It's Over, Jack

For sleazeball politicians, women's rights are always negotiable. Or at least, a political football.

But I never thought the Fucking NDP® would sink to this.

Here's the full text of the press release:

Reality check: Ignatieff record doesn’t match words on women’s right to choose

April 17, 2011

Michael Ignatieff today professed his personal support for abortion access.

What he didn’t tell the crowd gathered at his town hall in Vancouver? In December, ten Liberal MPs stood up in favour of a Conservative Private Member’s Bill that risked criminalizing abortion providers and promoted an anti-choice agenda.

Those Liberals are:
Kevin Lamoureux
Ruby Dhalla
John McKay
Dan McTeague
Paul Szabo
Alan Tonks
Jim Karygiannis
Gurbax Malhi
Albina Guarnieri
Lawrence MacAulay

In fact, when the Liberal caucus introduced a motion to guarantee a “full range” of family planning options in Canada’s G8 commitments to Child and Maternal Health last March, their own members caused the motion to fail. Mr Ignatieff left this fact out today when he spoke about the G8 initiative.

Some of that is true. Those ten Fucking Harper Liberals® did vote in favour of Rod Bruinooge's lying POS bill, C-510, supposedly to penalize 'coerced' abortions.

And, yes, the Fucking Liberals® did screw up the no-brainer vote against the Cons' hypocritical 'maternal health without family planning' initiative.

But as the CBC's own Reality Check points out, Iggy was there for the second and voted against it.

But [Iggy] did specify what his position is on abortion and indicated that not everyone in his caucus shares his view.

He's OK with that because, as he explained it, abortion is an issue of conscience.

"I want you to know what my position, the position of most of my party is," he said Sunday.

"I say most for a reason. We're talking about abortion, these are issues of conscience. A democratic society that truly respects freedom of belief, and freedom of opinion, cannot compel in matters of abortion," he said.

Ignatieff's position by the way is that he believes in defending a woman's right to choose and that there should be public funding support for "the full gamut" of women's reproductive health services, both at home and overseas, he said Sunday.

I do NOT agree with Iggy's position that choice is a conscience issue. It is a human rights issue.

But these are Fucking Liberals® we're talking about here. They are the poster children for 'Opportunistic Politicians R Us'.

I expected better of the Fucking NDP®.

With the continuing attacks on the Liberals, rather than joining forces with them to defeat a common enemy, the Fucking NDP® was fast losing my respect.

Now, with this totally sleazy move, they've lost my vote.

That's it. It's over between us, Jack.

Until the Fucking NDP® finds its conscience again and loses Jumping Jack Flash as leader, I'm outta there.

Luckily, in my riding, the Con has less chance than a snowball in hell. So I'm holding my nose and voting Fucking Liberal®.

You can all pick yourselves off the floor now.

Fucking Liberals

So there I was, having a quite pleasant day, happily anticipating the Liberal abortion gotcha -- backed by the NDP and the Bloc -- designed to force the TheoCons to show their true colours over family planning and women's rights.

Earlier, after an 'emergency' caucus meeting, the ReformaTories had come up with an absolutely brilliant counter to it -- the motion is 'anti-American'.

No. Really. They went with that. I was laffing my ass off all over the Intertoobz.

I was enjoying the witty comments at the various sites that reported the Cons' genius move.

Like this one from the Globe site:

I suppose its Anti semitic as well.

The Freaks were exercised too -- always fun to watch.

The CBC's Question of the Day was: Should access to safe abortion be part of a maternal health plan? The sane answer to that was doing very well indeed.

And, extra bonus! Kady was going to liveblog the latter part of the debate and the vote.

I mean, it was a no-brainer, done deal, all the Opposition would vote for it and the Cons would look like ijits. Poifect! Non-binding but at least Canada wouldn't look quite so stooooopid on the world stage.

Well. If you haven't heard yet, the MOTION WAS DEFEATED.

BY THE FUCKING HARPER LIBERALS, to wit, Dan McTeague, Paul Szabo, and John McKay, who voted with the TheoCons against family planning.

Yes, indeedy, in the 21st century, there are people who have the gall to call themselves Liberals and yet vote against their party in order to tell the wimmins -- yet again -- what we can do with our lady parts.

Two other Harper Liberals -- Albina Guarnieri and Gurbax Malhi -- abstained.

And here's Kady on the other Liberal no-shows:

Curiously absent from the Chamber, despite having been there just a few moments earlier: Derek Lee.

Other Liberal absences, some of whom, at least, were simply not in Ottawa and would almost certainly have supported the motion had they been around, from a list provided by the ever helpful PMO: Anita Neville, Gerard Kennedy, Andrew Kania, Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Alan Tonks, Marlene Jennings, Joe Volpe, Lawrence MacAuley, Stephane Dion, Mario Silva (paired with B. Calkins), Jim Karygiannis.

Just when I was developing a smidge of respect for the Liberals. . .

Just when I was not quite so despairing of Opposition cooperation . . .

Well. That shows me, I guess. Women's rights, here as in the Excited States, are always negotiable. At least for Liberals.

Here is Sister Pale's take complete with a reminder of where that other great Liberal leader, Stéphane Dion, was when another assault on women's rights was passing second reading. When the Kicking Abortion's Ass Bill was being voted on, Dion was absent, eating little pink hamburgers in celebration of -- are you ready for it? -- International Women's Day.

Ah well. As the Liberal boyos are saying today, 'no big diff'.

You look like absolute, complete idiots, Liberals. You couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery. And the Cons are crapping their pants laughing at you.

You deserve every snide snigger and gloating guffaw.

Progressive Push-Back

I started this blogpost soon after the Merkin election, but then got too busy for a long, linkful post.

While I was mightily depressed over the results, I was looking for silver linings. And I found a few.

Traditionally (somewhat) more progressive places like Illinois, New York, and California stayed Democratic.

In the Illinois governor's race, the Democrat beat the Teabagger after trailing badly for weeks in the polls. On election morning, did the good/sane people of Illinois wake up and say 'Holy crap! What were we thinking?'

In Colorado, where, despite its nutbars' obsession with the Humpty-Dumpty Initiative, the rest of the people are really quite sane. Not only did they thumpingly reject yet another attempt to give 'personhood' to fertilzed eggs, they crushed the ambition of another Teabagger, much credit going to the women.

Dick Wadhams, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, says Ken Buck lost his Senate races because independent women voters flocked to Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) on Election Day.

“Ads attacking Buck on abortion and rape and all those issues were targeted to unaffiliated women and it worked, Buck became unacceptable and they voted for Bennet,” Wadhams said in an interview.

(This is the jerk who, as district attorney, referred to a woman's rape as 'buyer's remorse'.)

New York stayed Democratic too.

And in California, after one of the most vitriolic campaigns against an incumbent I've ever seen, the Dem won.

Yet in spite of her perennially weak approval ratings, a political climate that favored Republicans and what she called the "toughest and roughest campaign" of her lifetime, Boxer pulled out yet another victory, trouncing former Hewlett-Packard Chief Executive Carly Fiorina 52% to 42.6%, with some ballots still to be counted.

Carly Fucking Fiorina is anti-choice, natch.

In the governor's race, millionaire businesswoman Meg Whitman went down to defeat at the hands of Jerry 'Moonbeam' Brown, after reportedly spending $175 million of her own dough. This time, credit the Latinos after Whitman got 'tough on illegals'.

So, where the Dems had the wit to actively campaign against the nuttier notions of the Douchebaggers, the sane people woke up.

And I think -- and this guy too thinks -- that the extreme anti-abortion position acted as the clarion call.

While almost nothing went right for Democratic candidates this fall, one issue turned out to be a winner in some of the closest Senate races in the nation: abortion.

By branding Republican challengers as outside the cultural mainstream on the issue, Democrats managed to hold on to at least a slice of the political center by courting and winning over moderate women in a handful of key states.

The strategy ran counter to the one that enabled the party to broaden the political map in 2006 and 2008, when Democrats thrived by running candidates whose positions on abortion were closely attuned to the socially conservative areas where they sought office.

