Sorry, we're all out of health care.

Contributed by Tasia Alexopoulos

 

The latest in the long line of Conservative cut backs is one that I don't think a lot of us saw coming.  National Defense, Health Canada, the CBC, Federal Penitentiaries. There have been a lot of surprising cuts in their quest to cut almost $5 billion in spending.

The Harper Conservatives are making cuts to the Interim Health Program, which provides "limited, temporary, taxpayer-funded coverage of health-care benefits to protected persons, including resettled refugees; refugee claimants; and certain other groups who are not eligible for provincial or territorial health insurance." The newly reformed program, which comes into effect June 30 2012, effectively ends supplemental health-care benefits, makes medications and immunizations available only in the case where there is a risk to public health or safety, and will provide health care coverage for services and products that are of an urgent nature. (you can read the entire news release here)

Jason Kenney, Immigration Minister, said in his press release that the government does not "want to ask Canadians to pay for benefits for protected persons and refugee claimants that are more generous than what they are entitled to themselves.” He's talking about dental and eye care, two things that are absolutely essential to health and are not covered by Canadian public health care.

According to Minister Kenney, this reform will also take the "incentive" away from people who "may be considering filing an unfounded refugee claim in Canada" and will "allow us to protect public health and safety, ensure that tax dollars are spent wisely and defend the integrity of our immigration system all at the same time." The cuts will save a projected $100 million dollars over the course of five years.

Because people flee to Canada to get eyeglasses, Minister Kenney, and applying for and waiting on a refugee claim is a walk in the park."There just isn't affordable treatment for cavities in my nation, I think I'll make an unfounded refugee claim in Canada!"

Does Jason Kenney really think that Canadians are so stupid that they'll fall for this? Trying to whip up fear over a "wave of refugees" flooding the country to abuse our health care system because of our "lax" immigration and refugee policy is completely ridiculous and unfounded. Canada accepts about 38% of its refugee claims. He's making it sound like people who are waiting on a refugee claim decision are basically on vacation, which is insane. Many people attempting refugee status live in constant fear of being deported, are homeless or living in shelters, have little to no money, no family, no support, don't speak english, face extreme barriers to education and health care, not to mention being the victims of crimes here in Canada.

What makes the least amount of sense(and most sense, considering the we're talking about the Conservative government)is that a decision that makes such an enormous impact on women and children seeking refuge could be made so lightly. The United Nations Refugee Agency estimates that about 47% of 21 million refugees and displaced persons are women and children constitute about 44% but both are heavily underrepresented in accepted claims. 

Canada is a signatory of the 1951 UN Convention of the Status of Refugees and until 1993 did not have a set of guidelines for dealing with gender-based claims. Because the Convention arose during the post-World War II and was heavily influenced by the Cold War it reflects very specific concerns: protecting individuals from state persecution based on their personal beliefs or identity.  Defining refugees so specifically led to the "traditional view of the asylum seeker as male" and "narrow and rigid interpretations of what constitutes persecution(Valji, Hunt, Moffett, Agenda 55 2003). Women were often overlooked or left out in favour of individual male asylum seekers, and specific persecutions that women faced due to their gender were left completely out of the equation. Understandings of gender based violence and discrimination is much more sophisticated now, but women still experience the refugee claims system much differently then men do.

Conflict and war are also much different now than they were in the 1950s and it is not always the State that people need to be protected from. People can claim refugee status for many different reasons now: race, religion, political opinion, nationality, or membership in a particular social group(such as women) or a particular sexual orientation. There are also persons in need of protection whose removal to their own country would result in a danger of torture, a risk to their life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment and punishment.

Despite this progress, many people are denied and sent back to their countries of origin. Even though there are guidelines for assessing cases that are not traditional, the system still depends on employees to pay attention to said guidelines and carry them out fairly. 

According to a study by Constance MacIntosh on the Canadian Refugee system, between 2004-2009 of the 135 refugee claims brought by women based on domestic violence and abuse, 98% were denied by the adjudicator. From 2005-2008 100% of refugee claims based on domestic violence were denied. The majority of the decisions were made based on women being unable to prove that their home countries could not (or would not) protect them from further abuse.

MacIntosh writes:  "These decisions—that women were lying about their experience, or else that their state could in fact protect them—paint a picture that contradicts the trends identified by international bodies who study violence against women. For example, the United Nations General Assembly’s 2006 assessment was that the “most common form of violence experienced by women globally is intimate partner violence”  and that “it is clear that violence against women remains a devastating reality in all parts of the world, and the implementation of international and regional standards to eradicate such violence is therefore an urgent priority.” The UN essentially identifies domestic violence as a worldwide crisis that is being perpetuated by the failure of states to take effective action."

Upon judicial review, 44% of those decisions were deemed not reasonable. This extremely high rejection rate indicates that the Refugee Protection Division adjudicators were not properly considering or adhering to a set of Gender Guidelines that were drafted by the Chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), which were designed to help in the decision-making where gender-based claims have been made.

For five years, almost 100% of women seeking asylum due to domestic violence were rejected and sent back to dangerous situations, where many of them are killed or face more violence for having left at all. This is in direct opposition to the Gender Guidelines that Canada has pledged to utilize. This means some people are just not doing their jobs properly.

Women and children also experience, in most cases, a heightened risk of being sexually exploited (especially in conflict or war zones). We now understand that rape has been used as a systemic tool of war and is not, as previously thought, just a symptom of conflict. Women and children(boys and girls) are often kidnapped or taken by military or rebel forces and used for sexual and physical labour.

Women also seek asylum based on personal safety issues such as forced marriage, threats of murder or disfigurement based on their sexuality or sexual identity. There has been an increase in people from Mexico seeking asylum due to drug wars in the country. A report that came out in March concluded that "as a result of government strategy, violence has escalated to levels previously unknown in Mexico, with policemen, soldiers, drug dealers and an increasing number of innocent people being killed every day." Homicides of women in Mexico are so rampant that they even have their own Wikipedia page.  Despite this,  Mexican asylum seekers are very often denied and had an 82.9% rejection rate in 2011. 

