Bait and Hate

On March 8 2015, International Women's Day, the Harper government's Minister for Defence and Multiculturalism tweeted this:

Journalist Glen McGregor caught the mendacious tweet and investigated whether the misleading images were duplicitously used.

An article in La Presse has an interview with a scholar based at l'UQUAM, regarding the authenticity and provenance of images used in Jason Kenney's tweet. He deplored the lack of rigour shown by this tweet as well as the misrepresentation of what the images actually portray: the dramatization of a religious historical event (much like Catholic Good Friday re-enactment) and the public recitation of Coranic verses.

The press secretary to Minister Kenney, who is also responsible for Multiculturalism in the Harper government, declined to respond directly to requests for clarification regarding the choice of photos.

"This type of question obscures the real issue: [Daesh/IS] is a threat to women and minorities; it is a genocidal terrorist organization, a threat to national and international security," wrote Lauren Armstrong in an email sent to The Canadian Press.

That photo in the upper right hand corner is a still shot from a short video that Karren Brown found:

Kenney's tweet implied that the tearful girl is a terrified child bride of a Wahhadi Daesh fighter.  She isn't.

Watch the video. The girl is competing in a contest of memorization of religious text.  Her head is not covered.  Her audience is composed of supportive community members who encourage her.

Though there are other religions who do justify potential endangerment and harm to children because ... their ideology rules. Three years ago we wrote about the Dufferin-Peel Catholic School Board and how it facilitated such activities.

Yes, it's April and those three boys are exposed to the elements.  The board has now removed the photos from its Brampton school's website (child pornography?) but Andrea Houston got a screen cap which she kindly provided.

Kenney is a fundamentalist Catholic. My co-blogger is very fond of this video of a young and rabidly zealous Jason.  He didn't complete his undergraduate program.  We suspect that the Jesuits were far too liberal for his proclivities.

Need we remind our readers, as well as befuddled Harper Cons, that the Catholic Church facilitated, tolerated and enabled mental, physical and sexual violence exerted against thousands and thousands of children for centuries.  In countries like Ireland, the Philippines and El Salvador, women are still struggling to cast off the oppressive control of the Vatican's misogynist ideology.  They have uncovered great injustices and loudly demanded accountability from the Church.

Nonetheless, Harper Cons are putting all their communication eggs into one basket: systematically deploying fear mongering tactics to incite hatred and fear of Muslims as they ramp up to a fall election campaign. Also: fundraising!!!

On Monday evening, the leader of the Liberal Party

[..]accused Harper's Conservative Party government of blurring the line "between a real security threat and simple prejudice." In particular, he criticized the decision of a judge in Quebec to refuse the case of a Muslim woman who wore a hijab to court, arguing that it was a "troubling trend that Mr. Harper seems keen to accelerate and exploit" and linking it to the Conservative government's proposed ban on the wearing of Islamic face veils during the oath of citizenship. 

Trudeau told his audience. "So we should all shudder to hear the same rhetoric that led to a 'none is too many' immigration policy toward Jews in the 30s and 40s, being used to raise fears against Muslims today."

On Tuesday Harper's dog-and-pony show continued in Parliament, as his Minister for Public Safety obliquely referenced Islam during his presentation on Bill C-51 in committee.  Blaney justified this, claiming that "hate speech" sows the seeds that culminate in horrific events like the Holocaust. He rambled on, even alluding to the mass slaughter of Tutsi by Hutu.

The minister compared jihadist declarations to Nazi propaganda, saying "the Holocaust did not begin in the gas chambers, it began with words." 

"Violence starts with words," the minister repeated. "Hate begins with words. I can talk to you about the genocide in Rwanda that began on the radio."

He was taken to task by NDP MP Randall Garrison who suggested Blaney was trivializing the Shoah. Later, the minister's office denied that he had paraphrased verses from the Qur'an. 

Since we're on the topic of hate speech, biblical text are still used to justify violence against women. The actions demanded in Deutoronomy 22:21 that Gary Pearson partly cited above may no longer prevail in law, but they persist in the stigma attached to sex work and in the shaming of women who refuse to let their sexuality be controlled by religious ideology.

"then they are to take her out to the entrance of her father's house, where the men of her city are to stone her to death. She has done a shameful thing among our people by having intercourse before she was married, while she was still living in her father's house. In this way you will get rid of this evil."

