Saudis appear to be using Canadian-made combat vehicles against Yemeni rebels

Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, is famous around the world for his humanity-loving & peace-loving stature & acts. But those are only words. When it comes to words, then this is Canada for you; selling weapons to those countries, which are proven to be habitual human-rights abusers. After all, what would you expect from selling $15 billions worth of weapons & Light-Armoured Vehicles (LAVs) to Saudi Arabia; that they use those vehicles to help Syrians or Iraqis or Yemenis?

Saudi Arabia gets correctly blamed for its bombing of Yemeni civilians but what about the "drug-dealer" who provided those "drugs" to the "drug-addict" in the first place? Canada & other G7 countries are developing or substantially supporting their economies through sales of weapons to the world, & especially to those countries, which are embroiled in wars in hot zones. But they don't get blamed for selling arms & weapons; users of those weapons get blamed for using those weapons.

This is the media for you. Canadian media & social media shows the face of Liberals & Trudeau to the world that shows how peace-loving & humanitarian Canadian government is, & they don't show how that same government is causing so much pain in the world, too.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/saudi-arms-used-against-yemeni-rebels-seem-to-match-canadian-lavs/article28846678/

Canadian-made armoured vehicles appear to be embroiled in Saudi Arabia's war against Yemeni-based Houthi rebels – caught up in cross-border hostilities that critics say should force Ottawa to reconsider a $15-billion deal to sell Riyadh more of these weapons.

The Saudi-led coalition fighting the Houthis – who are aligned with Iran – has already been accused by a United Nations panel of major human-rights violations for what its report called "widespread and systematic" air-strike attacks on civilian targets. Along the Saudi-Yemen border, constant skirmishes pit Houthi fighters against Saudi ground forces such as the Saudi Arabian National Guard.

The Saudi Arabian National Guard, a buyer of many Canadian-made light armoured vehicles (LAVs) in the past decade, has published photos on its official Twitter account showing how in late 2015 it moved columns of combat vehicles to Najran, a southwestern Saudi town near the border with Yemen that is in the thick of the conflict.

A significant number of vehicles in the photos have the triangular front corners, the eight wheels and the headlamps fixed above these triangles that are familiar features in earlier LAV models made in Canada.

Neither the Liberal government nor LAV-maker General Dynamics Land Systems in London, Ont., would confirm these are Canadian machines.

But a retired Canadian general consulted by The Globe and Mail, who spoke on condition of anonymity, identified the LAVs being transported to Najran as fighting vehicles made by General Dynamics Land Systems. Stephen Priestley, a researcher with the Canadian American Strategic Review, a think tank that tracks defence spending, also identified the LAVs as Canadian-made.

Critics say having Canadian-made arms enmeshed in a conflict that has claimed more than 2,800 civilian lives should prompt Ottawa to rethink the recent $15-billion deal to sell hundreds or thousands more to the Saudis.

Canada's export control rules for weapons shipments are supposed to require Ottawa to restrict arms exports to countries such as Saudi Arabia, that have "poor human-rights records." Saudi Arabia, regularly ranked among the "worst of the worst" on human rights by Freedom House, qualifies for special scrutiny.

The same federal weapons export controls also say Canada should "closely control," or be very discriminating, about shipments to countries "that are involved in or under imminent threat of hostilities."

Foreign Affairs ... department refused comment Monday when pressed on whether it is concerned about the armoured vehicle shipments, saying it's bound to secrecy on anything to do with arms sales to the Saudis.

"In regards to your request, please see our response: For reasons of commercial confidentiality, specific contractual details cannot be shared," Tania Assaly, a spokeswoman for Global Affairs said in a prepared statement.

The Trudeau Liberals keep trying to dissociate themselves from the increasingly controversial deal. Last week, Mr. Dion argued his government merely inherited the contract and that cancelling it would cost taxpayers huge penalties. Pressed on this, Mr. Dion's department refused to provide details to back up the Foreign Minister's assertion, citing the need to keep the commercial pact with Riyadh secret.

