Lord Black No Robin Hood

Black accused of stealing, 'plain and simple'

From the little people; shareholders. Those whom Lady Black dismisses with the aplomb of Marie Antoinette.

The prosecution painted Conrad Black and his co-accused as fraudsters who systematically committed theft from Hollinger International shareholders.

The accused took a "slice of their company's profits" and "created a phony paper trail to make their actions appear legitimate

"We are here because five men systematically stole over US$60 million from the shareholders of Hollinger International."

"Conrad Black was paying himself not to compete with himself. It's ridiculous."

Also See:


Conrad Black

Criminal Capitalism

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Conrad Black, Lord Black, Barbara Amiel, crime, fraud, Canada, Chicago, Hollinger
racketeering, Radler, newspapers.

God Is Pro Abortion

Since all acts of Nature are acts of God it is clear that God is pro abortion.

A lightning strike that hit seven people over the weekend in Alberta killed a 26-year-old man and his unborn baby.

because every abortion snuffs out the life of a human being, the most vulnerable human being among us, the unborn child

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
abortion, DNA, RNA, sterlitiy, infertility, sex, relgion, Onan, sin, murder, embryo, embryonic, fetus, fetal, Christianity, Catholic, anti-choice, men, mens-sexuality, health, anti-abortion

Socialism Now!

This little online poll in the Globe and Mail has the Blogging Tories here and here all verklempt. And no wonder. It shows that a good idea is one whose time is yet to come. And as usual I will provide the following caveat; socialism is NOT state-capitalism.

Is socialism still a viable political alternative for the major industrial nations?

Yes

(61%) 7451 votes

No

(39%) 4789 votes

Total votes: 12240

Socialism, in short, would not come about because a handful of daydreamers had wished for it, or because pious moralists had urged it, but because the unavoidable breakdown of the capitalist system would force the turn to socialism upon those societies that, prior to this breakdown, had been organized along capitalist lines.

Thus, Kautsky says: "Socialism, that is, general welfare within modern civilization, becomes possible only through the great development of productive forces that capitalism brings, through the enormous riches that it creates and that are concentrated in the hands of the capitalist class. A state that has squandered these riches through a senseless policy, perhaps an unsuccessful war, offers from the outset no favorable point of departure for the quickest diffusion of welfare in all classes."

See: Radical Capitalists Not So Radical


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, state capitalism, libertarian socialism , capitalism, socialism,

Tags
labour
libertarianism
anarchism
socialism
communism
Libertarian-Communist
anarcho-syndicalist
autonomist-marxism
libertarian-socialism
Left Communism
Anti-State Socialism
Anti-Parlimentary Socialism
council communism
anarcho-communism

How The MacDonald Commission Changed Canada

With the Conservative governments announcement of further bi-lateral free trade agreements, we should return to the roots of this policy. One that was developed by the Liberals over twenty years ago. Credit where credit is due, the Liberals set the agenda for the development of Free Trade which the Conservatives under Mulroney and Harper have merely inherited. Proving once again the axiom, Liberal, Tory same old story.

Tracing the roots of Canada’s contemporary involvement in North American free trade back to the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada in 1985 – also known as the Macdonald Commission – Gregory J. Inwood offers a critical examination of the commission and how its findings affected Canada’s political and economic landscape, including its present-day reverberations.

In this case the recommendations that led to the reinvention of the Liberal government as a Neo-Liberal government began with the Commission they set up under Donald MacDonald.

Macdonald represented the Toronto-Rosedale riding for 16 years as a federal member of parliament. He served nine years as cabinet minister in portfolios such as national defence, finance and energy, mines and resources. He was high commissioner for Canada to the United Kingdom from 1988 to 1991, and from 1982 to 1985, he chaired the Royal Commission on the Economic Development Prospects for Canada (known as the Macdonald Commission).

What the Liberals didn't do was follow the MacDonald Commission recommendations on UI/EI.

Moreover, instead of following the Commission’s recommendation for increasing federal contributions to UI during recessionary periods, the government eliminated all contributions to the program by 1990. And there is no evidence that the government has seriously considered proposals made by the Commission and others for experience-rating the program’s financing.

The intensity rule and benefit clawback of 1996 were sold as “worker-side experience rating” (see Nakamura and Diewert (2000)), but they proved as politically unpalatable as employer-side experience rating of premiums. Indeed, since the mid-1990s and continuing today, the feds’ most notable attitude toward EI is that the program is a handy, covert source of net funds for other governmental purposes.