These are the women who wait in Canada for their claims decision, these are the women and children(and men) who receive basic health care on our tax dollar.  The people who may get to see an eye doctor if they understand how to access that system, or maybe get to have painful dental problems taken care of. As a signatory of UN Conventions and as a nation that has pledged to try to help refugees, Canada has a responsibility to ensure that people who are waiting are treated humanely. If Canada doesn't want to treat refugees like human beings, then we should stop accepting refugees at all. 

Why is Jason Kenney demonizing the people who are most helpless? Maybe he should be focusing on corruption in his Department instead. Remember Steven Ellis? The immigration adjudicator(and former city councillor) who told his claimant that she would be accepted if she performed sexual favours on him? He got 18 months in prison for his crime. Or what about Diane Serre, a Citizenship and Immigration manager was was "running a for profit business by accepting bribes and gifts in exchange for fast-tracking immigration." The people entrusted with making sure the immigration and refugee process runs smoothly, fairly, and legally are taking bribes and trading refugee status for sexual favours.

This isn't just a cut to save money. This is one part of the Harper Conservatives drive to make it practically impossible to immigrate or get refugee status in this country. The government introduced Bill C-31 in February which, if pushed through, will allow claimants to be "further invalidated, criminalized and endangered. The burden of the bill’s impact will fall on women, queer- and trans-identifying individuals and their families, and those fleeing from "safe" countries that are Canada's trade partners."

Bill C-31 would force refugee hearings to be expedited to 15 days, down from the previous 2-3 months. Meaning that within 15 days of arriving, refugees have to find shelter, legal counsel, interpreters, and "prepare to deliver their personal stories of hardship, loss, trauma and violence before an Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) member at their first hearing, all in an unfamiliar environment and language."

The Bill also penalizes people who arrive in Canada through irregular process, otherwise known as "illegal", despite the fact that those people are most likely to be in desperate need of safety from persecution.  This doesn't take into account that many people who arrive in Canada illegally are unaware that they are doing so, and are promised a safe route to Canada in exchange for money. In most cases these people are forced to travel in extremely dangerous quarters and often will die before they reach their destination either from starvation, dehydration, or drowning.

Most hideously, Bill C- 31 doesn't contain a clause to prevent minors from being detained and imprisoned in Canada and can be separated from their families for any amount of time. 

So Minister Kenney wants Canadians to believe that he's saving our money for us, that Canadians don't want to spend their hard earned tax dollars on refugees and (more so) that we shouldn't have to. But this cut is really just another example of why so many of us were scared of a Conservative majority. Do Canadians really want to have an immigration/refugee system more akin to that of the United States'? Do we , on one hand, give lovely private health insurance policies to bureaucrats with our tax dollars but on the other hand we want to deny the neediest people in the world the basic human right to health care? We pay for Stephen Harper's $45'000 trip to New York City, his Broadway tickets and baseball games. And Bev Oda, well the first thing out of her mouth during any diplomatic trip apparently is "MAKE IT RAIN!" We pay for Oda's limousines and luxury hotel stays, but Jason Kenney doesn't think we should have to pay to have refugee children immunized?

A Canada that doesn't support basic human rights is not a Canada that I can be proud of and I just won't accept that it reflects what tax payers want. Does hoarding our resources so that we can spend them on fighter jets later on make us a better nation in the eyes of the Conservatives? When we as a country contribute to many of the reasons that people are refugees in the first place, we have to take responsibility for it. We have to remain compassionate and clear headed, not fearful and prone to scapegoating. I don't mind paying taxes so that people who have nothing, who are trying to find safety in Canada, can have a bit of health care while they wait. But, I guess the Conservatives would like us to believe that other taxpayers would rather spend that extra $100 million over five years on the fanciest glasses of orange juice for the most useless politicians. Jason Kenney can say he is "defending the integrity of our immigration system" all he wants, but every day that man sits as Immigration Minister is another day of corruption and regression.

Why we need to remember and act on December 6th

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

that face... is burned into my brain...

oh god... it's so horrifying.

i hate it when stephen harper rocks out. it is SO embarrassing. it's also incredibly embarrassing that he's rocking out to the proclaimers. the only people who can rock out to the proclaimers ARE the proclaimers.



uuggghhh... poor canada!!!!s

"Has the human spirit fallen so much in the last 2400 years?"

hans, as usual, brilliant.

Jason Kenny and the Conservatives Write Bad Fiction

"As the boatload of refugees pulled into the harbour, there was one young boy who was particularly eager for a glimpse of this land toward which they had spent weeks journeying. He’d lost several relatives, including a younger brother, in the turmoil before they fled their homeland – due to poverty and disease, mostly – and all that was left of his little family was crammed aboard this filthy vessel.

A distant relative of his mother’s had apparently settled here several years earlier, and on this all their hopes were pinned. His father was a failed merchant: everything he’d tried his hand at had gone bankrupt in the economic collapse of their homeland. Penniless, destitute, poor, hungry and bedraggled, their slim hope lay in being accepted to this land they were sailing into. Of course, sharing that hope were the hundreds of equally poor refugees crammed into the hold or on the ramshackle boats accompanying them.

The young refugee’s name? John A. MacDonald.

As we all know, little John did survive, and indeed thrived. Although his family stayed poor and his father’s efforts continued to meet failure, MacDonald became an infamous lawyer by defending American terrorists who had participated in the ongoing US efforts to destabilize the government of then-British Upper Canada. Despite his efforts, they were mostly executed with barely an excuse for a trial, but at least one of them gave MacDonald all the money in his pockets, as a token of gratitude that MacDonald had had the courage to speak up and defend these almost universally reviled American terrorists. This recognition helped him in becoming the first prime minister of Canada and getting his face on the 10-dollar bill.

Of course, had Stephen Harper and the Conservative government - the very party MacDonald played a role in creating – been in power when he sailed into the harbor as a refugee from Scotland’s economic collapse, he would probably not even have been permitted to stay. He would have been publicly demeaned and reviled, treated like a criminal, and then been sent home at gunpoint, probably to die in the land he had fled. So much for Confederation.

