Tag Archives: hypocrisy

More of Harper’s First Nations Racism

The federal government tells CBC News that 84 First Nations have until Wednesday to post their audited financial statements for the last fiscal year, including the salaries and expenses of their chiefs and councillors.
The federal government tells CBC News that 84 First Nations have until Wednesday to post their audited financial statements for the last fiscal year, including the salaries and expenses of their chiefs and councillors.

Pam Palmater is one of the most important voices in Canada in this young century so far. Here’s another reason why:

Below she calls out some racism in the form of settler-occupied hypocrisy.

The first nations, so go the racists, are incompetent and corrupt. Like the unions and the poor. That’s why we have Bill C-377 to make the unions pay for working for working people. That’s why Jean Swanson had to write Poor Bashing.

And since the racists and Conservative Party [including the overlap there] think the first nations need to be transparent to us, we have a new bill, C-27, to make them give themselves an exercise in transparency to justify their leadership.

Except federal politicians don’t have to live up to the same standard. Are there corruption and conflict of interest in political bodies in Canada? Yes. This bill, however, will do nothing to explore and alter the generations-old dynamic of politicians’ contempt for democracy.

That kind of hypocrisy is racism. Don’t dance around with weak narratives. Call it what it is.

Imagine if any political leaders in Canada had to report their personal wealth in addition to the salary of their public office. Prime Minister Harper is the 6th highest paid political leader in the world with a salary of approximately $300k/year. Harper not only makes 7 times what the average Canadian makes, but makes far more than other world leaders with much larger populations and economies.

But let’s forget about his salary for a minute. What is Prime Ministers and federal politicians had to publicly disclose their PERSONAL wealth? Then we are no longer talking about over-paid Prime Ministers, we are talking about million dollar Prime Ministers. Stephen Harper’s personal wealth has been estimated at $5M. Former Prime Minister Paul Martin is in the hundreds of millions. Why the double standard?  Why did so many federal MPs refuse to disclose their own expenses? I agree there is an issue of accountability in Canada, but it’s with the federal government, and not First Nations.

Indigenous Nationhood: Myth of the Crooked Indians: C-27 First Nations Financial Transparency Act.

The Real Reason We Need to Get Rid of Corporate Media

Kamloops Daily News
Goodbye.

While I’m also sad that the Kamloops Daily News is closing, I think Warren Kinsella is over-simplifying a few things [see below] with respect to how the media climate will be affected by the closing of this for-profit business, earning shareholder value by producing mass media content, while sometimes allowing its corporate revenue-generating employees to produce some adequate-to-good journalism.

Let’s explore all this:

Continue reading The Real Reason We Need to Get Rid of Corporate Media

Musqueam Burial Ground Win Makes the Developer Look Brutally Ignorant

The provincial government has finally relented in its dignity-crushing stance of continuing to allow a developer to pursue building condos on top of a Musqueam burial ground. And while this change of provincial policy does not extend to a solution of land ownership, this is a critical first step to see the provincial government is not blatantly racist. I guess that’s a kind of win for them too. Though, a sad one.

News of this change of heart came out around 4pm today. A Friday. And any Aaron Sorkin devotee knows that’s when the government takes out the trash: releases news they don’t want the media to run with since few people follow the news leading into the weekend, all because it’s bad news, or embarrassing or otherwise something they’d rather hide, but can’t.

There’s no way we’ve missed the idea that instead of Friday afternoon, they could have released this news, say, on Monday morning at 9am to capitalize on all the press it would receive, except they’d look like people who have just learned that they are being racist when they keep saying, “I’m not a racist, but…”.

