's actually better if we leave 'em dehumanized.  It's very hard to remain indifferent when it's your own people being harmed.

I don't imagine this is a conscious effort, but when Kenney, the practicing Christian focuses on the Christian component of North Korea's gulags, he's actually working to convince himself that they are like him.  Because part of him knows that indifference is not acceptable.

Like I always say - everyone can be reached.

Individually, we're lost, but together - there is hope for all of us.

Harper's Family Values

The essence of this conservatism is, according to Russell Kirk, "the preservation of the ancient moral traditions of humanity. Conservatives respect the wisdom of their ancestors: they are dubious of wholesale alteration.

This same argument applies equally to a range of issues involving the family (all omitted from the Throne Speech), such as banning child pornography, raising the age of sexual consent, providing choice in education and strengthening the institution of marriage. All of these items are key to a conservative agenda.

 

I have a question; how does Harper define "family?"

The impression I take from his speech is that he's referring to the nuclear family of one dad, one mom and 2.5 kids.  If Harper spent a little time committing sociology, he'd come to see that the concept of the nuclear family is hardly a "traditional" one, nor is it gospel cross-culturally.

Yes, same-sex parents, unmarried parents and partners without kids but view their pet canine as part of the family are all part of the mix these days, but that's just the tip of the kinship chart.

What about grandparents? What of aunts, uncles, cousins? In the majority of the world's societies, these "extended" family members aren't considered "peripheral" to the nuclear family but fundamental parts of the family whole.  How many homes around the world, including here in Canada, have three generations and more than one "nuclear family" living under one roof, sharing domestic duties like child-rearing?

 

This is significant when it comes to the matter of preserving ancient traditions vs what Harper describes as the Conservative Agenda.  As his own Caucus has discussed, there are many places around the world where female children are seen as less desirable than male ones; that's a traditional viewpoint that many older generations still cling to.  Arranged marriage is another one of these nuggets of ancient traditional wisdom that one finds in various cultures around the world.  When parents insists that their kids must become doctors or lawyers to be deemed successful, does that foster a skills/employment opportunity gap?  How does this social conservatism jive with economic conservatism?

 

Already we see that there's cognitive dissonance in Harper's positions, but we've only begun to scratch the surface.

 

In his speech, Harper talks about  "the so-called spanking debate" and seems to suggest families should have the right to discipline their kids through smacking them.  To me, that's like saying it's okay to use the word "fuck" if you can't think of any better way to express yourself, but everyone's entitled to their own beliefs.  Here, is Harper's quandary:

 

Who, in the PM's view, constitutes family when it comes to spanking or more broadly, disciplining children?  Is it just the parents?  How about grandparents, aunts or uncles, elder siblings?  If it's just parents, do they then have the right to give permission to others to spank/discipline their kids when they're not around?  What's the accountability mechanism in this?  We've seen from experience that when kids' perspectives aren't valued, abuses can happen and go unrecognized.  That's a problem.

 

And again, we come up against cultural definitions.  In some places in the world it's perfectly acceptable for grandparents to discipline kids - even kids not of their own family.  In Korea, for instance, seniors are referred to as grandfather (harabogie) and grandmother (harmonie) by all youth.  From my time living in a small city in the south-west of the country, I saw random seniors speaking their mind to any youth they felt wasn't acting appropriately or showing appropriate respect, with the youth accepting admonishment as part of their role.  That was tradition, but it certainly doesn't fit within Harper's definition of family. 

 

Parents empower teachers and daycare providers to discipline their kids every day, though not through spanking; because of diverse needs and diverse comfort levels of parents, standardized rules have to be found that are socially acceptable and that outlier parents can be made comfortable with (this is where government comes in).  It sends mixed signals to kids if dialogue and responsibility are part of the discipline process at school, but being smacked on the bum is the totality of discipline at home.  That's another committing sociology thing, I guess.