This year, however, Democrats adopted almost the opposite approach late in the 2010 campaign. As many of the anti-abortion Democrats elected over the last four years were going down in defeat, the party made abortion a central concern in a handful of battleground Senate races — and they ended up in the Democratic column as a result.

I think the boyos in the 'war rooms' underestimate the (sometimes) slumbering giant of women's rights as an issue.

Over Motherhood Steve's totally hypocritical Maternal Health Initiative, I was encouraging the fucking Liberals to use abortion rights as a wedge issue.

But, of course, being fucking Liberals, they fucked it up.

Maybe this US election will show our progressives how to do it right.

Call the shitheads out. Show them to be the extremists they are. Fight back!

Fantino and Dividing the Right

OK, depending on how one looks at it, it could be called 'far left and far right working together' or 'divide the right', but the Freaks are seriously pissed about Fantino's cabinet job.

Here's my Facebook friend Connie:

I'm willing to strike a deal with the opposition. If they bring down the government, I won't campaign, finance, or vote Conservative.

Here's a like-minded Freak:

I arrived to your same conclusion, a long time ago. I think I would be specially important to target 905 ridings , where the CPC has some red tories in some cases and in others people without spine to stand up to Harper.

I would suggest in those areas in which the CPC vote is close to that of the Liberals, one should hold their noses and vote for their opposition.

This would be not so much about voting against the CPC, but more like a lesson and a price to pay for departing from social and fiscal conservatisme.

That's all it would take. No campaigning, financing, or voting from the so-conneds.

Simple.

Yo! Fucking Liberals ®! You paying attention? There's electoral gold in and around Toronto and elsewhere. Exploit it.

You're welcome.

"New" New Democrats: Ambition over Principles

You gotta wonder: WTF is up with the NDP?

There's this recent genius move from Niki Ashton, a motion for the House to "formally affirm" a woman's right to choose abortion.

Unlike the Woodworth gambit — which was ultimately defeated despite garnering the support of just over half the government caucus, including a half-dozen senior cabinet ministers — Ashton's motion could easily be interpreted as a criticism of current government policy, which would make even the most stridently pro-choice Conservative MP pause before giving a thumbs-up.

Such an outcome would almost certainly provide a major boost to the morale of the anti-abortion movement, which, despite taking centre stage briefly during the Woodworth and Warawa debates, has had little to no success in forcing the issue back onto the floor of the House of Commons.

That flagging political relevancy was apparent during last week's March for Life. According to police estimates, the annual Hill rally attracted just over 8,000 activists in 2014, which would put it at as little as half the RCMP estimate for the previous year, when Warawa's gender selection motion was still in play. Even the 23,000 claimed by march organizers was lower than their 2013 estimate of 25,000.

After formally affirming for years that abortion is a settled matter not open for debate, the NDP decides to take a swipe at the Liberals, kinda overlooking what ammo such a move serves up to fetus fetishists.

Well, we shouldn't be surprised. This isn't the first time the NDP has seen an opportunity to poke the Liberals by turning women's rights into a political football.

A couple of days later, the NDP brain-trust got a grip and decided to nix opening the abortion debate in favour of whinging about CBC funding cuts.

OK, then.

But here's Chantal Hébert's take (bold mine).

On the heels of Trudeau’s announcement that future Liberal candidates will have to toe the party’s pro-choice line on abortion, the NDP is seizing the House with a motion to force MPs to pronounce on abortion rights.

Since Trudeau is actually shoring up the pro-choice line in Parliament and not threatening to drive a tank through it, the only rationale for the NDP move is to sow embarrassment and division in the Liberal caucus.

A handful of its existing members are anything but pro-choice.

Not since Gilles Duceppe ended up having to take yes for an answer to his challenge to the House of Commons to recognize Quebec as a nation has an opposition party come up with as bad of a good idea.

The NDP has argued for years that the debate over abortion rights was closed, maintaining with admirable consistency that Parliament should not interfere in the reproductive choices of Canadian women.

On that basis, the party has mercilessly attacked the prime minister for not preventing his backbenchers from putting forward motions dealing directly or indirectly with abortion.

Its critics have repeatedly accused Stephen Harper of having the hidden agenda to restrict the reproductive choice of women.

But it is hard to square the notion that Conservative MPs should not be allowed to put their long-held convictions on abortion to the test in the House while New Democrats would be free to do so to score points on the issue.

The fate of the NDP motion — the text of which includes language pertaining to the government’s existing policy on maternal health in developing countries that could make it hard for pro-choice government MPs to support — is uncertain.

The vote might yet deliver anti-abortion advocates a rare victory on Harper’s watch in the House of Commons.

But whatever the result, it speaks volume about the current mindset of the NDP.

Dealing first with substance, the party’s eagerness to score easy points in an empty goal stands in sharp contrast with its gingerly-approach to more current social policy debates such as the one involving assisted suicide and euthanasia.

And here's her conclusion.

At this juncture, all is apparently fair in the NDP/Liberal war — including turning the issue of women’s reproductive choices into ammunition in the House of Commons.

This might be as good a time as any to remind both parties — but in particular the NDP — that if supremacy in the Caviar Left strongholds of downtown Toronto won elections, Harper would not be prime minister.

And here's where I bitch again about the fucking uselessness of the Fucking Useless Opposition®. They're arguing over the keys to Stornaway while the country goes up in flames.

Sowing embarrassment, scoring points, potting empty-netters. This is NOT why I -- and, I submit, millions of others -- voted NDP.

We voted for your principles, NOT your ambition.

And for this former NDP-voter, both federally and provincially, the party's rank and rancid ambition now outweighs any sentimental attachment I might have to principled social-justice warriors (ahem) like Dan Heap.

I'm done with the NDP.

And the next state to get riled up over abortion is. . .

The UK.

Really.

A general election has been called for May and the Conservative leader, David Cameron, is definitely opening the abortion debate.

Cameron himself calls for the lowering of the abortion time limit, giving one of the first interviews of his election campaign to the Catholic Herald. He says that he thinks "the way medical science and technology have developed in the past few decades does mean that an upper limit of 20 or 22 weeks would be sensible." (The current limit is 24 weeks.)

That Cameron should choose to deliberately make abortion an election issue - and so early in the campaign - is deeply alarming. Those vociferous anti-choice Conservatives who hijacked the last Human Fertility and Embryology Bill in order to launch an unsuccessful assault on abortion rights have pledged to reopen the debate if elected. It's a terrifying prospect that they should now enjoy their leaders' support so explicitly.

Cameron is entirely wrong that scientific advances require a revision of the upper limit. The government's own science and technology committee, reporting to parliament in 2007 at the time of the HEF Bill, along with the Royal College of Gynaecologists and the British Association of Perinatal Medicine all concurred that the survival of babies born under 24 weeks has not improved to such an extent that they see any value in redefining the limit.

It's also worth remembering that late abortion (at 20 or more weeks' gestation) is rare, accounting for just 1.6% of all procedures. And those women who opt for them are the most vulnerable of abortion recipients, often suffering from mental illness or domestic violence.

In short, it's time to dust off your pro-choice banners. Meanwhile, remind your socially liberal neighbour who is still flirting with voting Tory about the harsh reality of their compassionate Conservatism.

Thing is, they just had the abortion debate in Britain.

His comments brought an angry reaction from pro-choice groups, which accused him of resurrecting an issue that has already been comprehensively debated in parliament.

In 2008 MPs rejected a free vote to reduce the time limit to 22 weeks by 304 to 233 – with wider margins on alternatives proposals to reduce it to 20, 18 and 12 weeks.

Remember how Harriet Hardman, Deputy Labour Leader, whipped that vote?

Technically, once the MPs turned up, they could vote either way. In reality, sources say, they were greeted by Ms Harman’s group, who pressured them to vote against the move, proposed by Tory MP Nadine Dorries.

According to one account, women Labour MPs formed a ‘human corridor’ to channel their colleagues into the ‘No’ lobby. One Labour MP claimed to have heard one of Ms Harman’s team shout: ‘Vote against us and the sisterhood will never let you forget it.’