Nor did they follow the Commissions recommendations for a Guaranteed Annual Income.

The Universal Income Security Program (UISP) was the Commission’s other major recommendation for reforming income security. In essence, the UISP was a guaranteed income scheme that would have replaced other programs such as the Guaranteed Income Supplement, Family Allowances, the refundable child tax credit, child and marital tax exemptions, federal social housing programs, federal transfers to the provinces for Social Assistance (SA), and the income support functions of UI. UISP payments were to be made on an income-tested basis, with a tax-back rate of 20 percent applied to all income in addition to the normal personal income tax rates. The Report stated, “The UISP seems to Commissioners to be the essential building block for social security programs in the twenty-first century.

Instead they applied a neo-liberal approach of tax credits, which increased the taxable income of those who received government supplements. So in effect the working poor, paid for a benefit they received from the government. The Federal government let the provinces off the hook by paying their share, and allowing them to cut Social Assistance on the promise that the savings would go back into broad based public programs for the working poor.

The reality was a claw back of provincial benefits, real cash in your pocket, for a credit chit from the Feds, your tax dollars at work. The ensuing benefit not being taxed, meant that the working poor moved up the income tax scale. Not unlike the current Conservative Child benefit; their so called universal child care program.

Second, beginning in 1998 the National Child Benefit (NCB) System subsumed the CTB and replaced its earnings-related benefit with a substantial cash supplement for lower income households with children. Under agreements with the federal government, most provincial governments reduced their SA benefit rates for children by amounts equivalent to the NCB supplement. Again, this scheme pursued a Commission goal of reducing the disincentives for welfare beneficiaries to seek or return to work. These changes also reduced the break-even
income levels for welfare beneficiaries, though the provinces have not reduced phase-out rates for their own benefits. The “reinvestment” of provincial savings from reduced SA cash benefits into in-kind benefits for the working poor and welfare beneficiaries promoted the lowering of the welfare wall, but the benefit phase-outs further aggravated disincentives for the working poor.

Despite the visible positives from the NCB initiative, the scheme also mirrored the
hidden deficiencies of the Commission’s UISP scheme. That is, the NCB supplement phase-out sharply raised the effective marginal tax rates faced by many working poor and near-poor families. The NCB scheme did reduce the “welfare wall” but simultaneously erected a higher “success wall” keeping the working poor and near-poor from advancing to higher earnings.

What made the MacDonald Commission unique was the near unanimty of the political economists who agreed that Free Trade was the panacea for Canada's stagnating economy. An economy that was no worse off nor better off than any other at the time of global recession. However dissident voices were not to be found amongst the Academics of the day who promoted Free Trade saying There Is No Alternative. And so the Liberals led the push for Free Trade despite John Turners tearful denials in his debate with Mulroney and Broadbent.

Policy makers who want a policy initiative in place may well foster the research to support the initiative. This fostering could come in various forms: commissioning background studies from sources known to favor the initiatives; designing the terms of reference in ways that will yield favorable results; “advertising” favorable results while “burying” unfavorable results; or, reviewing the research with suggestions tilted towards influencing the results or having them presented favorably.

In Canada, the signature recommendation of the Macdonald Royal Commission of 1985, was for a bilateral free trade agreement between Canada and the U.S. That recommendation led to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA), negotiated between 1985 and 1987 and implemented January 1, 1989. The research of the Commission was extensive, involving 280 studies done mainly by 300 different academics in 70 volumes.

The importance of academic research to the Commission is also illustrated by the fact that 84 percent of the 1,014 references in the final report are to research studies (67 percent from the academic literature and 17 percent from the background research studies of the Commission which tended to synthesize the academic research). Only 10 percent of the references were to briefs formally presented to the Commission and 6 percent from references to transcripts of the public hearings (calculations from data in Inwood, 2005:181).

The fact that the academic research generally favored free trade while the briefs and public hearings generally involved advocacy positions opposed to free trade, suggests that the research also had a greater impact (Inwood, 1998:18).

The research on trade had a number of important characteristics that likely facilitated its
impact on public policy. It was high quality research done by top researchers in the country and coordinated by a prolific and respected trade economist. The computable general equilibrium models were particularly influential, especially because they captured the indirect productivity enhancing effects of the restructuring that would occur because of the economies of scale for producing for a large market. The research of the Commission generally involved a synthesis of the cumulative stock of existing research, the vast majority of which favored free trade. The near consensus perspective favoring free trade is illustrated by the fact that “only one academic could be found to make the anti-free trade case out of the approximately three hundred hired by the Commission” (Inwood, 1998:35).