 

So - to respect traditional wisdoms and empower families, perhaps Harper is a fan of home-schooling, removing kids from the socialization process and ensuring they have consistent training and disciplining from parents; that's a pretty standard social-conservative position, sometimes expanded to a religious group (winking at you, John Tory) where again, parents off-load responsibility for the well-being of their kids to an institution for large portions of a day.  Naturally, there's a problem with this model in the big picture, too - it supports a variety of traditional education systems, value systems and yes, kinship systems that might be close to universal in the places in which the families of practitioners originated, but are just part of a multicultural mix here in Canada.  What happens when kids with completely different appreciations of social order, kinship and even things like standards of cleanliness interact in the post-school world?  When and how do they learn to compromise those traditional values to engage meaningfully and productively with others of different systems?

 

How do parents of mixed ethnocultural background apply differing social norms to their kids except through revisiting traditions?  That's an adaptive process every immigrant in every country and the subsequent first-gen kids go through; where adaptation doesn't happen, social exclusion and all the consequences thereof come in to play.

 

If you want to have a series of cultural silos that don't interact lest traditional cultural norms come at odds with each other, fine - but how does that allow for economic growth?

 

Some ancient traditional wisdoms define the role of women as being at home, rearing children and tending the fires.  Evidence, however, shows that social problems decrease and economic/quality of life well-being increases the more women are engaged in society. 

 

It's pretty clear that when Harper talks about Conservatives respecting the wisdom of their ancestors, he's referring not to cultural or ethnic ancestors but rather ideological ones (hence all the academic/philosophical references in his speech).  I would be very curious to know the composition of the room demographics when he made his speech.

 

Of course, that speech was made in 2003 - ten years is a long time and people that are even a bit open-minded change their perspectives over time.  It's clear that Harper has moved beyond his limited scope of understanding family and culture; in fact, but looking for common elements that people of diverse backgrounds can rally around, he's been committing sociology all this time.  Jason Kenney, in fact, is the Minister of Sociology Committing - out and about connecting with ethnic communities that don't have the same view of the world that Harper 2003 did.  And that's a good thing.

 

Harper's Prime Minister of a majority government, now - he's clearly picked up a few things since his ideological fire wall/ivory tower academia days.  He's come to understand that comprise, cohesion and above all adaptation are necessary for social survival and growth.

 

In fact, I'd say that Harper's evolution as a politician has proved at least some traditional wisdom true - that which fails to adapt doesn't survive.

 

That, friends, is what progress is all about.

Jobs and the Economy: What Jason Kenney Can Learn From Teachers

 

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney recently attacked Liberal leadership front-runner Justin Trudeau, questioning his leadership ability because before entering politics all he did was work as a teacher. In the eyes of some apparently, teaching is a lowly profession. And the idea that teachers are leaders is one that is open to ridicule. Had Trudeau been a lawyer or doctor, this would have not been an issue. But an ordinary teacher wanting to lead our country raises concerns.

 

Stephen Harper never had a real job prior to politics - he never put his fabled economics degree to the test prior to entering politics.  Jason Kenney served as a lobbyist - a role he has essentially carried over to the Immigration file, as he pretty much spends all his time lobbying ethnic communities to vote Conservative.

 

Meanwhile, the Harper Team, focused on jobs and economic growth, are increasingly frustrated by their - sorry, the bureaucrats - ability to develop the labour skills they feel our economy needs.  They're not having any luck getting the Private Sector to loosen their purse strings, either, and innovation in Canada is nowhere near where it needs to be.

 

BUT - the Tories have done a pretty good job of stifling opposition, scaring bureaucrats into silence and demonizing those who disagree with their narrow ideology, haven't they?  Power is theirs and they aren't prepared to share it.  Alas, by choking the Census, clamping down on inconvenient evidence and knee-capping conversation, Team Harper is forcing everyone to rely on gut instinct rather than fact.  Instinct in the absence of fact, particularly in tough economic times, will always, always encourage a bunker mentality - the exact opposite of what we need to get out of our worsening economic slump.  It's a limbic thing.

 

I won't hold my breath on the Harpers and Kennedys of the world connecting the dots between their emphasis on control and their mounting frustrations with everyone else not playing along.

 

What I will do is suggest the CPC folk look at some different models to find out how motivation really works and how to foster the independence, critical thinking and comfort with risk they seek.  Of course, first they must unlearn what they have learned.  What's required for them to do that?