Ah, if only the fucking Liberals here had a Harriet Hardwoman.

But, hey, it's politics, where women's rights are ALWAYS negotiable.

STILL

Today's the day for the first hour of debate on 'The When Does the State Take Over Our Uteruses Motion'.

Yesterday, the Radical Handmaids took the 'Fuck the Debate' message to Parliament Hill.

And there's been a call for an online ruckus.

Námo Mandos kicks off DJ!'s contribution with 'Comic relief apéritif'.

Here at DJ! we've been on Woodworth's Wank for months, since the very beginning, in fact.

We've been outraged, derisive, logical. We've exhorted, cajoled, and cheer-led (izzat a word?).

We've taken various varieties of crap for our stand, including some that -- happily -- led to the creation of a brand-spanking new aggregator and home for real Canadian Progressive Voices.

Throughout though, I suspect this is what we were all feeling.

Niles certainly is/was.

Coz here's the really really really depressing thing. Women's rights are ALWAYS up for negotiation.

ALWAYS considered a frill, an afterthought, a wait-til-everyone-else-is-served deal.

EVERYWHERE. Just ask Mona Eltahawy.

STILL.

And here's another really depressing thing. The fucking Liberals still don't get it.

They consider reproductive rights a matter of conscience, not human rights, and therefore will NOT whip the vote.

Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae said he’s personally opposed to reopening the abortion debate but Rae said he won’t compel Liberal MPs to toe that line because the issue is a matter of individual conscience.

“If there are individuals in my caucus who feel strongly for moral reasons one way or the other, we’re not going to whip the vote,” Rae said.

Pro-tip, Bob: This kinda thing is why your asses are NOT sitting in Official Opposition seats.

Image source

On Holding One's Nose

Evul Stevul's plan seems to be working. Split the anti-Con vote and hey! presto! at least another minority, or *shudder* worse.

Greenies have their organic, politically correct knickers in knots over EMay's exclusion from tonight's debate and vow to work even harder on pulling a Ralph Nader again here in Canada.

The Fucking Liberals® are sniping at the Useless NDP® and the Useless NDP® are sniping back.

The Intertoobz are rife with holier-than-thou's (or Con operatives) saying that they won't compromise their principles and vote for anyone other than the party that was good enough for grandad, dagnabbit.

And besides, they argue, don't you want your 2-buck vote subsidy to go to EMay's Birkinstock Fund?

*Le sigh.* Politics as usual, in other words.

And yet, the sane people soldier on. The sane people who are so appalled at what Evul Stevul has done and will continue to do to Canadian democracy that, yes, they are prepared to 'hold their noses' and vote for the candidate most likely to stop him.

A number of groups have created websites intended to help others do the same.
You can find them here, here, here, and here. They are non- or multi-partisan, recommending candidates of all un-Con persuasions, including Bloc and Green.

So, what about that 2 bucks? If you're so committed to your partisanship, send the party of your choice some dough of your own.

Now, we realize that in some benighted parts of the country, a vote for a non-Con party is totally wasted. To help out poor souls in those ridings, we've compiled a list of interesting parties registered by Elections Canada and thus eligible for the subsidy.

Check them out and see if there's one running in your nabe.

Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada

Canadian Action Party

Christian Heritage Party of Canada

Communist Party of Canada

First Peoples National Party of Canada

Libertarian Party of Canada

Marijuana Party

Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada

People's Political Power Party of Canada (couldn't find a website for this one)

Pirate Party of Canada

Progressive Canadian Party

Rhinoceros Party (Facebook seems its only online presence)

United Party of Canada

Western Block Party

Hey, if a vote for the Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada isn't a 'protest vote', what the hell is it? And there's the bonus! of adding a couple of bucks to their coffers so they can continue to amuse us.

Abortion? Seriously?

Here's Lorrie Goldstein, Senior Associate Editor for the Toronto Sun, on February 6, 2010, under the headline Abortion Fight? Give us a break.

Abortion? Seriously? This is the divisive debate Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff wants to plunge Canada back into when Parliament resumes March 3?

This was back when Motherhood Steve was pimping his maternal health initiative that excluded safe abortion and contraception and the Libs had cooked up a little gotcha.

Here's more:

But it won't just be Tories who split on abortion, thus wasting Parliament's time on an issue most Canadians consider, and want, to remain settled.

Got that? Silly Liberals wasting valuable time on a settled issue.

By the way, as it turns out, Goldstein was dead right about the split on abortion. DJ! reported:

Well. If you haven't heard yet, the MOTION WAS DEFEATED.

BY THE FUCKING HARPER LIBERALS, to wit, Dan McTeague, Paul Szabo, and John McKay, who voted with the TheoCons against family planning.

Yes, indeedy, in the 21st century, there are people who have the gall to call themselves Liberals and yet vote against their party in order to tell the wimmins -- yet again -- what we can do with our lady parts.

Let's go back to Goldstein:

Is this really what Ignatieff wants pre-occupying Parliament when it resumes? To roll back the clock and reignite the debate over abortion?

Who's rolling back the clock and wasting time over a settled issue now, eh?

DJ! implores sensible MPs to resist this old chestnut of junior-high debating clubs. When the first hour of debate comes up in April, it would be grand if, one after another, MPs rose to say: 'Mr Speaker, to paraphrase Lorrie Goldstein: "This is an attempt to roll back the clock. I refuse to waste this House's time over a settled matter".'

Let the Woodworths, Trosts, Vellacotts, and Del Mastros witter on the 'sanctity of life' demonstrating that the Cons' Hidden Agenda starts -- as usual -- with the wimmin.

Been there. Done that.

Won.

BONUS: Twitter is still having fun with the hashtag #TellAntiChoiceMPsEverything.

Hudork: 'Keep My Family Out of It Except for This Humongous Image of Her and Our Adorable Daughter'

Back in November, Tim Hudak warned others to lay off his wife, Deb Hutton.

So, are families fair game in politics?

Just last month [October 2010], the Liberals issued a release under the headline “Tories at the Trough,” which singled out four Conservatives, including Hutton, for “living the good life” at taxpayers’ expense.

“After landing at Hydro One to collect a $200,000 per year salary, the former Harris aide forced taxpayers to cover over $5,000 in restaurant bills,” said the Liberal release.

Professor Henry Jacek of McMaster University in Hamilton said Wednesday that Hutton may indeed be considered fair game by the Liberals because of her political background.

“I think this is a special case,” Jacek said.

“It’s not that they’re trying to be mean to a spouse because she’s a spouse. They’re going to try to use her as evidence that her husband has close ties to Mike Harris.”

Now, however, there's this.



I'd say that Hudork himself has just involved his family in the campaign.

So how about those ties to Mike Harris? There are many, but Torontoist puts it best: 'Hudak loved the Common Sense Revolution so much he married it'.

Deb Hutton was Harris's aide and one of the architects of his political platform, the notorious Common Sense Revolution, which in many ways Ontario is still reeling from.

But you won't find that out from her Wikipedia page. It has been deleted.

Hmm.

Deb Hutton, Deb Hutton, why does that name ring a bell?

Oh, yeah. Ipperwash.

From Nov. 21, 2005:

Deb Hutton, who had been an aide to Premier Mike Harris, testifies at the Ipperwash Inquiry. Hutton was a member of Harris's inner circle who had represented the premier at several meetings during the standoff. She says allegations that Harris favoured armed force to resolve the occupation at Ipperwash are false.

On the other hand:

Other testimony has further put the Harris government in a bad light. In particular, former Harris aide, Deb Hutton repeatedly testified in November, 2005, that she couldn't remember any specific conversations, leading one cross-examiner to pointedly remark that she had used phrases such as "I don't recall" or "I don't specifically recall" on 134 separate occasions. Also former Ontario Provincial Attorney General Charles Harnick testified that Harris used profanity while shouting, "I want the fucking Indians out of the park.". Later witnesses denied Harnick's evidence.

Well, heck, she's just a wife, albeit with an interesting political past.

Or is she?