That’s only one of two tragic ironies reflected in the Conservatives’ increasingly elitist, racist response to the arrival of a boatload of Tamil refugees in British Columbia about three weeks ago.

The other tragic irony lies in the public apology Stephen Harper issued to the Chinese community in 2006, over the Canadian government’s turn-of-the-century anti-Chinese-immigration policy. While that apology was the product of long, hard and admirable work on the part of the Chinese-Canadian community, the Conservative actions demonstrate just how hollow and hypocritical their apology really was, and how much they didn’t really mean it.

Let’s talk about the Chinese head tax apology, for a moment. In the 1880s, the Canadian Pacific Railway was under construction. Over 15,000 Chinese were invited to Canada to build it (and then paid a fraction of what the white Canadian workers were paid). Canada became, naturally enough, a place of interest for both the Chinese working on the railroad, as well as many other Chinese who saw the ads or heard about it through relatives.

The Canadian government panicked at the thought that the Chinese workers it was exploiting in near slavery conditions might actually decide to stay in Canada, and even bring their families, and so it began charging a $500 head tax to Chinese seeking to settle here. The federal government collected close to $2 billion in today’s money from these mostly poor Chinese immigrants. The goal, of course, was to deter Chinese immigrants from coming to Canada (the government, meanwhile, continued to encourage white immigrants from across the other sea – in Europe – to come. No head tax if they were white.). This only ended when the Canadian government banned Chinese immigration entirely in the early 1920s. In the 1980s, descendants of these Chinese began a movement to make the federal government issue an apology for its terrible and racist treatment of Chinese immigrants. In 2006, Stephen Harper finally issued that apology. Let us quote briefly from that apology.

---

Stephen Harper: “...a group of people - who only sought to build a better life...these immigrants made the difficult decision to leave their families behind in order to pursue opportunities in a country halfway around the world they called “gold mountain”. Canada turned its back...in an attempt to deter immigration...

And while Canadian courts have ruled that...immigration prohibition, were legally authorized, we fully accept the moral responsibility to acknowledge these shameful polices of our past. For over six decades, these race-based measures...were implemented with deliberation by the Canadian state. This was a grave injustice, and one we are morally obligated to acknowledge...

And even though this...lies far in our past, we feel compelled to right this historic wrong for the simple reason that it is the decent thing to do, a characteristic to be found at the core of the Canadian soul. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me assure the House that this government will continually strive to ensure that similar unjust practices are never allowed to happen again. We have the collective responsibility to build a country based firmly on the notion of equality of opportunity, regardless of one’s race or ethnic origin. Our deep sorrow over the racist actions of our past will nourish our unwavering commitment to build a better future...

Clearly, the sorrow was neither deep enough nor the commitment unwavering enough to prevent them from using the arrival of a boatload of Sri Lankan (Tamil) refugees in August as an opportunity to talk rough, act tough and – just like they did with the Chinese 100 years ago - claim they had to “send a message” to refugees the world over – to stay away from Canada.

And this week, Canada’s Minister Responsible For Keeping Foreign People Out (aka ‘Immigration’, aka Jason Kenney) is attending a meeting in Europe which has been described as “part of a widening fight against human trafficking and bogus asylum seekers” .

Now I’m generally a fan of good science fiction, but not when it gets accidentally labeled as government policy. “Bogus asylum seekers”? There’s nothing bogus about it – they’re trying to seek asylum. That’s why the Tamil refugees risked their lives to cross the ocean in a leaky boat. Whether or not Canada gives them asylum, is up to the Canadian government to decide. But...bogus? What’s that supposed to mean exactly? That when they’re offered asylum they’ll turn around and say “Haha! Fooled you!” and then go back home?

A far more likely interpretation is that *they’re* not the bogus ones. Instead, the bogus ones are the Conservative government (and, yes, their allies in other countries which are also trying to keep foreigners out of their respective countries) who don’t want to admit that they really just want to keep foreigners out. After all, that smacks of racism. So instead, a fictional language is created which describes refugees as “victims of human trafficking” and asylum seekers who have no money as “bogus”.

The Tamils who arrived in Vancouver were not forced by anybody to board that boat. Except, perhaps, the Sri Lankan government which bombed their villages and killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians as part of a decades-old civil war, and which is still keeping thousands of them in what have been described by some observers as concentration camps. But, since the Canadian government supports the Sri Lankan government which bombed and slaughtered tens of thousands of its own civilians during the recent civil war...the asylum seekers become “bogus”.

But the sci-fi language doesn’t stop there. When Jason Kenney isn’t describing them as “victims of human trafficking”, he’s describing them as “queue-jumpers” who are trying to butt in line ahead of other refugees. Well, which is it, Jason? Are they the victims of slave-driving human traffickers? Or are they trying to skip the line? Again, I *like* good science fiction. I *don’t* like contradictions and plot holes.

And that doesn’t even address the question of how exactly a refugee or asylum-seeker becomes a “queue-jumper”. I mean, when you’re fleeing an army of tanks and jet bombers that are trying to annihilate your village, what sort of line are you supposed to wait in and not get killed? It’s sort of like suggesting that if your house is being broken into, you should expect the cops to wait until they’ve dealt with all the phone calls they received earlier in the day, before they come to stop the burglars trying to knock your door down. Plot holes, Jason. Plot holes.

And yes, certainly, there are a lot of bad human traffickers in the world. And we need to stop them. But we don’t do that by vilifying the victims. When a group of hapless seniors loses money due to internet or phone fraud, we pursue and prosecute the fraud ring. We don’t march the seniors into big black tents, interrogate them at gunpoint and propose new laws to restrict the ability of seniors to have bank accounts. We don’t call it “Canadian generosity” when we give them back the money that was stolen from them.

This is getting sort of long, isn’t it? Well, it’s cuz bad writing makes me angry and if anybody writes bad, it’s Mr. Jason Kenney.

Okay, so we’ve deconstructed his seriously bad story. What’s the alternative? Open up all our borders and let all the refugees come pouring in?

Well...actually why not?(note my far more skilled segue-way here. Yes you can borrow this technique Jason. See I’m not your enemy.)