This homogeneity of perspectives within economics and the rigor with which they are advanced made economics prominent as a source of policy advice to the Commission (Simeon, 1987). Brooks and Gagnon (1988:109) conclude that this is a more general phenomenon: “There can be little doubt that economists remain pre-eminent among social scientists in their integration with the policy process.”

The research also had champions who made the case for free trade to the Commissioners and to the politicians, and who defended it in the heated public debates that ensued. Trade unions strongly opposed the FTA and organized public forums against it. In countering this, Macdonald (2005:11) acknowledges the important role played by an Industrial Relations academic, John Crispo, for “his robust platform technique which ultimately frightened away the union leaders from contested meetings where initially it was they who had brandished the verbal brass knuckles.”

There were certainly attacks on the research and on the academic case for free trade. However, the attacks tended to be polemic and based on more nationalistic denunciations of free market economics in general. They tended not to provide alternatives based on different methodologies, and the work was generally simply presented at conferences or published in forums of contemporary opinion as opposed to peer-reviewed academic journals (Inwood, 1998:5).

The term neo-liberal was coined in this period to note the shift that mainstream political economists were making in calling for Free Trade, reductions in social benefits, reinventing government, contracting out services and privatization. All these went hand in hand, and while promoted by neo-cons elsewhere in Canada they truly were policies of the New Liberals; neo-liberalism.

Begun by Trudeau and MacDonald they were then carried through in the nineties by Chretien and Martin. The current Conservatives are the beneficiaries of the Liberal restructuring of the state.

While free trade was the signature recommendation of the Macdonald Commission, numerous other recommendations were made backed by labor and social policy research. As Riddell (2005) indicates, many of these
recommendations were implemented into policy, including unemployment insurance reforms; active adjustment assistance policies; income supplements to the working poor; national testing of student achievement; and deemphasizing minimum wages.

In his overall assessment, Bradford (1999/2000:158, 159) concludes: “The Macdonald Commission report remains the essential component reference point for the host of era-defining policy innovations, ranging from continental free trade to restrictions on unemployment insurance and retrenchment of the federal role in social assistance, legislated between 1985 and 1997 by successive Conservative and Liberal governments.”

Freer trade was also regarded as a potentially effective way for the federal government to pressure provincial governments to adopt market-oriented reforms given the substantial control they have over policy initiatives in Canada’s system. This was especially the case since there was a backlash against the nationalist and government interventionist policies that prevailed during the 1960s and 1970s, including wage-price controls, energy price fixing, foreign investment restrictions, government procurement policies, and a state trading corporation to
assist smaller Canadian firms to sell to centrally planned economies (Chant, 2005:14). Such policies were often regarded as contributing to the worst recession Canada experienced since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Interestingly, while he was previously in political office, Macdonald himself presided over many of these interventionist strategies including a national oil policy, a state-owned petroleum company, government investment in oil developments that were avoided by the private sector, price controls on uranium exports, and the wage-price control program. He attributes his conversion to free trade and less government intervention to: “My experience in the private sector after my departure from government made it clear that state-controlled programs
had failed to achieve the rates of growth to which we all aspire” (Macdonald, 2005:9).

This rejection of nationalist-interventionist policies also occurred for Prime Minister Trudeau who had earlier instituted many of the policies in the 1970s. By 1982, he indicated: “Personally, I remain convinced that the primary engine of economic development must be a dynamic private sector and that the marketplace is in most circumstances the best allocator of scarce resources”

The Liberal reinvention of government in this period meant the whole scale contracting out of government services, in particular computer based IT as well as P3 programs and the sell off and lease back of government buildings. Which has resulted in the the various scandals and boondoggles from the Gun Registry to the RCMP pension fund scandal.

That the Conservatives could get former Liberal Industry Minister David Emerson to cross the floor days after his election to occupy his old cabinet seat shows how interchangeable the two parties are when in power. After all Emerson is simply following through on Liberal policy even as a Conservative.




Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
MacDonald Commission, Canada, Liberals, free trade, Trudeau, Emerson, Conservatives, Harper, Government, investment, politics, trade

"C '" Car Go

Wow how far from the maddening crowd can you get.

The Conservatives are sponsoring a big "C" car in the Canadian NASCAR races. Of course in this case NASCAR is not nearly as popular as in the U.S. and is in reality an elitist pro sport in Canada, like Horse Racing. It has little of the popular support of other Canadian favorite sportslike Hockey, Football, Soccer, Baseball, Basketball or even La cross.