 

Hint - they should go back to the classroom and learn from the masters.

 

It's not about controlling the flow of fish, folks - it's about teaching people to fish. 

 

The Greatest Threat to Democracy

 

Despite all of that, the Fidesz-dominated Hungarian Parliament passed the Fourth Amendment with the governing party’s reliable two-thirds majority because, say governmental spokespeople, these are mere “technical” amendments that should not cause anyone concern.

 

What does this remind me of... oh yeah this:

 

"The Canadian public don't care about the maneuvers in Parliament and the wording of various motions."

 

Of course, Harper is probably right.  Canadians consider themselves too busy, too otherwise-engaged to worry about the slow erosion of our democratic institutions.  We are at best indifferent to the even worse erosion happening steadily beyond our borders, even in supposedly "safe" countries like Hungary - and this, not for the first time. 

 

Have we not learned?  We can pretend not to see, we can pretend not to hear because we choose not to be responsible - but we are responsible.  Democracies at all levels require the proactive participation of their members.  Totalitarianism is a social cancer that recognizes no borders, but it doesn't happen out of the blue, on its own - the disaffection of the masses lets it happen.

The biggest threat to democracy isn't external terrorism or The Mule, but the indifference of its people.


The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of beauty is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, but indifference between life and death.
  
    -  Elie Wiesel

Pro-Omnibus, Anti-Abortion?

 

Two things that caught my attention today:

 

1) The Conservative Government is looking to pass another omnibus budget bill.  The last one didn't just deal with the budget - it included far-reaching changes that Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page is still fighting to get details about.  While the bill was widely derided by Opposition and the media, the average Canadian didn't really much seem to care. 

 

2) Jason Kenney favours Bill M-312 - ostensibly about mandating a Parliamentary Committee (on which the Tories would have a majority and their committee-disruption manual at hand) to decide when human life begins but, come on - it's really about declaring abortion as murder.  Kenney is far from the only Member in the Harper Caucus that is anti-abortion; many of their base is, too.

 

Kenney is a Senior Pitbull in the Harper team.  He's not beyond using creative means to realize his own personal agenda.  He probably gets to have some say-so on the contents of far-reaching omnibus budget bills, too.

 

We have a Harper government that, now entrenched with a majority, is testing just how little the Canadian public cares about the functioning of our parliamentary democracy.  They're enacting massive budget bills that cynically include all kinds of things that relate to their partisan agenda and then aren't telling us what those things are.  We have a Tory Caucus, including senior Cabinet Members, who are advocating for policy changes unpalatable to the majority of Canadian voters.

 

Would Stephen Harper include anti-abortion provisions in an omnibus bill and then bury the details so that the public can't find them?  If I can think of this, you can bet the Stephen Woodworths of the world have as well.  Someone, somewhere, has surely whispered this message in a political ear: come on, the public doesn't care.  The Opposition can't do anything to stop us.  You know it's the right thing to do.  We have the chance, now, we can't afford to lose it.  Put a clause in the the budget bill.  You'll regret it if you don't.

 

Sound dramatic?  It's also entirely possible, if the Canadian public doesn't start to actively care about how Stephen Harper is abusing our system of democracy.  There will certainly be things in the upcoming omnibus budget bill that don't belong there, but support the CPC's partisan agenda.  If Canadians don't make a fuss about it, we are reinforcing the message that omnibus bills are a great tool for skirting the process and implementing partisan agendas without scrutiny or transparency.  The people with unpalatable notions will seize on that and apply internal pressure to get what they want, whether it's in Canada's best collective interests or not.

 

This is why we have to start caring.  To paraphrase Burke, all that is necessary for the triumph of small-minded and harmful policy is for the average Canadian to not pay attention.

 

Will This Be Jason Kenney's MS St. Louis?

According to the Canada Border Services Agency, Hungarians — the bulk of whom are said to be Roma — are the top users of the Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration Pilot Program which kicked off in the Greater Toronto Area on June 29.

 

 

But Roma Community Centre executive director Gina Csanyi-Robah likened the program to a “bribe” and said many people are “misinformed” about it, as information doesn’t seem to be available in Hungarian.