Of course, whenever I suggest that we should just...stop freaking out about the arrival of 500 refugees in a country of 35 million which could actually hold a couple billion...the response tends to be something along the lines of: “What?! But if we just opened our borders...we’d be overrun!!”

Uhm...well okay. Really? Like...where? Have you ever BEEN to the Northwest Territories? Or even most of Ontario? And seen all the big empty places there? Are you really THAT worried that we’ll be overrun by people who will knock on your door asking to sleep on your sofa and who will eat all the food in the groceries? If refugees arrive, we will grow more food and that will make more jobs. We will build more houses for them and that too will make more jobs and maybe those refugees will get some of those jobs and then they’ll pay taxes and pay for the services they use and then we’ll all have a lot more interesting people in the country and a lot more jobs and a lot more restaurants and call me naïve but I sort of like the idea. Irrational fear is a good plot technique and all, but...I want more jobs and restaurants more.

And we should be able to deal by now with this irrational fear that the world will end if we let people who arrive here stay here – regardless of how they came. After all, we’ve dealt with lots of other irrational fears. We’ve learnt that Europeans can marry Africans and the world doesn’t end. We’ve learnt that women can marry men or men can marry men or women can marry women or people who aren’t even decided whether they’re men or women can marry each other...and the world doesn’t end. In fact, people don’t even have to get married, and the world doesn’t end! People can eat fish on Fridays, or pork on Sundays, or beer on Tuesdays, and the world doesn’t end. More to the point, people who don’t eat fish on Fridays can live next door to people who don’t eat pork on any days and across the street from people who do drink beer on every days, and the world doesn’t end. Win for the world!

We’ve learnt that lots of things we thought might cause the world to end, don’t actually cause the world to end, and that’s a really good thing. And one of those things that won’t cause the world to end...is people who show up here, being allowed to stay here like all the rest of us. The next time somebody says to you [usually in a lowered, breathless voice of panic] “but if we let everybody who comes here as a refugee stay...everything would fall apart!” just repeat to yourself the mantra “fish.pork.beer. world goes on.” And then take a deep breath and realize everything will be fine.

Of course, the fear is nothing new. Before the industrial revolution, in many European countries, cities adopted policies banning migration from one city to the next – within the same country. The fear was exactly the same as today: that if people born in one city were allowed to settle in their neighbouring city, the world would end. It would disrupt the flow of city life, the city would become uncontrollable, it would lose its way of doing things, it would become overrun by crime and vice, and so on and so forth. If people suggested allowing free movement between cities, others would laugh at them. Needless to say, the last laugh was on the laughers: today, the idea of restricting migration between cities within the same country is – unless you’re living somewhere like North Korea – utterly unthinkable. The thought of disaster ensuing if families from Winnipeg were allowed to move to Vancouver, is utterly laughable. Yet that was the logic – a logic of irrational fear – which motivated politicians 500 years ago. And it is no different – and no less ridiculous – than the logic of fear motivating the politicians of today in their efforts to control migration between countries.

Stephen Harper has lately been engaging in an equally bizarre little extension of this dance – pledging to preemptively track down refugees in their home countries and ports and prevent them from ever leaving those countries to come to Canada. Well, unless this is an oddly inspired plan to post Canadian imperial garrisons in third world ports around the world (you never quite know, with the Conservatives), that’s an equally flawed and pointless bit of posturing.

Mind you, international action DOES have an important place in all this. The fact that refugees are coming to Canada reflects, if anything, the failure of our own government on the international stage. Take the Tamil refugees, for instance. Last summer, thousands of people blocked highways here in Toronto pleading with the federal government to speak out against the slaughter being directed against the Tamil minority ethnic group in Sri Lanka. For weeks, the Sri Lankan government bombed and slaughtered Tamil communities and the Canadian government looked the other way and let them do it, without making the slightest effort to bring an end to the fighting and save the tens of thousands of innocent families that were being slaughtered. Even today, international observers are not permitted to collect information to find out exactly what happened – and in some cases, what is still happening. And Canada’s government remains silent, hiding in the sand. The poverty and desperation of Tamil refugees was caused, in part, by our own government’s silence. If the Canadian government starts assuming, for once, a responsible role on the international stage, then perhaps it will be able to contribute to the building of a better world, and it will no longer be necessary for everyone to feel they need to come to Canada to find it.

2400 years ago, in ancient Athens, the Athenian general and leader Pericles gave a famous speech following a battle where thousands of Greek soldiers had died defending their city against an invading foreign army. Far from using the opportunity to turn Athenians against foreigners, he showed that the courage which led to their victory, demanded no less than the courage to open their borders, fearlessly, to the world:

"The Athens that I have celebrated is only what the heroism of these and their like have made her...We throw open our city to the world, and never by alien acts exclude foreigners from any opportunity of learning or observing, even though the eyes of an enemy may occasionally profit by our liberality.”

The message, 2400 years ago, rings even clearer today: “People might take advantage of us if we’re too open and liberal? Big deal! The benefits we will gain from our openness far outweigh any advantage some few might take of us. And if we’re too afraid of our country’s fragility to have the courage to test it against the demands of the world, then what’s the worth of us, anyhow?”

Has the human spirit fallen so much in the last 2400 years?

We have a choice to make: whether we will hide behind walls of fear and act like the cowardly neighbourhood miser who pretends he doesn’t hear the neighbours knocking on his door to ask for help; or whether we will keep faith with the generations of Canadians who came before us, and welcome with open arms those who have come to build the Canada of tomorrow.