Motor sports fans are extremely brand loyal. Statistics show that motor sports fans are in fact the most brand loyal consumers of any sports fans in the world.
• Corporate Canada estimates 5.3 million (15.2%) Canadians attend Stock Car
Racing events annually in Canada.
63% of fans at the track and viewers at home are between the ages of 30-49.
69% of motorsports fans make between $30,000 - $75,000 a year.
74% are homeowners.
75% are males.

And of course the idea of appealing to white middle class males who follow NASCAR was a policy of the Bush Republicans in the 2004 election. So why should we be surprised that the Harpocrites in Ottawa have now adapted it for themselves. After all they are claiming to want to appeal to ordinary Canadians; like NASCAR fans; middle class, white, males.

The Conservative Party has shifted its advertising strategy into a new gear and slapped the party logo on a NASCAR stock car.

The big blue Conservative "C" made its debut Sunday on the hood and front side panels of car 29 of the Canadian Tire NASCAR series, the Canadian offshoot of the popular U.S. stock-racing circuit.

The Canadian Tire circuit only started last fall after NASCAR bought the CASCAR series here in Canada.

And so long time race driver, bon vivant, raconteur and self published publicist Pierre Bourque, sounds like Bjork, is the beneficiary once again of Conservative largess.

Following the lead of Tim Hortons, Home Hardware and Milwaukee Electric Tool, the white No. 29 car in the Canadian Tire auto-racing series now sports a big blue "C" on its hood and side panels.

Clever move. A 'C' car. Get it, 'C' car go.

NASCAR is new in Canada having bought out the CASCAR circuit last fall. CASCAR was in trouble lacking popular appeal after a decade and needed the support of NASCAR.

The 2006 schedule was very late coming out and key tracks such as Delaware and Race City are missing. The hoped for success and excitement with NASCAR® involvement has not materialized, with many feeling that perhaps their presence is hurting rather than helping. Major sponsorship is desperately needed before this series completely fractures and disappears.

Once again showing the Tories support American and Foreign takeovers of Canadian industries, though they will tell you that's not their message. Their message is they are winners of course.

Which may be hard to sell since Bourque and his 'C' car came in 13th place in Saturday's race at Mosport.

And remember the environment, and the Tories call for cleaning up air pollution. Well thats kinda hard to do when race cars still use lead gasoline which is banned in Canada, except for the race car industry, aviation fuel, etc.. Wonder if the Conservatives will continue the exemption since they have a car in the race.

Canada’s Gasoline Regulations have prohibited the production, import and sale of leadedgasoline since 1990. Gasoline for use in competition vehicles has been provided an exemption under the regulations. The current exemption expires on January 1, 2008.

Gasoline is the most common fuel used in racing. Both leaded and unleaded gasoline formulations are used in Canadian racing. For engines with high compression ratios, a very high octane gasoline is required to prevent engine knock (and resulting engine damage) and to maximize power output. Lead additives are used to achieve this high octane.

Leaded gasoline that is imported for use in Canada has reported lead contents ranging from 0.1 to 4.23 g/L. The Gasoline Regulations have reporting requirements for anyone producing or importing leaded gasoline. The reports indicate that there is no Canadian production of leaded gasoline for use in competition vehicles. In 2005, 1,160 cubic meters of leaded gasoline was reported
as imported for use in competition vehicles. This represents 1.1% of the leaded gasoline pool in Canada (the remaining is used for aviation purposes) or 0.003% of all gasoline produced or imported into Canada.

The estimated breakdown of leaded gasoline sales for racing in Canada is as follows:
stock cars – 15 to 40%;
dragsters – 40 to 50%;

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
payola, Pierre Bourque, Bourque News, Bourque, race cars, NASCAR, Canada, politics, media bias, new media, news agreggator, internet, Ottawa, Tories, blogs, buying headlines

Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater

Doug Mataconis of the Liberty Papers reports that Ron Paul is the only elected politician that has won his seat three times against the incumbent, without party support. Which is no small feat. Mataconis points out why;

Paul was helped by the fact that he was running in areas of Texas where the prevailing political beliefs are conservative, but a conservatism that is of the Barry Goldwater/Ronald Reagan leave-me-alone type than the interventionist/Christianist conservatism that prevails elsewhere in the country

This makes sense and why Ron Paul has broad based support amongst libertarians. However as I pointed out in Mr. Conservative; Barry Goldwater had no kith nor kin with Reagan, who was responsible for allowing the interventionist/Christian types into the ruling echelons of the party. Goldwater blamed Regan for abandoning the libertarian/conservative traditions of the party.