But even more stunning is the “outrage” that the developer feels about being shafted by the provincial government because they are no longer free to develop their private [sic] property. Now, before you read this hilarious, irony-free quote, please remember that around 95% of BC is unceded traditional First Nations land, covered by no treaty and not gained through conquest:

“In effect they have expropriated the property without compensation and bascially said you can’t do anything with that property and we are not doing anything to compensate you for that and I think every owner of private property in BC should be very concerned about that.”

http://www.cknw.com/news/vancouver/story.aspx?ID=1782485

The phrase in bold is my emphasis. I want you to now re-read that sentence, but replace the words in bold with First Nation in this land. Because that is exactly what has happened in this majestic province of the Queen of Canada for centuries. Ten bonus points to Shane Woodford for noting this fantastic quote which epitomizes the systemic racism or ignorance that so often surrounds “Canada’s” relationship with the first peoples.

So I ask this in all seriousness: do the owners [sic] of this property honestly not understand the colonial history of BC?

Their punishing ignorance should be an embarrassment. But I fear they are beyond shame.

Now we move forward to address why the Musqueam were legally barred from purchasing their burial site decades ago [hint: racism] so that we can seek a solution which restores dignity to those buried there, and to our settler society that has been a party to this shameful abuse of a burial ground.

Harper, Hypocrisy, Syria, and Degrees of Freedom

Yesterday I lifted my head from some work to watch the Ottawa journalists in Twitter filling us all in on John Baird’s first press conference as the majority Conservative government’s Foreign Affairs minister. They noted he read from the speech: very odd.

It was a signal of a new degree of hypocritical oddity now besetting Canada. Last summer, the Harper government suspended Canada’s constitution and rounded up around 1,000 activists, peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders in and around G20 venues, and even in a “free speech zone.” Variously, those hundreds were then persecuted, beaten, deprived of medicine, humiliated in cages, suffered the suspension of their constitutional and legal rights and unceremoniously dumped in the streets.

They, in essence, suffered violations of their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of expression and assembly. And those innocent bystanders were violated by having their right to merely stand on a sidewalk in public violated by the state.

Yesterday the new benchmark of gall bounced around in Ottawa as the government rightly sanctioned Syria for killing its citizens as they tried to peacefully assemble and express themselves.

One conclusion I can draw from this hypocrisy is that as long as a government does not actually murder its citizens, then the suspension of expression and assembly rights is tolerable.

This is not tolerable.

PM announces sanctions on Syria

24 May 2011

Ottawa, Ontario

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that targeted sanctions would be imposed against members of the current Syrian regime.  This action is in response to the on-going and violent crackdown by the military and security forces against Syrian civilians who are peacefully protesting for democracy and the respect of human rights.

“Canada is gravely concerned at the excessive use of force by the Syrian regime against its own people, which has reportedly resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians and the detention of thousands more,” said Prime Minister Harper. “The sanctions being announced today are a repudiation of Syria’s blatant violation of its international human rights obligations that threaten the security of the entire Middle East.”

Canada is also concerned about the humanitarian situation in cities and towns that remain under military lockdown, and by reports that hundreds of Syrians are fleeing the country.

Our Government will be implementing the following sanctions against Syria which are aimed at pushing for democratic reform:

A travel ban to Canada imposed on designated people associated with the current Syrian regime;

An asset freeze against people associated with the current Syrian regime and entities involved in security and military operations against the Syrian people;

A ban under the Export and Import Permits Act on the export from Canada to Syria of goods and technology that are subject to export controls; and,

A suspension of all bilateral cooperation agreements and initiatives with Syria.

The measures announced today directly target members of the current Syrian regime and individuals and entities involved in the crackdown. They are not intended to cause harm to the Syrian people.

Canada stands with the Syrian people’s call for democratic reform and calls on the current regime to immediately cease the use of excessive force against peaceful demonstrators.

“The best way to ensure peace and stability in Syria is through democratic reform and respect for human rights, not violent repression,” Prime Minister Harper added.

via PM announces sanctions on Syria – Prime Minister of Canada.

The Democratic Rebirth of Canada

With less than a dozen days left in the federal election, I am prepared to call it…there is a democratic rebirth in this country. But I have one warning about reading too much into high turnouts in advance polls this weekend.