None of this is happenstance. Ordinary secular political parties are not seized by urgent, totalitarian needs to foment ethnic fear and religious hatred against muslims in order to stay in power.  But a party that is in thrall to Evangelical christian religious fundamentalism and bankrolled by foreign interests, as Harper's CPC is, certainly would be. 

The last words belong to Jed Bartlet, _The West Wing_ fictional president inspired by Jimmy Carter with some daubs of JFK.

Deploying religious text to expose the ugliness of religious fundamentalism.

Of interest to those with no particular religious adherence: the word TERROR entered the political vocabulary during the French revolution as these events unfolded. A demonstration that any ideology, even anti-religious, can be used to justify violent government repression.  

UPDATE: The hoax photos that Kenney deployed misrepresent their original use. Taken from an anti-Muslim hate-inciting site. Thoroughly deconstructed here.

Why aren't intelligent blondes speaking up against this abomination?

A few weeks back, I joked on Twitter about how *some* blondes made the whole... race? species? look dumb, and that the smart ones should sue for defamation of character.

You know, just as every secular, cultural or religious muslim should loudly, publicly denounce every act of violence committed by barbaric individuals and groups who exploit an ideological interpretation of Islam to justify their carnage and sexual terrorism. 

And now this, in my email box this morning.

Just put "Eve Adams" in a search box on Twitter. Hundreds of tweets and re-tweets.  Some amusing. Some informative. Some trenchant. Some ... not so much.

One has to wonder if the testosterone-endowed members of the LPC even bothered consulting the savvy women in their party to ascertain whether accepting Adams was a sagacious decision.

At DJ! we wrote this about Adams right after the 2011 election. Before the first break-up with Soudas. Their reconciliations. The betrayals. The ongoing media soap opera.

So. Did Eve Adams jump or was she pushed?

There's a third possibility.

She and her partner Dimitri Soudas are being deliberately planted by Harper to gather intelligence on the LPC election campaign plans and to deliberately derail them.  Yes, that would be quite a crafty, brazen Machiavellian move — but remember how the CPC was founded?

Or, the toxic duo's tactical defection to the neoLibs is temporary, one that they will leverage when Harper is gone and the CPC flounders as the PC did after Mulroney's departure + Kim Campbell's ignominious defeat in 1993. Will DimEve Soudams™ triumphantly return to the party with considerable political *assets* that can be exploited?

Frank has another take, as always quite irreverent.

Only time will tell.

Meanwhile, one is reminded of this famous unblonde quote:

UPDATE: Harper's Politburo/PMO orchestrates the predictable drive-by bousillage with the gleeful assistance of its pet trolls, Attack Parrots and smarmy QMI stenographers. This one from Sun hack Lorne Gunter is particularly vile and sexist.

THEM

It's the title of an early Joyce Carol Oates novel, possibly her best and deserving a place in the US literary canon.

_THEM_ depicts the chaotic lives of a family living in poverty in the Detroit slums, from the 1930s to the 1967 riots.  Oates draws a vivid portrait of a matriarch, from self-awakening as a naive young mother nagged by regrets at the age of sixteen, to a mature woman whose aspirations and struggles encompass the destinies of her children battling to survive in a perilous world fraught with violence. Poor white trash folks, before that epithet became a thing.

US against THEM is also a binary construct that imposes constraints and limits possibilities.

This imperative to separate people into opposite camps, assigned to one side or the other of an arbitrarily determined divide, is a facile reflex.  Though some sociobiologists would claim that every human brain is instinctually wired to respond in this manner because: survival strategy! I find their arguments oozing with smarminess and confirmation bias.

This polarizing framework is certainly omnipresent throughout history, across varied and numerous ideological and cultural settings.



Demonize, other-wize, isolate, target. 

Blue dot.

And thus, with regard to this ill-advised model that the Liberal Party of Canada is heavily promoting, today's JT speech announces what awaits Canadians in the 2015 election campaign, if THE MIDDLE-CLASS becomes its strategic meme (though it could morph into a much abused trope).

As someone who grew up in a rough-and-tumble mostly francophone area with many immigrants, working class (and working poor) in a town that's now part of Ottawa, I find this ploy repellent.