Addendum: A final word, for Newfoundland and Labrador. This shameful situation demonstrates more clearly than ever why it is so vital for us to take up our own self-government once again on the international stage. As a Republic, we will have the right to control our own immigration once again – and we can avoid the shame of being lumped in with this sort of Harper-driven racist fear-mongering. The need for immigration is vital to Newfoundland and Labrador. We need doctors, craftspersons, professionals of all sorts. Not only will they fill the vital gaps we’re struggling with in our infrastructure, but their presence will create even more jobs – which Newfoundlanders forced into exile will be able to return home to fill as well. Since Confederation we’ve seen our communities emptied and forcibly relocated, we’ve seen our population shrink, we’ve seen our services suffer. There’s only one solution: to repopulate the Spotted Island’s (RIP: 1970) and Open Bay’s (RIP: 1965) and Tikoralak Island’s (RIP: 1970) and over 600 other communities that now lie abandoned and overgrown. As a nation the majority of whose population are descended from “illegal migrants” (who settled here in defiance of British no-settlement laws 400 years ago), we’re uniquely positioned to recognize the hypocrisy of laws that try to control who can live where. If the majority of our ancestors had obeyed those laws, we would not be here today. And now, once again, our future hinges on overcoming the racist and exclusionary barriers that another colonial power – Canada – has imposed on us. Some nations seek independence in the pursuit of some illusory racial purity. Our Republic *must* be founded on the opposite ideal – that our independence reflects, honours and upholds the freedom of movement for all peoples, and guarantees them the same freedoms in whose name thousands of poor fishers settled here, in total defiance of the law, to help build the Newfoundland of today."

"no real or imagined relationship with the Canadian people."

Another guest blog from C.

I tend to agree with what he's saying here, mainly because Stephane Dion was my number one sweetheart and I thought it was really sad when he was unseated by Ignatieff and his scary smile. also, I'm pretty sure michael ignatieff is a vampire. But this is besides the point for now.

Read on below for some astute observations on Canadian politics right now:

The Liberal Party of Canada’s insatiable hunger for power is emerging again as party leader Michael Ignatieff dismissed talks of a coalition with the NDP as “absurd”.

One would think, given the successful formation of a coalition government in Britain as well as Harper’s current communications crisis surrounding the lot of “Message Event Proposals” currently circulating through the media, that Ignatieff might just be looking at his best opportunity to unseat the minority Conservatives to date.

Alas, perhaps the only political group more determined than the Conservatives to concentrate power in the PMO is the Liberal party. This was never more apparent than a few years back when Paul Martin, determined to wrestle the leadership from his predecessor Jean Chretien, began slowing eroding loyalty by creating damaging divisions between Liberal party members. It was the infighting that resulted from these efforts that continues to plague the party today, even more so than the fallout from the sponsorship debacle. Too many power-hungry Liberal politicians jockeying for position have created an ideal climate for Stephen Harper’s skilled messaging strategists to pick apart the lowly, aimless Grits.

Even more recently Stephane Dion paid the price for his so-called “lack of leadership” when his party turned on him for exploring an alliance with Elizabeth May and the Green Party. I’ve fully believe all the talk that “Dion was not a leader” actually meant that “Dion was not a politician”, a plainly obvious fact that endeared him to me even more. Never mind that he actually had a platform that he was passionate about and that he was the only true embodiment of Liberal values since Jean Chretien. Unfortunately he didn’t do enough favours for his Liberal colleagues. He didn’t stroke their massive egos enough and he was devoured for it. And with Dion went the Liberals last best effort to unseat Stephen Harper.

As a result, today we have a minority Conservative government slowly but surely imposing right-wing policy on a too-complacent opposition. Examples of this trend continue to pile up. Whether it’s the government’s refusal to take responsibility for misleading the public about torture in Afghanistan (remember when Harper was a glowing beacon of accountability), or when they shit on the arts community and Toronto Pride, or the ongoing saga to abolish the long gun registry, the Conservatives continue to sell themselves as a centrist government while behaving like the reformists they truly are.

What better time to bring together the true centre-left of the Canadian political spectrum to create a proper and effective opposition? The Conservatives continue to manufacture countless opportunities to fuse NDP and Liberal values into strong, truly Canadian policy initiatives that would represent a stark contrast to Conservative policy, or lack thereof. Unfortunately, Michael Ignatieff isn’t willing to concede his delicate and incredibly limited power for the better of the country.

I said I’d never vote for Michael Ignatieff for two reasons: First, he wasn’t elected by his party members but rather elevated to the leadership in what essentially amounted to a coup against Stephane Dion, and secondly he has no real or imagined relationship with the Canadian people. He’s a social elite who lived outside the country for the better part of his adult life. The notion that he is capable or deserves to be Prime Minister of Canada, even in the context of a coalition, is truly absurd.

.

the 7 year grant

aw come on.... i had to come back to canada, to this?!

Feds Grant Big Dollars to All Male Research Group

susan delacourt wrote in the toronto star today that the canada excellence research chairs were awarded this week by stephen harper's government--19 'excellent' scholars are going to receive 10 million in federal money over the next seven years.

each lucky recipient of this prestigious award was a man.

according to the star "some women scholars are outraged." um, yeah they are.

these research chairs are a pretty big deal, and nineteen is a lot of people. somewhere in this huge goddamned country there was probably a woman who would have been eligible.

the head of NSERC, suzanne fortier, says that one of the problems is that there are "too few women in the pool of applicants" because "women aren't heavily represented at senior levels in the fields of research where the federal government was looking for research chairs."
fortier says there ARE women out there in these fields, but it just ain't there time to shine.

she says: " i know they're out there, they are coming, and in 10 years, watch out."

if that isn't the most fucked up thing i've ever heard, i don't know what is. for real. they're coming? in ten years?? i'd like to know how many women in the research chair fields are a tad pissed off about that comment? like there are no eligible women in the sciences who should have these positions??
oh it gets even MORE fucked up? yes, yes it does.

fortier went on to say that another problem was that women candidates aren't flexible enough to make the career and family moves required to fill the research chair positions.

so does that mean all of these men are single and have no families?? because if they aren't, that means that only men with families can be flexible and women with families aren't which would be an incredibly foolish and sexist thing to say.

fortier was asked to investigate the all man debacle by my favorite conservative, tony clement.

clement stepped in after he saw the list, saying "it really stands out, and I said: 'where are the women'?"

yeah, even tony clement was surprised by the list. his eyes bulging even further out of his tiny head. so he launched an investigation into the "conspicuous lack of women."

that is why tony clement is my favorite conservative. also, he has my favorite googly eyes in politics.