With Egypt capturing our hearts, and Tunisia, and Libya and a dozen other places in Africa and the Middle East seeking democracy, and the anti-neoliberal people’s movements against worker bashing by the hyper-rich in Wisconsin and Ohio and dozens of other places in the world, I feared Canada would be passed over.

Not so.

We had a contempt of parliament vote in the House effectively firing the contemptuous Stephen Harper.

We have seen an election campaign with a consistently contemptuous ex-prime minister not even remotely trying to hide his disdain for democracy or applying for his old job again.

We have seen vote mobs, a stunning embrace of the NDP not as a radical new party, but a party whose policies have always resonated with millions of working Canadians, but now we see that after seven years of minority government that has enhanced democratic potential in Canada, the old tired binary choice of Liberal or Conservative is appearing increasingly obsolete.

That perception of obsolescence got a boost with the Conservative-Liberal passive coalition created when the Liberals decided to only sort of vote against Conservative policies. The Liberals ensured they passed by not allowing enough of Liberals MPs to attend the vote to stop bad policies.

Another boost came from Michael Ignatieff living down to expectations of his utter lack of charisma as a compelling leader with a vision. He kept up Liberal traditions of stealing progressive NDP policies, but we have seen him support Harper so much that he has already proven he’ll campaign from the left but govern from the right. In this case he helped Harper govern from the radical right and now he campaigns from the left. Because this all happened backwards from normal, we are all seeing through it.

That is why the NDP is polling ahead of the Liberals. That is also why Jack Layton is considered by far the most desirable prime minister. And it may come from his successful presentation in the debates. And this is why analysis of one recent poll inside the NDP surge this week shows the NDP poised to win 60 seats.

That is also why in exploring the credibility of Jack Layton as prime minister, after a few more days of the NDP surge past the Liberals, another scenario for Layton to become prime minister is for the NDP to simply win more seats than the Liberals: reflecting a significant party implosion of credibility. This would allow the NDP to explore a coalition or voting arrangement and further erode Ignatieff’s chances of remaining Liberal leader, making Layton the only viable prime minister.

Since the Liberals lost their majority 7 years ago, they have hung on as official opposition. But the electorate has grown weary of their inability to provide a compelling message to resonate enough with voters to supplant the increasingly contemptuous Conservative party. The NDP has been the de facto opposition to this horrible government and the Liberals show no sign of caring to diverge from their passive support of the government. The public appears to be rewarding the NDP.

But the NDP support is soft, with a significant percentage of supporting voters not firmly committed to voting NDP. This may mean they may shift back to the Liberals at the last minute. That has happened in the past. The vote parking with the NDP may also result in strategic voting against Harper. Regardless, the surge we are seeing now has helped the Liberal party realize they lack the progressive credibility they have been promoting about themselves. That belongs to Jack Layton and the NDP team and the impressive BC caucus of the party.

We have seen the Canadian electorate brutally punish a political party once before in recent memory. During the era of majority governments in Canada, the voters revoked 167/169 seats from the Progressive Conservative party in 1993. In our post-majority era now, Ignatieff’s weak campaign leads to a credible possibility that when they finish counting the votes in BC, where we will determine the result of the election, we could have another Conservative minority with fewer seats than in the last parliament, and an NDP opposition with more seats than the Liberals.

And since parliament just recently fired Harper, I see only one way for an opposition party to give Harper a chance to form a government before Layton does: if the Liberal party formalizes is previously passive coalition with Harper. Or Harper’s successor, and Ignatieff’s successor since Harper’s third failure to get a majority and Ignatieff’s loss of official opposition would end their era as party leaders.

But a warning:

Yesterday we saw spectacular turnouts and long lines at many advance polls across the country. We also saw some low turnout at some polls. I am eager to interpret that as another signal of this democratic rebirth in the nation that I so desire, but I’ve been burned by this once already.