Though I may seem to be a member of this elusive and more likely, illusive demographic that the Liberal brain-trust is desperately trying to seduce into its camp, it does NOT speak to me. 

When I hear the expression "upward mobility" deployed in JT's speech as though it were an exalted entitlement, I retch.  Meaningful work, a decent salary, a social safety net: those are important elements that should not be available only to those who buy into the "upward mobility" scam, or more accurately, a form of fancy-schmancy Ponzi economic scheme beatified by the likes of Larry Summers and his sycophants.

I think of my daughter, who by virtue of her hard work and personal sacrifices, is now an accomplished physician who gives back to the communities she has pledged to serve and respect.  I really don't think this marketing gimmick will speak to her.

As I do, she may find it repugnant and exclusionary.

THEM is the group that I historically and emotionally identify with, that demographically disregarded and invalidated class that JT and his team discount when the focus becomes exclusively *THE MIDDLE-CLASS*.

THEM includes many many many people, and not only those who have fallen on hard times. We may not be the potential rich donors the PLC is wooing, but we can smell a deliberate shun.  And when we are angered, we vote.

You can't take that to the bank but you can count on it.

As an aside, is the NDP's best shot at challenging the credibility of JT's speech really this? 

Mulcair's communications flaks would do much better to query how much Summers charged the LPC for his tired dog-and-pony show at the convention.  Was the party billed his preferential Wall Street rate - for "friends"?

About those CON-veeenient leaks...

Imagine it said in Preston Manning's voice.  CON-veeenient!

It's the only way to observe the onslaught of leaks and planted items that glutted the mainstream media this week.  If one were cynical, one might think that some were deliberately engineered to divert attention away from the MASSIVE Harper CPC attack on democracy — disingenuously called *Fair Reform Act* — by neutralizing and weakening the work Elections Canada does.  Some have called it the Conservative Amnesty Act since it will retroactively exculpate any election fraud engineered by the CPC.

Observe the 'who', the 'what', the 'how' and the 'when' of the following:

Exhibit A: It was predictable that the PMO would accommodate Harper's loathing for the LPC by devising a strategy to disrupt the Montreal convention with a range of smears and media-attention-grabbing tactics.

Exhibit B: Just one big, happy Regressive Conservative slash Reformatory family party! Well, except for Arthur Hamilton who is now living in the dog-house.

Exhibit C: Clearly, transparently and blatantly even, Harper Cons are exploiting publicly-funded Parliamentary resources to support their re-election bid. No accountability.

Exhibit D: As our blogging colleague Luna suggests, a critical backlash against the use of Laureen might be re-framed by the PMO, who would claim that she is being attacked, and then launch their own previously-crafted strategies to smear Catherine or Sophie, respectively Mulcair and Trudeau spouses.

Here is seasoned political journalist Susan Delacourt's take on the above leaks.

Exhibit E: This one may be gratuitous or part of an internal effort by Harper sycophants to discredit Jason Kenney who may be gunning for their leader's job.

Exhibit F: Glen McGregor presents the facts he has obtained, and raises questions about how and why this information has surfaced now.

Make of it what you will, but it seems to me that under Harper's direction, the PMO and the communications flunkies who crank out their Politburo propaganda are out to win. No prisoners taken. No mercy.  Just a craven need to crush their enemies, which includes Canadians who aren't onside with them.

UPDATE, February 17: It seems the Lt-Gen Leslie (retired) snowball packed around a sharp rock has become something of an avalanche. 

According to this news item, Con Minister Nicholson claims information about Leslie's $72,000 move costs was obtained through the Access to Information Act but CTV won't confirm that is correct.  Who's the more credible? 

Liberal Leadership Watch

In our role as pro-choice watchdogs of Canadian politics, we bring you two endorsements for Marc Garneau.

.@marcgarneau So Karygiannis campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Fe… and McKay campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Fe… supported #M312 - Why #antiChoice MPs on yr #lpcldr team?

— deBeauxOs(@deBeauxOs1) January 30, 2013

We're sure Marc is a nice guy and all, but what the heck do two anti-choice Liberals know about him that would lead to their support?

Just askin'.

Endless rancour from Contempt Party

As expected, the howling jackals and hyenas that form the political *base* of the Contempt Party are still feasting on the carcass of the LPC leader.