What’s not as clear is how much say Hudak’s wife, former Harris chief of staff Deb Hutton, a stay-at-home mom these days, will have on the political affairs of the Tory party now that her husband’s king. If Hutton’s rep for being hands-on holds (not-so-lovingly referred to by her critics as the most hated person at Queen’s Park when she was there), then things can get ugly real fast under Hudak.

And there is that little matter of the deleted Wiki page.

I think we need to know a little more about Ms Hutton's involvement in Hudork's plans for Ontario, don't you? Especially as so many of us believe it's going to be the Common Sense ReRevolution.

h/t gritchik who speculates:

With a double digit lead having evaporated over the summer because a lot of people, particularly women, don’t care for Hudak all that much, it appears the Tory brain trust wants to reassure voters that Tim really is a nice guy. Really.

Thoughts from an Unhappy Post-Partisan

A few thoughts on the NDP leadership.

First, Aaron Wherry offers us an opportunity to compare and contrast.

From Bob Rae:

“I want to offer my warm congratulations to Thomas Mulcair on winning the leadership contest in the New Democratic Party.  I know Mr. Mulcair well and look forward to working with him to ensure Parliament acts on behalf of all Canadians.

“I also want to congratulate the NDP for a successful leadership convention, particularly in opening up the selection process to Canadians across the country.

“I also want to salute Mme Nycole Turmel for the integrity she showed as Interim Leader of the NDP. Her grace was apparent as she courageously carried out her duties admirably in the wake of the tragic passing of Jack Layton.”

From the Contempt Party:

Today in Toronto, the NDP have chosen Thomas Mulcair to push their agenda of high taxes, high spending and less economic growth. Thomas Mulcair is an opportunist whose high tax agenda, blind ambition, and divisive personality would put Canadian families and their jobs at risk. Mulcair has said he would bring back a risky, job-killing carbon tax which would raise the price of everything – even though Canadians overwhelmingly rejected carbon taxes. Canadians can’t afford Mulcair’s dangerous economic experiments.

Also, Thomas Mulcair has vowed to bring back the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, and his soft on crime positions would take Canada back to policies that put the rights of criminals ahead of those of victims. 

Canadians gave our government a strong mandate to create jobs and economic growth. For hard-working Canadian families looking for a government that will put them first, it is clear that the only choice is Stephen Harper’s Conservative government.

I am not a Dipper, but of all the contenders, I have to say Mulcair was my last choice.

Consider his position on marijuana.

Earlier in the campaign:

I also support the party’s existing policy on further decriminalising the possession of marijuana for any use with the goal to eliminate the influence of organised crime on the production and distribution of marijuana.

Later, asked again about decriminalization:

No. I think that that would be a mistake because the information we have right now is that the marijuana that’s on the market is extremely potent and can actually cause mental illness.

Mental illness? Seriously?

On the environment.

[Dewar] would also ban bulk water exports and took Thomas Mulcair to task on the issue for comments he made in support of such exports in 2004 as a Quebec Liberal environment minister.

OK, he may have changed his mind about that, but I'd like to hear him say so.

Now a really troublesome matter. Israel.

Independent Jewish Voices (Canada) has launched a video to challenge Thomas Mulcair's positions on Israel and Palestine. According to IJV, Mr. Mulcair's leadership campaign represents an electoral coalition with Canada's Israel Lobby.

Lorne Nystrom, the national co-chair of Mr. Mulcair's leadership campaign and a former long-time NDP MP, is likely familiar to many who follow federal politics. However, many NDP members may not be aware that Nystrom currently sits on the board of this country's major pro-Israel lobby group, which actively campaigns in support of the Israeli government's inhumane and repressive policies towards Palestinian and other non-Jewish citizens.

Finally, on cooperating with other parties to beat the fucking CONs:

One thing Mulcair is clear on is that he’ll go after Liberal supporters, but won’t work with the rival party.

“N.O.,” he told HuffPost. The NDP tried to form a coalition with the Liberals in 2008 and then the Grits “lifted their noses up on it,” Mulcair said.

The coalition experience taught Mulcair everything he needs to know about the Liberals. They’re untrustworthy and he said he’ll never work with them again, whether in a formal or informal coalition.

“The no is categorical, absolute, irrefutable and non-negotiable. It’s no. End of story. Full stop,” he said.

End of story? CON majorities for the foreseeable future.

As I say, I am not a Dipper. So that's it from me. For now.

Harper: The (Post-Election) Great Uniter?

One thing this election has made abundantly clear -- progressives can't or won't work together.

And Jack Layton is delusional if he really thinks he can work with the Harper Regime.

So I was thinking. From DJ!'s ongoing efforts to divide the right, an odd thing became apparent. There are quite a few issues that left and right can agree on.

Harpie's lying, cheating, and scheming to stay in power.

His contempt for democracy.

HIs authoritarian fetish made manifest in the G8/G20 police state and proposed legislation on Internet privacy and freedom and copyright issues.

And smaller matters too like the closure of the prison farms.

Here is John Moore in today's NatPo.

I want an open government where cabinet ministers have the latitude to run their departments. I want a Prime Minister’s Office that doesn’t hold caucus and cabinet in such a vice grip that no one dares speak or propose policy without first asking permission. I want transparency and an atmosphere where high-ranking civil servants offer counsel without fear of cabinet ministers hanging them out to dry. I want to know what major policy initiatives are going to cost.

Mostly I want fiscal conservatism. Is that too much to ask?

The Conservatives have spent five years pandering to pocket constituencies with conniving tax breaks and cash handouts. It’s not the government’s job to favour tradesmen over managers or to subsidize hockey and piano lessons. Rationalize spending, simplify the tax code and let individuals decide where to spend the extra money in their pockets.

Stimulus spending was necessary to cushion the economic plunge, but when you take out a mortgage you don’t blow it on bandstands and jungle gyms. Major spending must always be on the kind of legacy projects that benefit the future generations that will pay for them. If there are to be large cash layouts in the coming four years it should be for necessary and justifiable initiatives, not photo opportunities.

The Conservatives have grown rather than shrunk government. Each year spending has gone up beyond the rate of inflation and GDP growth. The Tories have spent more on polls, focus groups, advertizing, travel and outside consultants than the Liberals ever did. Rein it in. Health-care spending wouldn’t be a looming crisis if money wasn’t being bilge-pumped out of the treasury. Jim Flaherty rivals Paul Martin in the mastery he brings to the Finance Department. It’s time he was allowed to bring in a budget dictated by national need, not political canniness.

On every front, the time has come for the Conservatives to plot a course for Canada and not just for their electoral aspirations. Conceive of a crime strategy that addresses public safety, not fear. Embrace the family values of newcomers without tacitly nurturing the sexism and homophobia that may go hand in hand. Chart a foreign policy that does not first involve data mining the nation’s ethnic communities. Show respect for the institutions that create the framework for the privilege you now hold. Respect for Parliament should be a core Conservative value.

Yes, I know. But disregarding that fantasy about Deficit Jim Flaherty, I can agree with much of the rest of it. For reasons other than fiscal conservatism, of course.

Throughout his reign as Slime Minister, Stevie Peevie has faced a Fucking Useless Opposition®. Arguably, the new opposition will be even more fucking useless.

The Sixth Estate has laid out a Manifesto for the Next Opposition*, including five reasons why 'we' lost the election.

Among them:

Third, it is fiendishly difficult to challenge a government in power when it is supported and endorsed by 90% of the media. The reasons for the media’s complacence vary: rich corporate owners favour low-tax Conservative governments, and lazy journalists favour cheap and easy stories based on press releases and innuendo rather than genuine but time-consuming investigative journalism. But the polls show conclusively that 90% of the media only speak for about one-quarter of Canadians. That’s a problem, and it’s a problem that we can do something about. I’m going to return to that in a moment.

He says we need credible new media.

I can’t do much about the above at the moment, but I do want to return to the third problem. We’re reaching a point where the mainstream corporate media is so unvaryingly compromised and corrupt that it is mostly useless. They opposed the NDP by reflex, they endorsed the Conservatives because they were pro-business, and we can count on them to do the same for the next four years. The majority of people in this country are not politically active outside of election campaigns and are mostly trusting of the media, mostly because there are no trustworthy alternatives and because finding those alternatives would take effort.