 

 

I really, really hope I'm wrong about this.  I hope that somewhere, ten years down the road, somebody will poke me in the ribs and say "remember when you were fretting about ethnic persecution in Hungary turning into a repeat of genocide?  Boy, did you screw that up!"

 

 

"We need to roll back these hundreds of thousands of Roma outlaws. We must show zero tolerance towards Roma crime and parasitism," Jobbik chairman Gabor Vona told a rally of several hundred people in Heroes' Square in central Budapest.

 

 

The evidence, however, suggests otherwise.  Democracy in Hungary isn't what it once was.  The EU has made some critical noise, but there aren't any teeth behind the criticism.  As Hungarians grapple with the same economic same challenges being faced across Europe, there's an increased focus on placing the blame on minority groups like Jews and Sinti-Roma.  It all sounds familiar.  At Why Should I Care last night, Barbara Falk (a professor at DND) talked about how the Raoul Wallenberg monument had been desicrated with pig's blood.  During a recent trip to Budapest, she wondered if that was what Berlin felt like in 1933.  She's not the only one thinking that.

Here's another repeat of history; using all kinds of excuses about cutting costs and focusing on legitimate refugee claims, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is finding ways to send Sinti-Roma in Canada back to Hungary.  His messaging on this file sounds eerily familiar to that of a predecessor of his, Frederick Charles Blair.  Blair is remembered by history not for filtering out fake refugees or for saving Canada money, but for shutting out Jews trying to flee the Holocaust. 

 

 

It's all well and good for Kenney to make positive noise about funding and support and doing what's best for Canada, now, but history will judge him on the consequences of his actions.  How is this program being communicated to all, but especially to Hungarian refugee claimants?  Are we living up to our end of the bargain?  What is Canada doing to closely monitor what's happening in politics and on the ground in Hungary?  Have we learned anything from past mistakes?

 

 

Again - I really hope I'm wrong.  I fear that I'm not.  It would be better for everyone if Jason Kenney comes to his senses and we never have to find out.

The Return of Ethnic Violence to Europe: The Greatest Trick The Devil Ever Pulled...

Sova’s promotion “raises questions” in light of his past statements, Vainer said. “It is hard to accept that a young, educated man would claim the Holocaust never happened in Romania,” Vainer, himself a Romanian lawmaker, added.

Vainer also said Sova’s promotion “did not send the correct message to young people.”

It's a funny thing, what a little time does to public memory.  A generation that is born without significant poverty, warfare or real-time experience of the consequences of ethnic hatred are wont to ignore the lessons history has to teach us on that score.  Which is why we are doomed to repeat it.

It's not too late, but time is running out.

                I shouted out,
                Who killed the Kennedys?
                When after all
                It was you and me

An Uncomfortable Trend In Canadian Politics

What happens when you put your own interests first, to the exclusion of all others?  Well, their interests come into conflict with yours.  When laissez-faire politics ceases to work in your favour, as it invariably does, capitalist governments invariably slide further along the spectrum.

How's that happen?  A few examples:

While Kenney has yet to release his "safe" country list, according to the criteria, Mexico, Hungary and the United States are certain to be on it.

and

“What this amounts to is a process to violate the law. The prohibition on the use of information derived from torture is absolute,” she said in an interview.

and

The Conservative government plans to shut down the probe looking into the bungled handling of the F-35 purchase.

Scientists, bureaucrats, diplomats, etc. are already afraid to speak truth to the CPC's power for fear of reprisal.  Anyone who considers themself an "activist" is being labeled as enemies of the State.  Lots of Harper supporters I know argue that's fine; Harper's Prime Minister and he has the right to do whatever the hell he wants with his employees and his money.

Only they aren't his resources and it isn't his money.  It's ours.  When an increasing number of tax-paying  Canadians are labeled as un-Canadian by its government, something is amiss.

Here's How It Begins

Two stories I've just read, indicating the next slip into the spiral:

Rob Ford:

He said he wasn't sure why the statement was made. "I don't understand conceptually, at all, because it really speaks to perhaps some who may not be fully cognisant as to what some of the real challenges are," he said. "I would think that either the mayor has spoken in a moment of just emotion but I would think that the notion of immigration or immigrants being the problem is the wrong notion."