Not content to express in the most petulant manner their chagrin that the man they've slandered and vilified for years in attack ads wouldn't grovel before their leader, they've continued their vituperative yapping for days after the election has ended.

In that, they are far, far worse than their mentors in the US. Karl Rove may have inspired the Cons' dirty tricks warriors, but at least he knew when to call off the scavengers.

Speaking of the US, it'll be interesting to discover who funded the robo-calls used by the Contempt Party to spread dis-information to electors in key ridings throughout the campaign.

IMHO, the munnee was provided by the Koch brothers who have bankrolled Teabaggin' US politicians like WI governor Scott Walker. Look at Con jobs Kenney, Soudas, Gill. They have the manner and style of Koch$uckers, do they not?

Smells like a Contempt rat to me.

Or it might be a BQ dirty trick, since the incumbent could lose his seat to NDP Boivin - who once held the riding of Gatineau for the Libs. These allegations against Boivin have been raised in the past and she has clearly stated that they are unfounded.

Montreal newspaper Le Devoir reported Tuesday that Boivin did not actually leave the [Liberal] party for ideological reasons as she has previously stated, but because she hired a woman to work in her office the Liberals say was her same-sex partner and then refused to acknowledge she had broken the rules. [...]

Boivin flatly denied the allegations, saying that she knows all the rules and she never broke them. “These anonymous sources should come out of the shadows and have the courage to defend these allegations,” Boivin said in a statement on Tuesday, where she also announced her intention to defend her integrity and give legal notice to Le Devoir and the journalist who wrote the story. [...]

NDP officials say that was always their understanding of why she joined their party, noting she had voted with them – and against the Liberals – on votes like the missile defense system and legislation concerning the right to strike. [...]

Boivin told a news conference in Gatineau on Tuesday that she has been consistent in saying no every time she has been asked whether she had hired a same-sex partner to work in her office, a question that came from both the Liberals and the NDP. Boivin noted that she gave the same answer to [Toronto] Star reporter Richard J. Brennan when he asked her about the rumour in the past.

Brennan has written previously about the BQ and his language suggests that he is not sympathetic to that party - nor to the NDP.

Le Devoir has been relentlessly investigating Contempt Party candidates for their affiliations to extreme rightwing and fundamentalist religious groups during this federal election. This may have led to pressure on the editorial board to "balance" this reporting by publishing something dodgy about an Opposition party's candidate, particularly one who might be endangering a BQ incumbent's prospects for re-election.

Canadian politics have shifted; hateful political tactics increasingly replicate the polarized ambiance in the US. We can thank the Contempt Party and its leader, Emperor Stevie Spiteful for importing these toxic substances.

At this point, I'm thinking that someone close to the BQ or the Cons is the source for this contemptible product of trash journalism. BTW, the ADQ, which has formed an alliance of convenience with the CPC and Alberta's Wild Rose Party is not known for supporting gay and lesbian human rights.

And also: Count on Norm Spector to get it right ... NOT!

Too: The NDP's knee-jerk response to the attack on their candidate is short-sighted and not very politically astute, imho.

Ottawa-Centre: Stay classy, Scott

So far, the campaign focus at DAMMIT JANET! has been on Contempt party candidates and their Con jobs. Now it appears other party candidates believe Rovian tactics can work for them too.

Two campaigns, two approaches. Incumbent Paul Dewar, a capable NDP MP, launches a policy-based campaign, heavy on substance, and covering the entire range of issues before us, including a comprehensive plan to protect the integrity of the public service.

But Liberal hopeful Scott Bradley, who has no record to run on,

goes on the attack right away. In his front-page video clip, “Day Six,” he claims (@2:30) that Dewar has shown no interest in the public service since he was first elected five years ago. (This would be news to the largest federal public service union, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which has endorsed Paul Dewar in the past and is expected to do so once again.) That’s still within bounds as political campaign discourse, and the public employees who live in Ottawa-Centre will make up their own minds.

But the clip begins with what sounds like: "Paul was saying, see, the PS is a good place to make cuts and save money..." That’s where the line is crossed. The actual quote, before Breitbarting, is:"Across the country many voters, despite what Paul was saying, see the PS as a good place to make cuts and save money..." Only the first week of the campaign, and one candidate is already aiming low.

“Paul Dewar does not have the monopoly on being a nice guy,”

said Scott Bradley as he launched his bid.