He goes on to lay out the challenges and advantages the blogosphere faces in trying to fill the gap.

The problem we have is coordinating our efforts and getting people to notice. Those are big problems, but not as big as the problem the Internet solved for us in the first place.

Internet freedom is going to change, too, as the result of the death of Internet neutrality. But we have an unprecedented window, and while it is closing, for the moment it’s still open. And I continue to believe that a large majority of Canadians do care about democracy, about healthcare, about the health of the planet, even if they’ve been temporarily dazzled by tax breaks and bamboozled by scaremongering about separatist coalitions. I have to believe that. There is no other choice. I refuse to believe that this country has raised multiple generations who are ignorant enough, selfish enough, and narrow-minded enough (not to mention in brazen denial enough) to genuinely support the government they just voted for.

How do we go about seizing this opportunity? Haven’t a clue. But we have four years to find out, and now’s a good time to start.

I too believe that a majority of Canadians -- from right across the political spectrum -- care about democracy, accountability, transparency, fiscal responsibility, and rational policy-making.

It's up to us to hold this government to account through a Citizens' Loyal Opposition.

Because this isn't funny anymore.



*I don't do that 'MUST READ' thingy, but I strongly recommend people read the whole thing.

Culture War? Dog Whistle? Ginormous Boo-Boo? Hissy Fit?

So, what the hell is Motherhood Steve up to? We plow through the plethora of punditry so you don't have to. (All emphasis is mine.)

DonMartin:

That’s why it’s takes a selective sense of morality for this government to justify covering the 100,000 Canadian women per year it insures for abortions in sterile medical settings while African women are denied our foreign aid to access the same procedure.
. . .
There’s no obvious easy escape from the mess now. What started as a dream initiative is becoming a policy nightmare for Harper, who should’ve seen this coming months ago when he announced the plan.

Even when pushing a proposal to save lives among those living in wretched faraway conditions as his signature accomplishment, Harper has found a way to set his government apart from the opposition parties.

Given that he’s never seen parliamentary harmony he couldn’t inflame into political divisions, perhaps poisoning this motherhood initiative will end up a fitting Stephen Harper legacy after all.

Edmonton Journal:

Either we as a nation are officially casting ourselves as hypocrites in our dealings with others, since abortion is a right for all women in this country. Surely what is a fundamental liberty for Canadians must be extended to those in the most need who want it, if it is legal in their jurisdiction as it is in ours.

Or, by signalling such a position, Stephen Harper is sending a not very subtle message to his political base that a majority Conservative government in Canada would reopen the debate on a woman's right to choose in this country.

By the way, there's a nifty interactive map of the world at the CBC showing the legal status of abortion in various countries.

Back to the pundits. Barbara Yaffe:

It is unclear why they'd allow themselves to get sidetracked on an international policy that is likely to reinforce fears about Harper's brand of conservatism and potentially deliver a ballot box boot to the backside.

Now Rosie DiManno in what may be the once-in-a-lifetime piece of hers that I actually agree with. She's talking specfically about Africa and the epidemic of rape in some places there. It's a tough read with horrifying stats and stories.

Why should any of these distant horrors matter to Canadians? Because rape as a sexual weapon is driving hundreds of thousands of women in desperate search of abortion on the African continent — where 700 women die for every 100,000 abortions due to backroom butchery — and Prime Minister Stephen Harper this week insisted Canada will not fund abortions in the developing world.

Why Harper would draw this line in the blood-drenched sand, as leader of a country that has no abortion laws and where the medical procedure is covered for Canadian women under the public health insurance plan, is unfathomable. It is particularly contrarian within the context of Canada’s ballyhooed initiative to champion maternal health funding for Africa at the upcoming G8 summit.
. . .
As a result of war and sexual violence, abortion in Africa is indeed a matter of post-violation contraception. For countless women, girls, abortion could provide the slim hope of returning to a life grossly interrupted.

Harper can blather about healthy babies and improved maternal care all he wants. The truth is unwanted babies will die; they’re being murdered right now, because their mothers cannot stand the sight of them — the progeny of their assailants — and cannot cope with exclusion from their communities.

If Harper doesn’t care about these women and girls, would deny them funding for abortions so safely provided to Canadian women, he should at least give a damn about the babies forsaken and killed because they had the misfortune to be born.

Judith Timson in a piece titled 'Ottawa to refuse abortion funding? Not in my name':

Here is a political question that for me, just won’t go away: In exactly whose name has the Harper government decided to withhold funds for access to safe abortion in their international maternal and child health initiative?

Not in my name. And not in the names of countless Canadians who have relied for years on safe access to the procedure at government expense.

The government’s decision has made what should have been international apple pie – a widely applauded global health initiative for women and children – into a political hot potato, not only reviving the endlessly divisive abortion debate, but threatening to have it play out, as one concerned director of an international aid foundation told me, “on the backs of African women and children.”

There’s something fundamentally high-handed about a minority government deciding it won’t offer women overseas the same rights they have here. It’s like a new version of NIMBY (not in my backyard) only it’s the colonial version: NITBY (not in their backyard)
. . .
No, it’s solely up to Canadians to deal with the glaring hypocrisy and paternalism of their government’s stance. While we’re at it, we should also notice how the issue of abortion is being stealthily revived in this country, despite the Prime Minister’s declaration that Canadians have “no appetite” for the debate.
. . .
At the end of that G-8 meeting, Ms. Oda seemed to go out of her way to re-emphasize the government’s position: “So I just want to clarify: Family planning does not include abortion.” Why would she do that, if the Prime Minister wants this debate to go away?

Well, if Bev Oda can “clarify” her position then I will clarify mine: For me and many others, family planning does include abortion. However torturous an ensuing debate, this is clearly a moment that matters in the history of abortion rights in this country. The Conservative government, in a moment of political pandering, has made it matter.

Susan Riley:

Of course there is a culture war raging in federal politics. It's been going on since Preston Manning blew into Ottawa many years ago.

The battle lines are clear. Elitist, cosmopolitan (code for gay, or gay-friendly), urban CBC-lovers -- including "left-wing fringe groups", anti-Israel aid agencies and pro-gay judges -- on one side. Frugal small town and suburban Canadians who work hard, pay their taxes, and play by the rules on the other.

And now, with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's ill-considered G8 maternal health initiative, the deepest wedge of all: abortion rights.
. . .
Leaving aside the paternalism of allowing abortion access in Canada but discouraging it in Africa, and those annoying experts who argue that access to safe abortion is key component of maternal health, this is a true wedge issue -- one that could blow up in Harper's face.

On Monday, women involved in international advocacy will be asking "Where is Canada's leadership in promoting gender equality?" at an event on Parliament Hill. The maternal health initiative -- which was intended to display the Harper's caring side, but has backfired badly -- will be under unfriendly scrutiny. So will what some see as a Tory stealth agenda, aimed at removing funding from agencies that don't promote social conservative values.

If we're having a culture war, this could be a new front line. No wonder those peace-loving Conservatives are having a sudden attack of the vapours.

Chris Selley whose piece is titled 'A contrived little abortion war'. And he does blame the Liberals.

I’m intrigued by the idea, as championed by Stephen Harper this week, that abortion “divides” Canadians. It does, certainly, on an emotional level. But considering how vicious and clamorous the pro-life vs. pro-choice battle is, there’s actually a remarkable consensus among Canadians that abortion should not be illegal. The last major poll I’m aware of, conducted by Angus Reid in June 2008, found that just 4% of us felt abortion should be outlawed in all circumstances.

There are divisions within the other 96%, of course. Angus Reid found 48% of Canadians felt abortion should always be legal. But nearly as many, 43%, felt there should be some restrictions. And when that 43% was presented with an array of possibilities, such as a cutoff date in a woman’s pregnancy or defunding the procedure under certain circumstances, they couldn’t agree on anything.