Of course the current crop of neo-cons masquerading as Republicans, Lincoln would be ashamed, would rather hearken to the days of Reagan, and his electoral victory, then the days of principle and defeat; the Goldwater era.

Which is why a politician of principles like Ron Paul stands a snowballs chance in hell in the Republican party of today.

h/t to Go Ron Paul!


SEE:

My Favorite Conservative

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
libertarian, Republican, Barry Goldwater US, Ronald Reaganelections, politics, right wing, conservative, Mr.Conservative, Reagan, social-conservatives, US Presidential race, Ron Paul,

Canadians Support Ron Paul

Republican Libertarian candidate for President; Ron Paul's support online comes from Canada, or at least a web based company founded by a Canadian, but published with American content. And noticing this has not been the usual libertarians of the right, the so called Blogging Tories, but the progressive bloggers.

Because basically the right wing which makes up the majority of BT are war mongering opponents to libertarianism. And Dr.Paul is outspoken against the war in Iraq.

As one Canadian progressive blogger put it:

Colbert, Stewart and Maher on Ron Paul (includes video)

I don’t agree that Stewart and Maher let him off easy, rather they were probably just as blown away as I was that a Republican could articulate a common sense foreign policy agenda. Stewart and Maher (video) gave the American public a chance to hear the stark differences between Ron Paul’s views and all of the other Republican candidates. In my opinion, Paul is the only Republican candidate running whose foreign policy ideas/plans are not completely wacked and terrifying to the average world citizen. I also think Maher’s political views are actually much closer to Paul’s than Stewart’s or Colbert’s.

The American pundit blog Wonkette that noticed the Canadian source of Ron Pauls online support called Canada the Evil Empire (tongue in cheek).

Of course as anyone who watched Twin Peaks knows, Canada is the evil empire of the north that terrifies Americans.

Or if you listen to debates on single payer health care in the U.S. you find the same fears expressed. Socialism, Single payer health care, Canada, are all used in the same sentence.

Which is why Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich is more Canadian than American, he supports a single payer Canadian style Medicare system. And as I said here unfortunately neither he nor Ron Paul stand a chance of winning their primaries.

But for a truly evil Canadian style libertarian socialist alternative to the two party candidates, a Paul/Kucinich ticket would be just the thing. Of course they would have to decide which one was running for President and which for VP. They are the ultimate geek ticket. Just look at those hairstyles.




SEE:

Liberal Republicans

Ron Paul Quotes Ayn Rand

Ron Paul

nd blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Bemjamin Tucker, Liberty, Lysander Spooner, Godwin, Constitution, law, libertarian, anarchism, invdidualist-anarchist, Proudhon, mutualist, mutualism, anarchist-law, Ayn Rand, Republicans, US Presidential race, Ron Paul, Kucinich, US, libertarian, Democrats,

An End to Colonial Assimilation?

With the Harper Governments announcement that it was abandoning forty years of colonial assimilation that was Liberal Indian policy of Trudeau and Chretien. This is one Liberal policy I am happy to see torn up. Could this be a new beginning for Canada's First Nations peoples?

Statement of the Government Of Canada On Indian Policy, 1969

Presented to the First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Parliament

by the Honorable Jean Chrétien, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

The Government believes that its policies must lead to the full, free and non-discriminatory participation of the Indian people in Canadian society. Such a goal requires a break with the past. It requires that the Indian people's roles of dependence be replaced by a role of equal status, opportunity and responsibility, a role they can share with all other Canadians.

The policies proposed recognize the simple reality that the separate legal status of Indians and the policies which have flowed from it have kept the Indian people apart from and behind other Canadians. The Indian people have not been full citizens of the communities and provinces in which they live and have not enjoyed the equality and benefits that such participation offers.

Ironically it is a policy that Harpers grey eminence Tom Flanagan of the Calgary School agrees with.

“Europeans are, in effect, a new immigrant wave, taking control of land just as earlier aboriginal settlers did. To differentiate the rights of earlier and later immigrants is a form of racism.”

So sayeth Tom Flanagan, Stephen Harper’s advisor and mentor, a political science professor who the Tory leader first met at the University of Calgary.

In order to become self-supporting
and get beyond the social pathologies
that are ruining their communities,
aboriginal people need to acquire the
skills and attitudes that bring success
in a liberal society, political democracy,
and market economy. Call it assimilation,
call it integration, call it
adaptation, call it whatever you want:
it has to happen.
Tom Flanagan, First Nations?
Second Thoughts, pp.195-196.