Before the 2009 election in BC I optimistically but incorrectly interpreted seriously high turnout in advanced polls as both a resurgence in democratic participation because of almost a decade of anti-social abuse by the BC Liberal government and a connected rejection of that abuse setting up an NDP win. That didn’t happen. In fact, voter turnout hit a record low in 2009 for a BC election.

And while Werner Heisenberg may have noted that the high turnout may have led to some complacency among progressive voters leading to them not showing up to vote on election day, that is not much to embrace for much credibility.

So my warning is that regardless of how advanced polls have high turnouts or not, we cannot allow ourselves to read anything into it as a predictor of May 2’s results. We still need to get out the vote. All we may be able to conclude from any high turnouts in advanced polls is that lots of people want to vote early.

So advanced polls opened yesterday, they open again today and Monday. We can vote on election day on May 2, but we can also vote any day at our riding’s returning office until Tuesday. Check Elections Canada for locations.

And regardless of how the polling goes for the next several days, do your job of looking for more evidence of a rebirth of democratic participation in Canada, and if you live in a riding where a candidate refuses to show up to an all-candidates meeting, punish their contempt for democracy by voting against them.

The Conservative-Liberal Coalition ALREADY Rules Us

British Columbia has been ruled by a Conservative-Liberal coalition for almost all of living memory. So why are we allowing Stephen Harper to get any traction at all with his coalition fear-mongering? His hypocritical opposition is a stunning continuation of his contempt for legitimate democratic structures.

Harper can bluster on all he likes about the coalition bogeyman. Others can invoke his 2004 coalition work and call him a liar or hypocrite. The truth is that Harper is against the coalition because it is the democratic political structure he fears most in our post-majority world.

But why are we still tolerating it, especially in BC? Harper and Ignatieff/Dion have participated in a passive coalition for years. Harper has played chicken with the Liberals by threatening confidence status of various bills/motions, trusting the Liberals to back down because they weren’t prepared for an election.

Other times, the Liberals have actually agreed with Harper policies, but spend their energy opposing them, only to ensure just enough MPs don’t show up to vote them down.

Harper has also received support from the Bloc on budgets.

Before Harper, Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin had his minority government propped up by reasonable commitments to the NDP that he ignored, dismissively, much like last week’s budget tossed some crumbs towards the NDP policy demands for support of the budget.

And none of this is a constitutional crisis. It is, rather, the nuance of parliamentary democracy that in minority situations, there are structures to facilitate compromise and policies that reflect the majority of voters’ or MPs’ will.

But I cannot understand how when addressing Harper’s anti-coalition rhetoric, media, especially in BC, seem blind to the Conservative-Liberal coalition that has ruled BC for most of our living memory. That coalition has been a backroom arrangement in the Social Credit or Liberal party, not on the floor of the legislature, and has been the core issue in their party leadership race in recent months. And only time will tell if the new flavour of coalition leadership will hold.

This should be a blatantly obvious sign that Conservatives have spent generations in coalitions in various places in Canada, and Harper’s opposition to coalitions is ludicrous.

And yesterday, former Conservative MP John Cummins declared his intention to be leader of the BC Conservative Party. How have former Conservative MPs Stockwell Day and Jay Hill responded to the rebirth of this provincial party? They both characterized the BC Conservative Party activities as threatening to the Conservative-Liberal coalition in the ruling BC Liberal party, with Hill even saying,

hopefully the vast majority of conservatives will stay with the B.C. Liberal Party as the coalition party and reject what John is doing.

The media, in BC and Canada, and the citizens of the country, and especially BC, have ample example of Conservative participation in coalitions. We cannot bestow any legitimacy on Harper’s objections.

And truly, we should not limit our impatience with Harper’s rhetoric. Ignatieff’s federal Liberal party is part of the BC Liberal coalition with the Conservatives. His rejection of a potential coalition is crazy. His party has been as involved in them as the Conservatives, in BC and nationally.

A pox on both houses, if you ask me.