But the abortion war isn’t supposed to be about conflicting policy choices; that’s not what ostensibly “divides” us. I’ve never seen a T-shirt braying “We’re OK with the vast majority of abortions!” or a placard reading “Save fetuses older than 13 weeks!” It’s supposed to be black and white: All abortions are OK, or all abortions are evil. (These are the only two coherent positions on the matter, in my view, and for the record, I uneasily subscribe to the former.) If only 4% of Canadians actually think all fetuses are human beings — to say nothing of perdurable pro-choicers who blanch at sex-selective termination — then I’m forced to conclude that this whole war is a bit of a sham.

Mr. Harper was explaining his government’s pledge — which came after weeks of hemming and hawing, and is no doubt subject to further review, tweaking or outright abandonment — not to fund abortions in the dusty, faraway lands where it wants to improve maternal health. The government is free to focus its efforts where and how it wishes. But an absolute ban on abortion-related spending on the grounds Mr. Harper cited is dizzyingly nonsensical. No one seems to disagree that, in certain circumstances, and morality aside, abortion can improve women’s health outcomes. Canada has no abortion law. Canadians do not support outlawing it. Canadian governments fund it. And Mr. Harper has sworn blind since being elected that he has no intention whatsoever of changing any of that. Ever. Hidden agenda? Pshaw. Long live our unique legal vacuum, envy of nations!

By the standards Mr. Harper espoused this week, that sounds awfully divisive. And nonsensical. Does he think we value foreign fetuses ahead of Canadian ones? Are women not raped in the Democratic Republic of Congo? Is there no incest in Haiti? It doesn’t survive a moment’s scrutiny.

Another by the way -- here is a much more recent poll from April 1 this year.

A majority of Canadians describe themselves as leaning pro-choice with regard to abortion. A little more than a quarter prefer “pro-life”, with the remainder undecided.

This finding of a 2-1 margin in favour of the pro-choice position is almost unchanged from the answers Canadians gave to the identical question a decade ago.

More punditry: Susan Delacourt:

For the first time since taking power more than four years ago, Prime Minister Stephen Harper this week openly embraced a solid, social-conservative policy of the right — refusing to have Canada support abortion in foreign-aid projects.

Political observers were stunned.

After all this time practising the politics of pragmatism, steering his party away from any of the polarizing, social conservatism that scares off many women, urban and centrist voters, Harper branded his government as anti-abortion.

It’s a decision that could well haunt the Conservatives into the next election campaign, depending on how Harper’s opponents handle it.

Mindelle Jacobs:

If the Harper Conservatives are trying to woo mainstream Canada and gain enough trust to win another election, they have a funny way of doing it.

First, they insist they don’t want to get into an abortion debate in the lead-up to June’s G8 summit in Ontario. Then they deliberately wade into the issue. It’s as if they get a kick out of committing political suicide.

After weeks of obfuscation, the Conservatives have finally declared that Canada won’t fund abortion under our G8 maternal and child health initiative. To top it off, International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda made the bizarre statement that “Canada has never funded a procedure that included abortion.”

Jacobs then points out that Canada through CIDA has been funding International Planned Parenthood Federation's work around the world for decades.

Changes may be in the works to that longstanding policy though.

Nearly a year after asking the Canadian government to renew its funding, the International Planned Parenthood Federation is still waiting for an answer and if the money doesn't come through, the agency says the impact on its work in developing countries will be devastating.

The sexual and reproductive health organization depends on funding from governments around the world for a majority of its budget. It has a long-standing partnership with the Canadian International Development Agency but its most recent funding agreement ended on December 31. Months before that, in June 2009, IPPF submitted its proposal to renew the previous funding, worth $18 million over three years.

Is the stalling on IPPF's funding an indication that this has been in the works for a while? Is it a dog whistle to the base base? Or is Stevie ('I'm never wrong and I never back down') Peevie just digging his widdle heels in because the meanies in the Liberal Party tried to force his hand on the issue? No matter that the fucking Liberals failed spectacularly, Stevie was peeved.

Delacourt is right, I think. This issue will kill the ReformaTories at the polls -- but only if the Useless Opposition plays it right. We at DJ! have been shrieeeeking saying this for ages. Canada is a pro-choice country. And nothing will mobilize the women of Canada to get out and vote like trying to turn back the clock on our cherished and hard-won rights.

In a final by the way, the base base as represented by The Freaks aren't buying it. Even they think Stevie is getting his ass kicked over this.

Surprise! Canadians Do Want the Opposition to Cooperate!

The poll I helped pay for has been released.

And guess what? All those pundits saying Canadians don't want cooperation among the Fucking Useless Opposition® are wrong.

Canadians support electoral reform, would vote for cooperation candidates – new national poll

April 4 – Toronto –  A new national Environics poll shows that Canadians think our democratic system is broken, overwhelmingly favour proportional representation, and are willing vote for cooperation candidates to defeat Conservative MPs in the next federal election.

The telephone poll, which sampled 1,004 voters, comes just days before voting in the Liberal leadership race is set to begin. Cooperation and electoral reform have been major topics of debate between the two top candidates, Joyce Murray and Justin Trudeau.

Poll Findings
1. Canadians more likely to say our democratic system is broken than effective. When asked if our democratic system is broken and needed to be fixed, or effective and works well – 45% said broken and 33% said it works well.

2. Seven in ten Canadians support move to proportional representation. When asked if they would support a move to proportional representation – 70% of Canadians would support, with Liberal supporters at 77%, NDP supporters at 82%, Green supporters at 93%, and Conservative supporters at 62%.

3. Canadians would vote for cooperation candidates to defeat Conservative MPs.When asked if they would vote for a candidate that was jointly fielded by the Liberals/NDP/Greens to defeat a Conservative – 37% would vote for the joint candidate, 25% would vote for the Conservative candidate, 18% are undecided and 18% would not vote (this number is comparable to the number of people in this poll who said they did not vote in the last election.) Notably, over 70% of Liberal and NDP supporters would vote for the joint candidate while less than 7% would vote Conservative.

4. Disenfranchised Canadians would be more likely to vote. People who did not vote in 2011 were asked if this idea would make them more or less likely to vote in the next election – 22% said more likely, 10% said less likely, and 66% said it would have no effect.

The poll was funded by 692 Canadians who donated online through Leadnow.ca. Leadnow.ca supports cooperation for electoral reform. Interviewing for this Environics National Telephone Survey was conducted between March 18th – 24th, 2013, among a national random sample of 1,004 adults comprising 502 males and 502 females 18 years of age and older, living in Canada. The margin of error for a sample of this size is +/- 3.10%, 19 times out of 20.

PDF at link.

And it is just so cool that 692 Canadians paid for this.

I've signed up as a LPC supporter. I got my ID and PIN number yesterday. I'm going to vote for Joyce Murray. It won't stop the coronation, but if she gets enough votes, it may make rabid partisans think again.

I've also written to my NDP MP to report this. I've heard nothing back. Maybe I'll try again.

Mawkishness on the March

When did it begin? Apparently in 1702. 'Mawkish' comes from 'mawke' meaning maggot and first meant 'sick', then 'bad tasting'. In 1702, it had its first recorded figurative use meaning 'sickly sentimental'.

But it took the mass media to really get it rolling as a cultural phenom.

Personally, it started for me with the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Shocking, of course. Scary, yes. But something for strangers to cry about? Huh?

Mawkishnes's next grand display, I suppose, was the murder of John Lennon. Again, shocking. Scary, not so much. But not a case for tears.

Mawkishness really bloomed (sorry) with the death of Princess Diana (emphasis mine).

Members of the public were invited to sign a book of condolence at St James Palace. Throughout the night, members of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and the Salvation Army combined to provide support for people queuing along the Mall. More than one million bouquets were left at her London home, Kensington Palace, while at her family's estate of Althorp the public was asked to stop bringing flowers, as the volume of people and flowers in the surrounding roads was said to be causing a threat to public safety.