General Dynamics Land Systems Canada of London, Ont., which employs about 2,100 people, did not respond to a request for comment about whether it is concerned about the LAVs caught up in the Saudi-Yemen conflict.

Ken Epps with the anti-war group Project Ploughshares, which tracks arms sales, said the Liberal government should rethink the latest $15-billion contract with Saudi Arabia. Ottawa, not General Dynamics Land Systems, is the prime contractor in this deal, which was also brokered by the federal government.

The Trudeau government still has power over the deal. It can suspend exports of these combat vehicles.

"Given a UN report accused the Saudis of war crimes because of their bombing of civilians, then clearly our concern must be that since they are involved in war crimes there, it should give the Canadian government additional pause in shipping these kind of weapons to them," Mr. Epps said.

The $15-billion Saudi LAV deal will provide Riyadh with weaponized armoured vehicles in what is the largest manufacturing export contract in Canadian history – but one that doesn't garner significant public support. A recent Nanos Research poll found nearly six out of 10 Canadians surveyed feel it is more important to ensure arms exports go only to countries "that respect human rights" than it is to sustain some 3,000 jobs by selling combat vehicles to Saudi Arabia.

A new report says Saudi Arabia was the second-largest arms importer in the world between 2011 and 2015 after India as Mideast countries upped weapons purchases significantly. Shipments to Saudi Arabia rose 275% in those years, by value, compared with the earlier 2006-10 period, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said.

At least one wartime footage video posted on YouTube on the Houthi-Saudi conflict also shows what appears to be a disabled Canadian-made LAV, presumably abandoned by Saudi troops as their enemies approached.

Mr. Priestley said this December, 2015, video, purported to be shot near the southern Saudi town of Al Raboah, shows a National Guard LAV-AG model, made in London, Ont., being looted by combatants.

Opinion on Canadian federal election result

Saw a few posts from people on my TL that today was a great day for Canada because of the new PM's swearing-in ceremony etc.
 
Really? The only reason I vote is that when I criticize a government, no one can say that since, you didn't vote, you lost your right to criticize. Although, I'm not a fan of Conservatives, deep in my heart, I already know NOTHING will change for the small guy.
 
Let me emphasize that point again (for slow people), NOTHING will change for the general public.

 
If Stephen Harper was such a bad guy that the whole country took a sigh of relief with the Liberals win, then why did people elect him back in 2011? And he had been the PM of Canada 5 years before that, too. So, the public already had a little taste of what Harper was all about. Did Harper hypnotized the public somehow in 2011? Heck, he isn't even a "hottie" like JT.
 
I remember seeing this same enthusiasm which I see for Justin Trudeau now, back in 2008, with the election win of Barack Obama. Heck, people all over the world were mesmerized with his win & there were so many hopes attached to his win. Well, we can see how much he actually achieved in his past 7 years of presidency. Except, the Affordable Healthcare Act, he has failed to achieve everything, from closing Guantanamo to controlling emissions to improving checks & balances on Wall Street.
 
Only reason Liberals won in Canada because the general public around the world only wants to keep changing political parties. Let's take a quick look at the tennis match of politics played in some countries around the world:

US: 8 years of Democratic rule (Clinton) is followed by 8 years of Republican (Bush Jr.) & then back to Democrats (Obama) & then back to Republicans (Bush Jr. II in 2016) & so on so forth.

Canada: Conservatives (Mulroney) followed by Liberals (Chretien / Paul) & then back to Conservatives (Harper) & now back with Liberals (Trudeau).

UK: They are little bit unpredictable. 18 years of Conservatives were followed by 13 years of Labour & then back to Conservatives (coming up to 6 years now).
 
Pakistan: PML-N & PPP play the match.