Jason Kenney:

“When the minister goes to the House of Commons … and they get centralized into the minister more and more of the power, it does give you concern because then you no longer have a parliamentary democracy, you are moving more and more towards an autocracy with power centred into the minister’s hands.”

This won't end well - not for anyone.  Sadly, it's those who think they can ignore past lessons and make up their own realities that are the ones doomed to repeat history.

CFN - To Each Their Own Doesn’t Always Work – Harper Government Please Don’t Let it Happen Again

It is disingenuous to look at bigotry strictly through a political lens. Ignorance, hatred and fear-mongering are not the exclusive property of the political left or right; as Buchenwald demonstrates, atrocities have happened under both fascist and communist regimes. Indifference isn’t the product of a political system; it’s what happens when we zero in on our own interests or ideologies so exclusively that we ignore the well-being of others. When the water hole shrinks, as the saying goes, the animals look at each other differently.

Today, we are facing a global economic crisis. Europe in particular has been hit hard. As the crisis deepens, nations within Europe and beyond are circling the wagons. “Your debt, your problem” is a meme that’s gaining traction. These fiscal woes are fueling an increase in social tensions, much as they did in the early decades of the last century. Political extremism and xenophobia are on the rise, accompanied by a swelling tide of ethnic violence. In Greece, this alarming trend is represented by the growing influence of Golden Dawn, an anti-immigrant political party that has even incorporated the Swastika into its branding.

In Hungary, the systematic discrimination faced by Roma and Sinti is becoming increasingly violent. Focused as they are on addressing the financial crisis, European leaders have been “too preoccupied… or unable or disinclined to deal with” this mounting social crisis. In other words, they’ve labeled it someone else’s problem.

Jason Kenney - Do the Right Thing

"I rather like Jason Kenney, but refusing to recognize Canadian citizenship prior to 1947 reveals an unforgivable flaw."

"Mr. Kenney says that the moves, which will save the government about $20-million annually, were necessary because refugees were receiving better health benefits than ordinary Canadians were getting. But doctors point out that people seeking asylum in Canada are often very poor and, under the old system, were getting the same benefits that hundreds of thousands of impoverished Canadians receive through social assistance."

There is a rapidly closing window on the degree to which people are going to accept the moves being made by Stephen Harper's government.  On the one hand, there is the continual decreasing of services and supports - the Census, the Long-Gun registry, funding through CIDA, now this.  It's gotten to a point where they're even trying to revise the definition of Canadian.  On the other hand, there's the mounting series of scandals ranging from F35 cost-overruns to Dean del Mastro's campaign funding. 

To ensure they keep having their cake and eating it too, Harper's government, of which Jason Kenney is a prominent spokesperson, is doing two things - decreasing transparency and increasingly pushing the fear button.  An indignant population is a complacent population; it's the 20th Century version of bread and circuses.  But Canadians aren't indignant - they're getting angry.

We're not in the 20th Century any more, but it increasingly looks like we're doomed to repeat it.  While the Tories seek to shrink Canada and disconnect from global engagement on anything that isn't directly tied to trade, the first plumes of smoke are rising in Europe, which right now is a social and economic box of kindling.

Canada's boots-on-the-ground military has shrunk.  The respect being paid (figuratively and literally) to our veterans is being diminished, lessening the appeal of military service to potential recruits.  An increasingly frustrated and bitter Canadian populace is turning inwards, worrying less about the trouble we were warned were at our shores to the troubles we're now being told are at our doorsteps.  People that have viewed Canada as a safe haven are being told they're not welcome - another story that we've heard before.

Team Harper's unforgivable flaw, the theme Jason Kenney has not questioned is that they have dedicated themselves so blindly to their political ideology that they are ignoring major changes in the global environment.  The path they are taking us on won't end well - not for their Party, not for our international reputation, not for Canadians.

I have zero interesting in saying "I told you so."  I would rather congratulate Kenney on doing the right thing now, before it's too late.