By 10 September, the pile of flowers outside Kensington Gardens was 1.5 metres deep in places and the bottom layer had started to compost. The people were quiet, waiting patiently in line to sign the book and leave their gifts. There were a few minor incidents. Fabio Piras, a Sardinian tourist, was given a one-week prison sentence on 10 September for having taken a teddy bear from the pile. When the sentence was later reduced to a £100 fine, Piras was punched in the face by a member of the public when he left the court. The next day, Maria Rigociova, a 54-year-old secondary school teacher, and Agnesa Sihelska, a 50-year-old communications technician, were each given a 28-day prison sentence for having taken eleven teddy bears and a number of flowers from the pile outside St. James' Palace. This too was later reduced to a fine (of £200 each) after they had spent two nights in prison.

OK, flowers are traditional symbols of sympathy. But fucking teddy bears??!

Some criticised the reaction to Diana's death at the time as being "hysterical" and "irrational". As early as 1998 philosopher Anthony O'Hear identified the mourning as a defining point in the "sentimentalisation of Britain", a media-fuelled phenomenon where image and reality become blurred. These criticisms that were repeated on the 10th anniversary, where journalist Jonathan Freedland expressed the opinion that "It has become an embarrassing memory, like a mawkish, self-pitying teenage entry in a diary,... we cringe to think about it." In 2010, Theodore Dalrymple wrote "sentimentality, both spontaneous and generated by the exaggerated attention of the media, that was necessary to turn the death of the princess into an event of such magnitude thus served a political purpose, one that was inherently dishonest in a way that parallels the dishonesty that lies behind much sentimentality itself".

Some saw it as a cause for bleeding heart liberals to hang their angst on.

Some cultural analysts disagreed. Sociologist Deborah Steinberg pointed out that many Britons associated Diana not with the Royal Family but with social change and a more liberal society: "I don't think it was hysteria, the loss of a public figure can be a touchstone for other issues."

Ah, but then there was 9/11 and mawkishness became manly for hawks, too.

So, now mawkishness is for everyone and any sort of sad or shocking event. (Oooh, look at the company I'm keeping in that piece.)

And, of course, a certain Faux News personality lowered raised mawkishness to a (weird and fake) art form. (Bonus tracks: Five Great Moments in Glenn Beck Crying on Air.)

More recently, the Right Wing Noise Machine went into overdrive over the so-called Ground-Zero Mosque.

And I could go on and on with examples of other professional and semi-professional weepers, but you get the point.

Now technological advance has made mawkishness viral. Witness the virtual mound of flowers and teddy bears.

Yes. I'm a bad person.

ADDED: Ooh, am I prescient or what? 'Mawkishness' is now Word of the Day.

Image source

Fascist C-51: Feet on the Street Time

I started collecting links on C51, aka the Jihadi Terrorists Under Every Bed Bill, a while back, but I was too appalled/depressed to blog about it.

The terrifying Angus Reid poll showing 80% approval of it.

There’s rarely been a bill before Parliament that was more popular. The public Conservatives’ new anti-terror legislation is filling a public demand for tough new measures aimed at a terrorism threat that Canadians believe is serious, and close to home, according to a new poll.

More than four in five Canadians – 82 per cent – back the new legislation to expand the powers of intelligence agencies and police, according to the survey of 1,509 Canadians conducted by the Angus Reid Institute. Far from seeing it as too sweeping, they tend to want more: 36 per cent say it does not go far enough.

And somewhat reassuringly, Press Progress's critique of the poll.

Now, a few of the myriad dissections of the bill and why it is VERY VERY BAD.

First, Legal scholars Forcese and Roach.

Three lengthy background papers by Forcese and Roach: one, two, and three.

Here is their essential website dedicated to the proposed act, where you'll find tons of useful information including an explainer video.

Unsigned Globe and Mail editorial.

Intimidation is the modus operandi. Well-documented are the smear campaigns and the undercover operations against opponents run out of the highest political office in the land.

If you think it’s bad now, be prepared for worse, as with the anti-terror legislation. The danger with ideological leaders of any stripe is that in the name of security, they can ramp up state authority without the usual degree of public challenge. It’s why we see Mr. Harper hyping the terror threats Canada faces, as opposed to allaying the public’s fears.

More fear means more power. He knows it well, and so should the opposition leaders. If they can’t build a strong case against this new kind of Canada, they should find another line of work.

The Star.

Read this by former CSIS officer Francois Lavigne and tremble (note bold).

Former CSIS officer Francois Lavigne is alarmed by the Conservative government’s new anti-terror bill.

He believes the measures proposed in C-51 are unnecessary, a threat to the rights of Canadians and that the prime minister is using fascist techniques to push the bill.

Mr. Lavigne started his career with the RCMP security service in 1983, before the CSIS was established.

“I was hired by the barn burners,” he said in an interview last week. “I went to work for the FIU unit, the foreign interference unit. And that was where the barn burners came from.”

The barn burners were the off-the-leash Mounties whose law-breaking ways led to the McDonald Commission, which led to the establishment of Canadian Security Intelligence Service in 1984.

Press Progress again on how the RCMP identify terrorist targets. (Spoiler: SUN columnists are key.)

Various luminaries of the Canadian political scene, including four former PMs, calling for greater oversight. (Yeah, right.)

Michael Geist.

And from today, Alison with lots more excellent links.

I'm not even getting into the Liberals' absolutely despicable position on it.

Because here's the point: We ordinary Canadians must get our butts out in frigid fucking February (or March) to declare THIS SHALL NOT PASS.

Who's gonna organize it?

Lead Now?

The NDP?

The Communist Party?

I don't care.

Organize it and I'll come out. And I'll bring every person I know with me.

Will you?


Image source: The anti-prorogue protest in Victoria.


ADDED: Reddit users and Anonymous and I are like this.

Holy. Freakin'. God.

I've nicked CC's title for a post on the same subject.

More madness sanity from Free Dominion's Connie Fournier:

Well, Harper is setting a lovely precedent for the next Liberal government. When the next Liberal PM decides to prorogue Parliament every time he wants to shut us up, I don't want to hear anyone complaining about it.

No more complaining about the Liberals stacking the Senate, either.

Can I quote you on that, Connie?

Oh. I just did.

And intend to keep it for fucking ever for use when, inevitably, the Reformatories set to SHRIEEEKING about Libtards's antics.

No Debate. Evah.

January is a busy month for abortion activists (pro and anti) on both sides of the US/Canada border.

January 22 marks the 41st anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision in the US.

January 28 marks the 26th anniversary of Canada's Supreme Court Morgentaler ruling.

And January 27 this year will see the return of the House of Commons after the holiday break.

Retiring fetus fetishist MP and fave here at DJ! expects his last kick at the can -- two motions to "study" abortion -- will come up for debate fairly soon afterwards.

The motions are expected to fail spectacularly because even Pander Master Harper has figured out that Canadians are sick to fucking death of this so-called debate.

Here's a poll done last January for the Morgentaler anniversary.

It's pretty typical of its kind, demonstrating the usual ignorance of the (lack of) law and desire for varying degrees of regulation or not.

One thing is abundantly clear.

The one question in the poll that produced the most agreement was whether there was any point reopening the debate, with a solid majority, 59 per cent, saying No, compared to 30 per cent who want the discussion reopened and 11 per cent who are undecided.

Angus Reid also examined the issue based on voting preference and found that 55 per cent of Conservatives, 65 per cent of NDP backers and 66 per cent of Liberals do not want to reopen the debate.

Even a majority of Conservatives want our politicians to STFU and leave well enough alone.

We at DJ! propose a Tweet Fest/Blog Burst for January 28 and we're taking suggestions for themes and hashtags.

#NoAbortionDebate

#KeepCanadaLawless

I'm kinda partial to #FuckOffAndDieVellacott, but then that's just me.

Other suggestions?

Let's give Maurice a nice, heart-felt boot to knackers send-off.

Iggy and Me

OK. I admit it. Michael Ignatieff and I have a troubled relationship. (We are related by marriage, but I don't think he knows that.) I have tried to be nice and even supportive.

But today, after promising he never ever no-how no-way do that again, he did it again.

In a totally typical and predictable Liberal way, he and his handlers have opportunistically tried to hi-jack another grassroots group -- Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament.

After his open letter to CAPP evincing support and bum-kisses, his on-line town hall today, supposedly to address CAPPers' issues, was a TOTAL FUCKING JOKE.