Oh - Scott? This kinds of tactic suggests you're straying down the path of *fear and loathing* that has become the trademark of the Contempt party. Do your *nice* Liberal buddies know what you're up to?

Bang, zoom, straight to the moon!

In Michael Ignatieff’s recent mea culpa , not only does he acknowledge that he was wrong about the Iraq invasion but he reveals a humility that has endeared so many Canadian voters — not. Peppering his earlier paragraphs with quotes from the philosopher Isaiah Berlin, he faults his error in judgment on the academic’s propensity to view the world through ideas and knowledge rather than simple understanding of reality. This convoluted explanation of the difference between the intellectual and politician serves as some kind of proof that he has rappelled the walls of his ivory tower to embrace the simplicity of thought of the common man. And who better to represent that common man than Ralph Kramden!

“As a former denizen of Harvard, I’ve had to learn that a sense of reality doesn’t always flourish in elite institutions. It is the street virtue par excellence. Bus drivers can display a shrewder grasp of what’s what than Nobel Prize winners. The only way any of us can improve our grasp of reality is to confront the world every day and learn, mostly from our mistakes, what works and what doesn’t. Yet even lengthy experience can fail us in life and in politics. Experience can imprison decision-makers in worn-out solutions while blinding them to the untried remedy that does the trick.”

The “bus driver” has a shrewder grasp of reality because he bumbles along in life and picks up a few “what’s what” by learning from mistakes. You have to wade through some 15 or 16 paragraphs that grapple with the obstacles faced by politicians and the challenges of dealing with Iraq before Ignatieff actually and clearly acknowledges that he was wrong because others were less wrong. Those who were against the Iraq invasion were too common and simple to know they were right!?! How else can we interpret this:

“We might test judgment by asking, on the issue of Iraq, who best anticipated how events turned out. But many of those who correctly anticipated catastrophe did so not by exercising judgment but by indulging in ideology. They opposed the invasion because they believed the president was only after the oil or because they believed America is always and in every situation wrong.”

Ignatieff’s so-called apology is pompous and self-serving. In the paragraph that follows, he basically calls those who demonstrated good judgment callous cynics who didn’t suppose the human rights ideals that fueled his own belief that a free state could arise on the foundations of 35 years of police terror. His vision and good intentions, like those of Bush and such honourable Iraqi exiles as Ahmed Chalabi, were his failings? Ignatieff and his fellow neo-conservative pundits do owe an apology for defending and boosting the Bush administration’s ridiculous and illegal plans to liberate Iraq by bringing ruin and insecurity to a nation that had not posed any threat to the US or its allies.

Ignatieff might learn a thing or two about the common man by renting The Honeymooners on DVD. Robert Svedi had this to say about the appeal of this television classic:

“Another reason for The Honeymooners long shelf life is that the problems that the Kramden's and the Norton's faced some fifty years ago, are the same problems that still plague people today. Money shortages, being stuck in a dead-end job, housing and relationship issues and the desire to better one's condition are all things that are dealt with on a daily basis for most of the population every day. The Honeymooners allow us to laugh at ourselves while teaching us that the most valuable commodities are really love and friendship.”

Jackie Gleason’s bus driver has more insight into the human condition than this wannabe Prime Minister.

UPDATE: For the sake of political expediency, I thought I would bite my tongue on the LPC's coronation of Ignatieff as the de facto leader of the party. I've expressed my doubts that he would put his personal ambition aside to work for solutions for Canadians, including working within a coalition government should Harper fail to deliver anything but a just and effective budget. But his recent comments with respect to the brutal assault of Gaza by the IDF was just too much to remain silent. My fellow progressive bloggers have been raking Iggy over the coals and provide great insight as to why he is an utter disappointment. Some have suggested I repost this because it is just too damn easy to dismiss this latest pronouncement as just a gaffe when in fact, Ignatieff has been pretty consistent in his views.

Here is a list of some excellent posts about Iggy's "not an occupation" statement worth reading:

• Ignatieff Gets a Huge Pat On The Back - from The National Post

• Gaza: "Big Concentration Camp"

• Israel faces UN war crimes probe

• Not Good Enough

• Ignatieff the Bloody

• Wanker of the day

• An Israeli atrocity

• Oh, Iggy

Cross-posted at Resettle THIS!