also, i think it's important to point out that white dudes are highly overrepresented in this pool of nineteen scholars. shouldn't someone be looking into that as well?


canada is becoming the worst!!!

hold on a motherfucking second

stephen harper is busy taking away women's rights around the globe and he has the audacity to post THIS picture on his twitter?!!?!
under " played 'run to you' with bryan adams' stephen harper linked this twitpic:

do you know who LOVES bryan adams?? WOMEN.
my MOM loves bryan adams.

you know what else a lot of women like?? having the right to choose what they do and do not do with their own bodies.

now, along with the infamous incident in which he forgot the lyrics to his own national anthem,
bryan adams can add another shameful and embarrassing event to his timeline of un-canadianness: betraying the population who made him famous.


bryan adams, i am going to call my mother and tell her about this. i'm very certain she'll burn all of your tapes on a big bonfire in the yard.


women everywhere demand an apology, bryan adams!!! you're a monster!!

2000 members later..

i wonder if stephen harper has figured out that he made a statement that is completely untrue, embarrassing, and stupid?

probably not since everything he does is untrue, embarrassing, and stupid but hey, we can always hope right?

the facebook group "canadians who want foreign aid spent on women's reproductive health" now has 2000 members, all of whom are opposed to harper's policy on not funding abortion with foreign aid(and they're not very happy about him speaking in their name, either).

2000 people in only a few days is pretty good... now each one of them needs to send harper a message. one commenter noted that you don't need postage to send stephen harper mail!!

a sampling of some of the comments so far:

"See Stephen Harper for who he really is ! Come on ladies read about this man ! Not only will he destroy your rights but those of you children and those to follow !"

"Mr Harper- you do not speak for me. You shame me with your lack of compassion!"

"Slippery slope-very very slippery-time to vote Harper out."

"I remember when Bush took this stance and feeling proud that my country didn't put that kind of ban on foreign aid. Well I'm not proud now."

like it or not, canada is a strongly pro-choice country. this doesn't mean that there isn't room for dissent--because there certainly is dissent-- but it means that ideologically the majority of canadians at least believe women should have a choice.

i mean, we don't run around screaming about how we love abortion so much(well, some people do.. maybe me) BUT most people do understand that while the issue isn't black and white

and that it has a very strong impact on people, it's important that it be available to women.

i feel like this is probably one of the most serious attacks that stephen harper has launched against canadians, our policies abroad say a lot about who we are and they're testing grounds for policy at home. if stephen harper can say "canadians don't want foreign abortions!" it means he's that

much closer to saying "canadians don't want abortions in canada" and that just ain't right.

this one really needs to be stopped in its tracks, because its stupid and dangerous(just like harper).

you can join the group here:

Canadians who do want foreign aid spent on women's reproductive health

and you can send harper a message, these ways:

pm@pm.gc.ca

Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa
K1A 0A2
Fax: 613-941-6900

you want it? you got it!

stephen harper should have utilized a certain tool before he made an announcement to the world about what canadians want.

a poll!!

isn't that how people decide public opinion??

well here's a little poll. if a majority of people vote that stephen harper is an idiot then we can say, unequivocally, that stephen harper is an idiot.

do it!

stephen harper, just stop. then just dance.

stephen harper is reinstating the global gag rule, canadian style, like ten years late. apparently canadians don't want to fund abortions in other countries, he says.

you should join this facebook group:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=105978622778531&ref=mf

in other news, our facebook page seems to have been disabled for no reason. dear facebook: why did you disable our facebook page????

quote of the year?

stephen harper answered questions on youtube last night and it was predictably boring and ridiculous but he did spout one gem of wisdom which i think is probably the quote of the year.

“The reason drugs are illegal is because they are bad.”

harper has aligned himself with another "drugs are bad" proponent, mr. mackie!!

my question for stephen harper.

dude with the lisp, on the awesome moutain set, is telling me that i can submit a question to stephen harper on you tube!!

however, stephen harper will only answer a select few and i can guess now that mine will not be chosen.

so i'll pose it here, my question for stephen harper, the burning question that everyone wants to know:

Mr. Harper, how long does it take you to do your make up in the morning?

Thank you.

why you should care about the 2010 prorogation of parliament

a really, really great piece written by matthew furlong.

"There seems to be a two-tiered gripe with the Harper government’s, and more specifically Stephen Harper’s, decision to prorogue Parliament for the first quarter of this year. The first tier is concerned with an inactive Parliament, with paid MPs who aren’t doing the work that is expected of them, and with the consequent waste of taxpayers’ dollars. The second tier is concerned with Prime Minister Harper’s questionable use of prorogation, which is normally an uncontroversial parliamentary procedure, with his apparent evasiveness about issues such as the war in Afghanistan, and with his contempt for the challenges a minority government faces in a Parliamentary system.

I’m more interested in the latter, because it’s emblematic of the important and dangerous juncture that we’re at right now in the history of our Parliament. There’s no doubt that a lethargic Parliament full of MPs who are getting paid without getting any legislation passed is a bad thing; however, it’s also not as perilous as what’s currently underway. More than a few op-eds from constitutional scholars and others, written during this prorogation and the last, have referred to PM Harper’s use of prorogation as a constitutional crisis. This is quite correct: the word “crisis” refers to a decisive moment or a turning point. And the crisis in question is about the relationship between Parliament, which is supposed to be the representative body of the Canadian electorate, and the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), which is the Prime Minister’s centre of operations.

Prior to Pierre Trudeau’s tenure as Prime Minister, the PMO was relatively weak in relation to Parliament; however, since around the late 1960s or early 1970s, it has become more powerful and has been modified by subsequent Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments. The result has been that the Prime Minister is, more and more, a position with ever-greater latitude in relationship to Parliament. To put it simply, the modern history of the Office reveals its increasing distance from the body which serves as the voice of Canadian citizens. Prime Minister Harper doesn’t stand at the beginning of this history; his occupation of the PMO is just one event in a whole series of historical events that constitutes the transformation of our system of government. His unique contribution has been to play that system off against itself, by using an ordinary parliamentary procedure to counteract other ordinary parliamentary procedures, thus creating an extraordinary situation: a constitutional crisis.