Stephen Harper: Master Manipulator

A very long read but definitely a very interesting one. If it doesn't mention "Stephen Harper" or "Canada," then one might easily confuse the article with an article about a dictator from an African country or one from the Middle East or even a country from Asia (China) or South Asia (Pakistan). And this guy has been the face of Canada for almost 10 years, & he may yet win again on October 19th, 2015, for another 4 years.

I liked the article even more so because it showed how much "democracy" there really is in Canada. As I always say in my blog posts that there is no such thing as democracy anywhere in this world (maybe, in Iceland, but then it's a very small homogenic society). The only difference between Western "democracy" & Eastern "democracy" (in other words, democracy of the developing world) is that one democracy is all smoke-&-mirrors & the other one actually shows outright that there is no such thing as democracy.

On top of that, this article specifically mentions that a large section of the Canadian public is clueless about the government & ministers (20% of Quebecers don't even know which political party is the ruling party of Canada). Funny thing is that this statement reaffirms what I already say in my blog posts that Canadian public is far more busy with sports, food, beer & where my next paycheque is coming from. It doesn't have time to analyze & think how the government is screwing it around.

Since, the article is quite long in itself, I'll leave you to read it. But before I do that I'll copy & paste one paragraph which, very nicely, summarizes the whole article, & in essence, the actions of the ruling political party of Canada for the past decade:

"In the 11 years since he became leader of the country’s Conservatives, the party has been fined for breaking electoral rules, & various members of Team Harper have been caught misleading parliament, gagging civil servants, subverting parliamentary committees, gagging scientists, harassing the supreme court, gagging diplomats, lying to the public, concealing evidence of potential crime, spying on opponents, bullying & smearing. Harper personally has earned himself the rare rebuke of being found to be in contempt of his parliament."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/15/stephen-harper-master-manipulator

...
As Harper tries for a fourth term in office at the Canadian federal election ..., he is trailed by an extraordinarily long list of allegations. ... In Canada, some of the prime minister’s men & women have been accused not simply of cheating to win elections but of conspiring to jam the machinery of democratic government.

Some of these allegations have been proved. In the 11 years since he became leader of the country’s Conservatives, the party has been fined for breaking electoral rules, & various members of Team Harper have been caught misleading parliament, gagging civil servants, subverting parliamentary committees, gagging scientists, harassing the supreme court, gagging diplomats, lying to the public, concealing evidence of potential crime, spying on opponents, bullying & smearing. Harper personally has earned himself the rare rebuke of being found to be in contempt of his parliament.

... Yet this deeply unpopular politician has won 3 elections in the last 9 years. Although the Liberals are showing a late lead in the polls, Harper’s emphasis on his record on security & the economy may yet put a fourth in his trophy cabinet next week. That is what makes Harper’s politics interesting, that he has perfected the tactics of taking & holding power – in spite of the demands of democracy.

His people have been caught out more often than most. That may be because they are more brazen than most ... . But, at heart, Harper’s team are not that different from politicians across the developed world who have discovered that democracy is a pretty sweet theory but that, in reality, if you want to get hold of power & use it, there are all kinds of devious moves available that have very little to do with that antique idea.
* * *

Start with the business of winning an election. During Harper’s first successful run, back in January 2006, his party bumped up against the limit that it was allowed to spend in its national campaign – $18.3 million Canadian dollars ($9.15m). But it still had money in the bank, & the race was very tight. So it channelled more than $1 million down to 67 local candidates who had their own budgets & who then paid for a blitz of TV advertising during the final fortnight of the campaign. Harper squeaked home with 21 more seats than the liberals, & managed to form a minority government with 36% of the vote. Some of the local Conservatives were worried that this was illegal, but Harper’s national director dismissed them with contempt. “What a bunch of turds,” he emailed.