And Harpers announcement would be more credible if this wasn't happening;

- Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice replaced some of the country's most seasoned federal land-claim negotiators with hand-picked choices who have comparatively less experience - including his former law partner. Critics say the unusual political handling of the lucrative contracts is further proof that Conservative vows to shun patronage were hollow at best. It will also slow down complex land-claim talks as new negotiators climb steep learning curves, they say.

And while the Harpocrite Government practices realpolitik to avoid a showdown with First Nations peoples, their reactionary right-whing republican base uses this opportunity to attack the leadership of of those same first nations as unconstitutional.

According to a press release from the right-leaning Canadian Constitution Foundatiom, prominent legal experts agree with Chief Mountain and Nisibilada that the “third order” of government created by the Nisga’a Treaty violates Canada ’s constitution. Retired Supreme Court of Canada Justices William McIntyre and the late Willard Estey, retired B.C. Court of Appeal Justice D.M. Michael Goldie, former NDP Attorney-General Alex MacDonald, the late Mel Smith, Q.C. and former B.C. Attorney-General Geoff Plant have all stated publicly that parts of the Nisga’a Treaty are unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

Chief Mountain’s constitutional challenge has received funding from the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a registered charity with a mandate to promote and defend Canadians’ constitutional freedoms.

The foundation's website says it was founded in 2002 to explain to Canadians "the role of the Constitution in their daily lives, to teach them how to recognize infringements and abuse of the Constitution in the world around them, and to help them defend its principles from improper decisions or actions of governments, regulators, tribunals or special-interest groups."

The foundation, which believes the Constitution only recognizes two levels of government - federal and provincial - has a board of directors comprising some prominent conservatives.

Its board includes Ezra Levant, publisher of the Western Standard magazine, and William Johnston, a family physician in Vancouver and president of Canadian Physicians for Life.

Foundation executive director John Carpay, a former Alberta director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, says the Nisga'a dissidents claim that the treaty "violates their constitutional rights as Canadians. It does so by creating a third order of government that is not accountable to either Ottawa or Victoria. "

One Step forward two steps back. Of course recognition of liberal human rights vs. collective rights is what this is all about. Whether Trudeau or Harper, both the Liberals and Conservatives see assimilation of first nations as an imperative, no matter what else they say. It's what they do that counts.

For over 100 years, aboriginal children, about 150,000 of them - Metis, Indian and Inuit, some only five years old - were yanked out of their homes and jammed into residential schools, some hundreds of miles from their families. They were not allowed to speak their native language, many died from tuberculosis and others suffered sexual, emotional and physical abuse.

In a shameful attempt to cover their butts, governments passed legislation that made it illegal to resist giving up these children, thus legalizing cultural assassination.
Given this history and the documented facts, it was heartening to see 270 MPs vote to apologize, but it was mostly symbolic since Prime Minister Stephen Harper has refused to issue an official apology. In fact, he sent Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice out to say such an act could be years away. There is a word for the government's action, it's "disgraceful."

There are still 80,000 natives alive to whom it applies.

The Harper government continues to stall on what is an abomination. It sits on its hands despite the fact the Chretien government admitted in 1998 that native students had been badly treated, and in 2005 a compensation offer of $2 billion was introduced for surviving students. But in the meantime, a sneaky band of Tories has decided that a special investigative commission will travel across Canada before any apology is issued. This is a stubborn, hard-hearted stance, and the prime minister should be ashamed of himself.

Canada's decision to withdraw support for the United Nations Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples coincided with a visit to Ottawa by Prime Minister John Howard of Australia -- a country that strongly opposes the declaration.

Shortly after Mr. Howard's meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper in May, 2006, Mr. Harper called Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice to tell him to review Canada's position of support, government sources said yesterday.

Although previous Liberal governments had difficulty with the declaration that had taken more than two decades to craft, by 2005 Canada was fully supportive and actively encouraging other countries to sign on.

But the United States and Australia remained staunchly opposed. And Mr. Harper walked away from his meeting with Mr. Howard believing the declaration would be problematic, the sources said.

"It was very much the Prime Minister [Harper] directing Prentice to relook at this thing," a source said.

Mr. Prentice has since said there are concerns that the declaration is unconstitutional, that it could prevent military activities on aboriginal land and that it could harm existing land deals.