That possibility was always there; systems of government are a kind of machinery, and all machines can be used in ways that outstrip or even cancel out what is perceived to be their intended use. A cellphone can be used to screw up navigational devices on airplanes, as we’ve heard so many times by now. A car can be used to drive somewhere, or it can be turned into a suicide machine with a long enough bit of hose. Likewise, a system of government can be turned on itself and can even destroy itself by way of unforeseen interactions between perfectly ordinary bits of procedure. It was probably inevitable that someone would come along and see the potential for exploitation in this system; all it ever takes is someone with the insight and the will to do so, along with a large number of people who can’t see it or who don’t care.

Fundamentally, this crisis is about sovereignty. Most of us have heard this word used many times in the last 10 years, but only in the context of international relations, or in terms of Quebec sovereignty: the sovereignty of a nation-state is its freedom from coercion by other nation-states, supra-national organizations (like the EU or the UN), or non-governmental organizations. National sovereignty consists in the ability of a nation-state to decide on its own domestic and foreign policy in an independent way; almost everyone is familiar with this idea. But we never hear about the question of sovereignty at the domestic level itself: in other words, who or what gets to decide on policy within a given political systemand, ultimately, who has the authority to preserve, suspend, or entirely undo the constitution itself. In a Parliamentary democracy, the idea is that Parliament, which is the voice of the people, is the sovereign body; this is a representational version of what’s called popular sovereignty, or the sovereignty of the people. Decision-making power, or sovereign power, is distributed amongst 308 MPs and 105 Senators who are supposed to represent the people subjected to that power.

What we’re seeing right now, on the part of Prime Minister Harper, is an attempt to change that situation, and to transfer sovereign power to the PMO. In other words, what we’re seeing is an attempt to destroy popular sovereignty and to solidify a solitary, unilateral sovereign power held by the Prime Minister’s. As we know, every Prime Minister is currently selected from the MPs of whichever power bloc (it doesn’t have to be a political party) has the lion’s share of power, whether it’s a plurality or a straight-up majority of seats. What Prime Minister Harper’s innovative use of prorogation opens up is a way for a political party to exert even more power than the bare occupation of Parliamentary seats allows. The PMO can invent policy, disseminate it to MPs (who, in the case of this government, are under the very tight control of the PMO itself), and then push it through legislation in a House constantly under threat of prorogation or dissolution.

So why should you care? I’ll tell you why I care. First of all, I think that the idea of Parliament being the “voice of the people,” is a rather romantic notion. We already know that our votes are in competition with lobbyist dollars, among other influences. We also know that the conflict of many different voices in a constituency (and in any society in general) will always result in some of those voices being drowned out. The Parliamentary process is always going to be one that distorts, no matter what. We have to live with that reality in this system; however, any body (like a parliament) that presumes to govern the lives of others has already given itself over to being under fire forever, regardless of whether it announces that fact or whether people are willing to take responsibility for their relationship to being governed. There is no such thing as a natural right to govern, and anyone who takes on that position rightly exists on the razor’s edge.

In other words, to be governed by a plurality of individuals who constitute a miniscule portion of the whole population is already contentious. But being governed by a solitary power that wants to remove itself from whatever power the governed might be able to exert against it: this is an unacceptable state of affairs. There’s a lot of spin going around poo-pooing the use of the word “dictator” in this instance. But that’s exactly what’s happening. A single agent, the Prime Minister, is consolidating a unique, supreme executive power and sabotaging popular sovereignty. It doesn’t matter who occupies the Office, or what colour their campaign posters are. It isn't a partisan question, or even a question of national identity. This is a matter of what I would call the solidarity of the governed. Nothing more, nothing less.

Should you care? It all hinges on whether or not you care about how you’re governed and who governs you. This isn’t a “big” versus “small” government problem; it’s a question of fugitive government. And the essence of a dictatorial regime is its capacity to take flight from the reach of those whom it governs. We’ve seen it happen in previous governments in our lifetime, but not in this manner and not with such potentially disastrous implications. It’s time to care right now. I’d encourage you to write to your MP, talk to your family and your friends, to attend rallies, and to donate to political parties to build their coffers (if that’s your thing – it’s not mine). But what needs to happen, most of all, more than any regime change, is procedural reform. This is a constitutional, not an administrative, crisis. We need to have widespread public reflection and action on this. The avenue that Prime Minister Harper has taken needs to be permanently closed down.

We’re at a point where people are talking about abolishing prorogation, which is in and of itself an unremarkable parliamentary tool. It shouldn’t be abolished, but the fact that people are suggesting it just shows how destructive the Harper government is. We're becoming so mistrustful that we're willing to start dismantling our own constitution. What needs to happen is that the role and power of the PMO be redefined and sovereignty be returned to Parliament. Governments will probably always try to pull a fast one on us, but what’s happening right now is obscene. Whether or not we will have to deal with venal, greedy, careerist MPs for the foreseeable future is one thing. But what Prime Minister Harper has taken up and exacerbated is of an entirely different nature. That’s what’s at stake here. That’s why you should care. That’s why I care."

matthew is planning to write a companion piece on the subject of sovereignty and crisis, that
"sovereignty is not so much defined by who can decide on policy within a political system, but, precisely, who has the authority to suspend or disrupt a constitution entirely."

children the biggest victims of war in afghanistan, surprise!

a report came out the other day which stated that children are the biggest victims of the war in afghanistant.

according to the report more than 1,050 children under 18 were killed last year alone.

children are also "press-ganged, sexually exploited, deprived of health and education, and illegally detained by all sides" in the war--which is going into its ninth year.

the director of ARM, an afghani human rights watchdog, said that "at least three children were killed in war-related incidents every day in 2009 and many others suffered in diverse but mostly unreported ways."

although the war was started to "democratize" afghanistant and "protect" women and children the western backed government hasn't introduced or implemented any laws to protect children against abuses of war.

as well, none of the nations currently stationed in afghanistan have pressured the government to introduce such laws.