The national officials evidently had persuaded themselves that they had the law on their side. Elections Canada, the official body that enforces polling law, disagreed. As one of its investigators put it: “You could argue that they stole the election.” Team Harper duly suffered the indignity of police raiding their headquarters in Ottawa, seizing their computers & paperwork, & the further embarrassment of having 4 senior officials charged with criminal offences. The Conservatives fought Elections Canada to the last ditch, repeatedly challenging it in the courts. Finally, the prosecution accepted a plea bargain. The charges against the 4 officials were dropped, while the party as an organisation pleaded guilty to illegal campaign spending & paid $282,000 in fines & restitution. That was in March 2012, more than 6 years after the offence, by which time this particular scandal had cobwebs on it, & Harper had won 2 more elections, in November 2008 & May 2011.

If the path to electoral crime is rarely trodden, there is a close alternative, what Nixon’s people called “ratfucking” – acts of sabotage to damage an opponent. Not exactly criminal. Not always. So, for example, when the current Liberal leader, Justin Trudeau (son of the former prime minister, Pierre) held an open-air press conference in Ottawa, he found himself being heckled by a group of young protesters waving placards. They were later revealed by the Huffington Post to be interns working for the Prime Minister’s Office.

In the fortnight before polling day in 2011, Liberal supporters started receiving nuisance calls from people who claimed to be Liberal party workers – calling Jewish voters on the sabbath, waking up others in the middle of the night. Liberals said this was Conservatives trying to alienate their support. Then, in the final 3 days before the vote, Elections Canada received a series of complaints about “robocalls” – recorded messages sent by automatic dialling – that told voters quite falsely that their polling station had been moved. By election day, anxiety was rising among officials, as internal emails recorded: “It seems that Conservative candidates are pretending that Elections Canada or returning officers have changed the polling stations … They have actually disrupted the voting process … It’s right across the country except Saskatchewan … It appears it is getting worse.” This looked like a national campaign to suppress the Liberal vote by scattering it away from the polling booths.

Some of those voters told the Guardian that they had first received a call from the Conservatives asking how they planned to vote. Sandra McEwing, a stage manager from Winnipeg, said: “My answer was unequivocal, like, ‘Go fuck yourself.’ I hung up after that.” Others say they gave similar replies. All then say they received robocalls or live calls, sending them to a polling station that did not exist or to a distant one where they had no right to vote. Some of these voters were in ridings, or electoral districts, where the eventual margin of victory was tiny. Bill Hagborn, president of the Liberal association in a riding in Ontario, told of a bus full of aboriginal voters, who were very unlikely to vote Conservative, & who were misdirected by calls & ended up not voting at all. That riding – Nipissing-Timiskaming – went to the Conservatives with a majority of only 18.

With Team Harper back in power, a group of voters from 6 ridings went to federal court to challenge the results of the election. After a seven-day hearing, the trial judge, Mr. Justice Mosley, issued a devastating verdict: “I am satisfied that it has been established that misleading calls about the locations of polling stations were made to electors in ridings across the country & that the purpose of those calls was to suppress the votes of electors who had indicated their preference in response to earlier voter-identification calls.”

The judge declined to order new elections – the evidence did not reveal whether the calls had actually swung the result – but the declaration of national fraud was powerful stuff. And perhaps even more serious, he found that “the most likely source” of the phone numbers that had been used was the Conservative party’s central database, the Constituent Information Management System (Cims), which is believed to hold the names & addresses of every voter in Canada, together with profiling information that has been gathered by party workers or bought from commercial data-gatherers.

The judge specifically avoided identifying the Conservative party as a whole, or its candidates, as having organised the fraud. However, he went on to complain that it had “engaged in trench warfare in an effort to prevent this case from coming to a hearing on the merits”, which had included “transparent attempts to derail this case”.

Meanwhile, Elections Canada had been investigating. Spurred on by news coverage, voters from 261 of the 308 ridings filed complaints about calls that either caused nuisance or misled them about their polling station. The investigators struggled. When they tried to get records of phone numbers that had called the complainants, they failed in 92.5% of cases. With the 7.5% where they succeeded, they then failed to find the owners of 40% of the phone numbers they had identified, including many that were registered across the border in the US. “We were running into brick walls all over the place,” as one investigator put it. With one startling exception.