I give you the bits that have anything REMOTELY to do with CAPP's issues.

[Comment From Wendy Perry Wendy Perry : ]
Mr. Ignatieff,will you be attending one of the CAPP rallies?
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:00 Wendy Perry
3:00

Michael Ignatieff:
Thank you Wendy for your question. Yes, I will talk at the Ottawa rally on Saturday.
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:00 Michael Ignatieff
3:00


[Comment From Ian Perkins Ian Perkins : ]
Mr. Igantieff can you explain why Canadians are upset with the prorougation of Parliament?
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:00 Ian Perkins
3:01

Michael Ignatieff:
Ian, Canadians want their MPs back at work and they want their Prime Minister to be accountable to Parliament.
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:01 Michael Ignatieff
3:01


[Comment From Jeff Jedras Jeff Jedras : ]
I'd like to ask about democratic reform. Many Canadians feel the current First Past the Post system doesn't fairly value or reflect their votes. Do you believe we should consider a new voting system, and what do you think that system should look like?
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:01 Jeff Jedras
3:02

Michael Ignatieff:
Im prepared to look at reform of our voting system provided that reform doesnt fragment the country and weaken the ability of national parties to hold the country together.
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:02 Michael Ignatieff
3:03

Michael Ignatieff:
Whats important is getting more Canadians to turn out at elections. Our participation rate is now below 60 percent. We need to get more people involved.

Mario Lagüe (moderator):
3:02 [Brad Bossack] -
Greetings, as a member of CAPP (Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament), I wish[...] to speak of changing the currant democratic structure to providing and endorsing more participation within the process decision making. As you have seen, there are many Canadians who are feeling very disenfranchised, and are rallying to be heard in a new way. What are your feelings and idea's on democratic renewal in this country?
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:09 Mario Lagüe (moderator)
3:10

Michael Ignatieff:
Politicians need to get out on the road and answer tough questions face to face with voters. there:s a hunger for direct participation and involvement. Thats what I discovered on my tour of colleges and universitiesand I want to keep on going with town halls in every Canadian community I can get to.

Comment From Alan Goodhall Alan Goodhall : ]
Thank you for this forum Mr. Ignatieff. Yesterday Mr. Layton stated to the media that the NDP would propose legislation to limit the power of a prime minister to prorogue the house. Do you feel legislation is required or is this more a question of ethics of the party in power and best left to the public to decide through the ballot box?
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:39 Alan Goodhall
3:40

Michael Ignatieff:
Provided a Prime Minister respects Parliament and its authority, legislation isnt needed. Mr. Harper used prorogation to duck a confidence vote and to evade tough questions in the House. That;s wrong. Ive already pledged not to use prorogation that way. The problem is not the power itself, so much as its abuse.
Mr. Harper has abused his power.

Comment From Glynn Pearson Glynn Pearson : ]
I am very concerned about your response about prorogation. Harper was elected on promises of accountability and transparency after a debacle with the Liberals of the day (including a long prorogation). I don't know you and I don't want you to feel disparaged but it has been demonstrated that we cannot trust the person in power to act with the public's best interests in mind. Would a new Liberal government consider committing to legislation to ensure the responsible use of prorogation?
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:55 Glynn Pearson
3:57

Michael Ignatieff:
As a great writer once said, rules are for people with no character. Meaning, that you need to legislate when you cant trust the people who hold power. My view is that we dont need to legislate limits on prorogation. We just need to return to the basic understanding that used to limit prerogative power, namely that you dont use it to duck tough questions in parliament and you dont use it to duck a confidence vote. harper used it this way and it was wrong, and Canadians are telling him dont ever do that again.

Faff, faff, and more faff. (Go to the link for some really gagsome slo-pitches about his favourite part of the job, for example.)

Insulting, the whole damn exercise. We, the grassrooty CAPPers, got all moisty-panty, thinking, 'Wow, party leader takes note of discontent, wants to address us.'

Ha. Iggy and his handlers bethought themselves: 'Hoho, a ready-made huge audience. We'll deign to talk to them -- showing off our super-duper webby skills -- and they'll all join Iggy's Facebook page.'

In short, it was a better handled version of the attempted co-option of the feminist 'Left Wing Fringe' movement.

I sent in a question, which, needless to say, did not make the cut. It was:
Mr. Ignatieff [moi being polite], would you work with the NDP and the Bloc to form a coalition that would represent the majority of Canadians and work cooperatively on the pressing problems of the day?

So. Sorta-cousin-in-law Iggy, FUCK YOU.

Like Shit to a Blanket

A few years ago I was debating the role of government with a young guy from Alberta.

Smart guy, not well educated, but very keen on small government and personal self-reliance.

He was holding his own, countering my arguments in favour of government services and functions that I considered not suitable for private-sector delivery or individual initiative.

Until I got to food and water safety. (I threw in restaurant inspections too. We'd just had a local brouhaha about dirty restaurants and as a young guy, he ate out a lot.)

He paused, thought about it, then agreed: we do need enforceable, arm's-length regulations for water and food. (This was after Walkerton but he hadn't lived in Ontario then.)

I've been thinking about this exchange as the tainted beef recall grows.

And I'm wondering, can we help make this scandal stick?

The Listeria 'scare' ('scare'? 23 people died) didn't stick, despite the incredible callousness of Agriculture Minister Ritz -- who still holds that portfolio.

Remember this?

The Listeria scare was undoubtedly a low point in the political career of Ritz, who faced calls for his resignation after The Canadian Press reported he was making jokes during a conference call with scientists, bureaucrats and political staff.

Ritz later apologized for the remarks, which included describing the political dangers of the crisis as "death by a thousand . . . cold cuts" and expressing the hope that one of the victims of the outbreak would turn out to be Liberal MP Wayne Easter.

Let's go back to the Walkerton inquiry.

According to the local medical officer of health, it all could have been prevented. Dr. Murray McQuigge stunned the country with his revelation on CBC Radio on May 25, 2000 that the Walkerton Public Utilities Commission knew there was a problem with the water several days before they told the public.

But the problems went back even further than that. Contaminated food and water are inevitable, given the neo-con view of government and government workers.

The public inquiry into the water tragedy in Walkerton, Ont. heard a strong condemnation of the Ontario government on Monday.

Dr. Richard Schabas, a former chief medical officer of health for the province said the government of Premier Mike Harris turned its back on public health by failing to tighten provincial water regulations.

Schabas says he resigned his post as Ontario's top medical health official in 1998 in frustration. He says during the late 1990s, the Conservative government of Mike Harris was bent on cutting the size of the bureaucracy, and getting rid of so-called 'regulatory red tape.'

Schabas says he was not consulted and recalled one meeting in which the premier literally turned his back as Schabas tried to voice concerns.

"This was a government that I think really held public institutions in contempt," he said. "And was contemptuous of people who worked in public institutions."

In 1997 Schabas called for a new law to force private labs to report water problems directly to health officials.

But at the time Ontario's minister of the environment refused, saying voluntary guidelines were adequate.

Contempt. Where have we heard that before?

The Harper government too is keen on deregulation, privatization, and voluntary guidelines.

So what did bring an end to the catastrophic government of Mike Harris in Ontario?

The combination and cumulation of a bunch of outrages, no doubt. Ipperwash, Kimberly Rogers.

And Walkerton.

It didn't take long for a political battle to ensue. On May 29, 2000, a clearly shaken Ontario Environment Minister Dan Newman called a news conference to say changes would be made to ensure that the province's water supply remained safe.

"If there is something positive that can ever come out of an event like this, it is that changes be made to ensure that it doesn't ever happen again," he said at the Ontario legislature.

The Ontario Tories lost the next election to the Liberals, who campaigned, in part, on providing safer drinking water.

The majority of Canadians may not be interested in the many outrages perpetrated by the Harper government, but just about everybody can get behind 'no shit in my food or water'.

Can the Fucking Useless Opposition® make this stick? I'll do my bit to help.

ADDED: Food safety workers among hardest hit by Harper budget cuts.

ADDED: Thomas Walkom agrees. *buffs fingernails*

Image source