so i guess this is another angle to the whole proroguing parliament business. every day stephen harper prorogues parliament three children in afghanistan die in a war that stephen harper actively supports and perpetrates.

so, mr. harper, while you're lieing around doing basically nothing for the next few months for no real reason except that you're a huge douchebag, maybe you should remember that three children will die while you lounge.

oh i see, this is what it's for...

i seriously have no idea what twitter is. basically, it's facebook statuses? and you subscribe to people and you read their statuses on your cell phone all day? is that correct?

who knows. it sounds silly to me.

but my friend sent me this link and it seems to me that this is the proper usage of twitter:

http://twitter.com/Harpers_kitten

for those of you who don't know (and let's be honest here, how could you not), stephen harper has a penchant for kittens. he loves being photographed with them--kitten photographs say to the world "i am not a cold monster, i just have a taste for kitten flesh, be kind."

but what about the kitten? where did it come from? why does it have kangaroo feet? what is that little kittie thinking?

well now you can follow that kitten on twitter. or you can just go to the link and read without following it-- that would be my choice.

ok, now there are REALLY no words.

so.. i expected this to be a joke. it's not.

it's not a joke... let that sink in....

"you're not that far to the right, you're right here by my side, you can harper me tonite, i've got a crush on harper."

oh..well...what?

sometimes there are no words...

stephen harper: one child left behind?

we here at pamphleteers are pretty serious about edumacation. this is one of the major reasons that we were pretty upset by stephen harper's statement that "canada has no history of colonialism."

it's not just because it's crazy racist or that it's a lie. it's upsetting because colonialism is part of our education system in canada. it may not be the most in depth or progressive of educations, but in school we learned that canada was a colony and that canada is a colonial state. that's just the truth.

so we've decided to take this serious educational matter into our own hands. we think that stephen harper should go back to high school and learn or re-learn the history of canada.

we've drafted a letter to the principal of the high school that stephen harper graduated from, as well as the superintendent and trustee of its school board on stephen harper's behalf:

"Principal Zimny, Superintendent Winter, Trustee Campbell:

We were concerned to learn that at the most recent G20 Summit Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared that "Canada has no history of colonialism."

As we are sure you can tell, embedded in this statement are a few historical inaccuracies:

• Canada was a "colony" of England and France. The history of Canada is actually undeniably "colonial." John Cabot explored what is now called Canada in the late 15th century and Jacques Cartier arrived for France in the early 16th century. The first permanent settlements were established in in the name of both France and England in the 1600's.
  
• Generally speaking, there was a great deal of conflict between the different "colonists" of Canada: King William's War, Queen Anne's War, The Seven Years War, The War of 1812. These are described as "Intercolonial Wars" because they involved fighting between the Colonial powers, all trying to take control of territory in order to spread their colonies. This is otherwise known as "colonialism".
• The original inhabitants of the country we now call Canada were the "colonized" population, since their land and resources were annexed by the incoming "colonists"
• Due to the many injustices perpetuated by the "colonists" against the "colonized", systemic economic, political, and social inequity now exists in Canada which the Government of Canada has recognized.
  

We noticed that your website lists many of the courses that are available to your students including: "World History to the Sixteenth Century", "World History: The West and the World", as well as "Canadian History Since World War I." We wonder, what, given the mandate set by the history classes offered at this school, is the reaction to Stephen Harper's suggestion that Canada has no history of colonialism?

Harper's statement cannot be described as one of many possible historical interpretations, nor can it even be written off as a misinterpretation of Canadian history. Instead, it belies an ignorance of incontrovertible historical facts that should be the foundation of even the most introductory knowledge of Canadian history.

This leads us to believe either that Mr. Harper has simply forgotten the historical facts your courses presumably teach, or that a grave error has occurred and he did not, in fact, complete the History courses required to receive his High School diploma. In either case, Mr. Harper should be invited to take these courses, either for the first time or as a refresher of knowledge he has obviously forgotten.

As Member of Parliament Olivia Chow has written: "The Canadian Government worked very hard to make reparations with the First Nations Community with the Truth & Reconciliation Commission, and to hear Mr. Harper’s remarks on the world stage destroys this work."

As an elected official who is responsible for representing and speaking for Canada on the world stage, we are sure that Stephen Harper would welcome the opportunity to learn more about the history of his country.

We eagerly await your invitation and look forward to witnessing the process of self discovery that education offers.

Sincerely,

eff and tee
the pamphleteers "

we're serious. stephen harper is not reaping the benefits of this country's educational system and the effects of this are detrimental not only to the country and its image but to stephen harper himself!

send stephen back to high school!!!

update: as if we even needed another reason to hate this guy

i wrote a letter to my mp, olivia chow, about the sheer idiocy of stephen harper and asked that the ndp take a public position against his statements about colonialism(or, the lack thereof).

this is what i received from ms. chow:

"Thank-you for your letter regarding Stephen Harper’s speech at the G20. Clearly the naivety expressed by our Prime Minister is an embarrassment to Canadians. What is worse, however, is it ignores shameful parts of Canadian history and perpetuates the wrongful notion that what was done to Canada’s First Nations people was acceptable and excusable. The Canadian Government worked very hard to make reparations with the First Nations Community with the Truth & Reconciliation Commission, and to hear Mr. Harper’s remarks on the world stage destroys this work. We hope that Prime Minister Harper will see the error in his statements and grant an apology to the many Canadians who were affected by Colonialism in Canada."

don't get me wrong, i love olivia chow. i think she's great, but this isn't what i wanted. i don't want the ndp to "hope" that stephen harper realizes the error of his ways and apologizes to canadians but we all know that won't happen.

i think the ndp has a responsibility to publicly ask for an apology from harper. anything less basically validates his remark and sends the message that the prime minister of canada has no responsibility to tell the truth. it says "hey, stephen harper, go ahead and be a racist freakshow because we won't call you on it!"

write to your mp and tell them that it isn't enough to just wait for harper to come to his senses. he won't. he's an idiot, so we have to tell him what to do.

you can go here to find out who your mp is and what their email address is, it's really easy:

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/MemberByPostalCode.aspx?Menu=HOC

do it?