SEE:

Mike Harris and State Terrorism

Tories Crush Whistleblower

Land claim

Alcoholism Is Colonialism

Bev Oda Minister of Aboriginal Affairs

Hewers of Wood

Cardston Home of Bigots

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Caledonia, First Nations, Ontario, land claim, Canada, politics, aboriginal, native, Six Nations, Mike Harris, Dudley George, OPP, Ipperwash,Mohawk,
Supreme Court of Canada, SCC, Canada, natives, aboriginal, logging, logging rights, lumber, timber, homes, home buiding

Really Corrupt Mounted Police

Gee it's hard to be a law and order government when the official state police force is riddled with corruption, cronyism and fraud.

Those who uphold the law once again act as if they are above the law.

Which suits the Harpocrites just fine since they are acting the same way.

a parliamentary committee reviews allegations of pension-fund fraud, cronyism, and three years of expense reports of former RCMP commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli that were either swapped out or disappeared by his underlings, his successor, Bev Busson retires today. The planned departure comes only hours after the report of lawyer and Bay Street minence grise David Brown delivered a report on the force's corruption to Public Safety minister Stockwell Day. The RCMP, Mr. Brown declared, is "horribly broken."

Like other political police forces; the FBI and KGB for instance the RCMP have maintained their traditional para-military structure through political blackmail.

"I've worked with Liberals and Tories, and nobody wants to tangle with the RCMP," said Shirley Heafey, the former chair of the force's commission of public complaints.

"They have a lot of information on a lot of people ... It causes a chill. They have long memories in the RCMP."

And so do we on the left. We remember their infiltration of the left, their penchant for protecting strikebreakers and shooting strikers, their attack on the On to Ottawa Trekkers, their role in the Liberals attempt to discredit their opponents in particular the Quebec nationalists, their systemic refusal to deal with members of the force who abuse natives and prisoners, their role in the Arar affair and the Air India debacle, the list could go on and on.

After all the RCMP Motto is Maintain the Right.

The solution to the problem of the RCMP is three fold; implementation of the recommendations of thirty year old Macdonald Commission including; a non RCMP Commissioner, civilian control and oversight and allowing the rank and file to unionize.

Others call on Ottawa to break up the RCMP's mandate, which they believe is unwieldy. While it has many federal responsibilities whose powers range from protecting the borders against drug-smuggling, enforcing stock markets against fraud and investigating politicians, the RCMP's bread-and-butter is the contracts it has with provincial and municipal governments.

These contractual arrangements harken back to the RCMP's roots as a guns-for-hire protection and enforcement group, said Paul Palango, investigative reporter and author of The Last Guardians, a book on problems within the RCMP, calling them essentially a paramilitary force working at the behest of their hosts.

The force, he said, has turned into a hybrid organization that is both a business and a national institution.

Articles referenced;

RCMP Terror

New Math

Why The Tories Want Tory Judges

More Foreign Affairs Incompetency

Statist Anti-Terrorism Act

Paranoia and the Security State

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Canada, anti-terrorism act, Government, Liberals, NDP, Conservatives, War Measures Act, 1970, Arar, terrorism, crime, liberalism, state, statism, libertarian, civil liberties
Air, India,, John, Marshall,, RCMP,, CSIS,, Sikh,
Giuliano Zaccardelli, Zaccardelli, , RCMP, Resigns, Arar, Commisioner, Harper, Government, lawandorder, Conservatives, Parliament, MPs, Liberals,

Drumheller Bell Weather

As I wrote here urbanization and the transformation of rural cities into suburban metropolis vs. the rural roots of the P.C.'s was exposed in the bell weather by-election Tuesday.

Drumheller voted solidly Liberal despite the rest of the rural riding voting Conservative.

The Conservatives comfortably held onto Drumheller-Stettler, the rural former riding of Shirley McClellan, who retired after having served in senior cabinet jobs like finance minister and deputy premier. However, the Liberals finished second there. In 2004, they didn't bother running a candidate against McClellan.

the Liberals winning Drumheller's city vote even as it lost the overall seat, clearly signals "that the Klein era is over," Taft said.

The Stelmach government is relying upon their rural base to hold up their tired old party. In fact they even went as far as to sic their California Golden Boy Republican rabid right whingnut Ted Morton on the urban complainers.

Sustainable Resource Development Minister Ted Morton spoke to municipal leaders in Banff -- an address the mayor says included a deliberate slight at Calgary.

According to Morton's speaking notes, he said: "Calgary by itself is a good, but not a great, city. What makes Calgary a great city -- the best in Canada as far as I'm concerned -- is what surrounds it. The working farms and ranches, the Foothills, mountains and rivers."

While there was no tape of the speech, Morton provided a copy of his speaking notes

With no apology or remonstration from Stelmach, Morton supplied his notes to the media day's before the by-election. This from a government with a fetish for secrecy.

Morton like Stelmach relied upon the rural vote for his run for Party Leader. Morton's base came from the south where a strong American/Republican tradition exist's in the Mormon population and among other big ranchers and farmers who are evangelical Christians.

With a boom in the province, rapid development of bedroom communities, urban sprawl in Fort McMurray, and the million person populations in Edmonton and Calgary spill over into rural communities making them the new suburbs.

Thus the fall of Calgary Elbow, Ralph's old seat, to the new Alberta Voter.

"It's not the byelection I would put as much stock into. It's the trend line," said Duane Bratt, a political scientist at Calgary's Mount Royal College. "There's been a series of little steps, all going down."

After losing three Calgary ridings to the Liberals in 2004's election, Tory fortunes in Calgary took a turn for the worse in December's leadership race. The city's pick, former treasurer Jim Dinning, sewed up every riding in town but lost the race to Ed Stelmach, a farmer from up north and the last choice of Calgary voters. And according to some rural Stelmach supporters - who gloated afterward that they had properly stuck a thumb in the eye of the big city - that was exactly the point.

Then came Mr. Stelmach's Cabinet choices - dominantly rural, with just three Calgarians of 18 (even though the city represents a third of the province's population).

Stelmach and Morton and their rural PC base see this as a threat to their vision of "Conservative" Alberta. That rural base was originally Social Credit, and transfered its loyalty to the PC's after the Lougheed era. Ralph Kleins victory as Leader was the result of the dissident rural Social Credit base voting PC and Calgary voting PC merging in a campaign opposing the candidate, Nancy Betkowski, from Edmonton.

The old riding of Buffalo-Stettler was also the exiled home of former Premier Don Getty when he lost his Edmonton Whitemud riding to Liberal Percy Wickman. Having the Premier as your MLA meant as usual lots of government largess.

And as a result Stettler has become another urbanized suburb, complete with a Burger Baron and nice paved highways. The Burger Baron phenomena in Northern Alberta, reflects the integration of immigrants, in this case the chain is owned by Lebanese Canadians,into Alberta's white Christian rural culture.

Stettler remains a solidly Tory stronghold, as it was once a Socred stronghold. But it also suffered a low voter turn out which does not show the real intention of voters.

But the sea change in Drumheller shows that come the next provincial election, the split in the province will be between the urban centres and the rural hinterland.

And like the regime of Harry Strom, the last time that scenario was played out the Socreds went down to defeat in 1971 to the Lougheed PC's.

In 1968, Earnest Manning stepped down as leader of the Social Credit party after winning a massive majority on a very small popular vote, and he was replaced as leader and premiere by Strom in that same year. The following year, in 1969, the seat Manning had held for decades, Calgary Strathcona, fell to Progressive Conservative William Yurko.

While Ralph Klein’s history is quite different from Manning, the progress of events since he stepped down as leader is eerily familiar. In 2004, Klein won a large majority on a fairly shaky popular vote (under 50% when he’d won nearly 70% in the 2001 election). He then announced his retirement, and by the end of 2006, had stepped down in favour of his replacement, Ed Stelmach. The following year (that would be 2007, this year), Klein’s old seat in Calgary-Elbow fell to Liberal representative Craig Cheffins (in the by-election this past Tuesday).

Albertans almost defeated the lame duck PC's in 1993, Ralph's first term as premier was a race between him and Laurence Decore of the Liberals. Hindered by the lame duck premiership of Don Getty, the party was soundly thrashed at the polls, but still won. Like the defeat of the Socreds before them, they saw the 1993 election as a warning.

Today we have another lame duck premier, and one whose charisma and leadership screams Harry Strom. Lucky for him the Liberals also suffer from the same lame duck leadership.

SEE

• Stelmach Blames Eastern Bums
• Terrror In Tory Town
• Calgary Elbow Goes Liberal
• It's A Sweep
• Alberta Election Results
• Where's The NDP?
• Election Day In Alberta

og posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Alberta, Premier,
Alberta Cabinet, Harry Strom, Ed Stelmach,
Social Credit,Socreds, PC, Calgary, Party of Calgary, politics, leadership, Conservatives, Edmonton, One Party State,History, Politics, Economics,leadership, politics, PC,
Alberta, Liberals, MLA, Taft,