In relation to the riding of Guelph in Ontario, the Conservatives who had engaged in “trench warfare” to impede the civil court, handed Elections Canada a group of witnesses who identified an ambitious young party worker, Michael Sona, as a culprit, adding crucially that he had acted without authority, as a “rogue activist”. Sona’s name was rapidly leaked to newspapers. Investigators were able to follow a trail of electronic footprints from the local Conservative office, where Sona worked, to a telemarketing company that had sent out a robocall to more than 7,000 Liberal households, diverting them from their polling stations. Sona was arrested, prosecuted & jailed for 9 months for interfering with an election. He says that he is innocent, a decoy thrown out to protect the real culprits. Others say he is a maverick who set up his own relatively clumsy scheme without the blessing of his party.

But what about all the other ridings? Elections Canada in April 2014 published a report in which it acknowledged the difficulties it had encountered, & reported that – with the exception of Guelph – that it had been unable to find any concrete evidence of dubious activity. This left open the possibility that voters in these ridings had been victims of something far more sophisticated than the clumsy operation for which Michael Sona had been blamed. In Ottawa today, political insiders claim to have heard Conservative workers boasting of using call centres in the US, India or the Philippines.

However, they can prove nothing, & Elections Canada not only found no such clues but enraged Harper’s opponents by concluding that its inability to find evidence of activity outside Guelph amounted to positive evidence that there had been no such activity. This contradicted the finding of Mr. Justice Mosley & implied that all of the complainants from outside Guelph had been tainted by confusion, delusion or dishonesty. No culprit other than Michael Sona has been brought to book.

Effectively cleared of responsibility, the Conservatives pushed back hard. When Elections Canada asked for more powers to help it investigate future fraud claims, the House of Commons backed them. The Harper government, however, denied the body the powers it wanted & removed its entire investigations branch, transferring it to the office of the public prosecutor, where it is no longer answerable to parliament. Meanwhile, the Conservative MP who had acted as Harper’s spokesman on the robocalls affair – his parliamentary secretary, Dean Del Mastro – was jailed for breaking spending limits in his own riding & submitting false records. The sentencing judge told him that he had indulged in “the antithesis of democracy”.
* * *

...
Harper is a master tactician. Knowing that there is a block of rightwing voters who have nowhere else to go, he has been willing to defy them in search of wider support: adopting liberal positions on abortion & gay marriage; veering leftwards to pump public money into the economy to avoid recession in 2008; reaching out to the migrants who now fill the suburbs of traditionally Liberal cities such as Toronto. He studies the stats. He makes the numbers add up. Harper has his roots in the same ideological soil as Thatcher & Reagan: cutting tax & rolling back the state; tough on crime & even tougher on the unions; boosting families & national pride; a solid economy that rewards those who work hard.

And then there were the tactics that were to attract such notoriety. They reflected the man’s character – clever and harsh – moves that turned a democratic election into a mere sequence of manoeuvres. ...
...

It meant money – millions in private donations to fund the campaign, & millions more in state giveaways in order to encourage the voters. ... Harper gave his electorate a high-profile gift when he first took power in 2006, by cutting the Canadian sales tax, GST. It cost the exchequer some $12 billion, but it purchased popularity. At times, it meant descending into old-fashioned, US-style pork-barrel politics, pouring public money into ridings that were politically important. An investigation by the Globe and Mail this year found that 83% of the Harper government’s new infrastructure projects had gone to the 52% of ridings that were in Conservative hands.

And it meant investing heavily in the politically profitable new science of microtargeting. This was the original reason for the Conservatives creating the Cims database, in which was stored every conceivable item of intelligence about voters. Other parties have since caught up, but at that time it allowed the Conservative party to target the “market segments” it needed for victory – not just with policy, but with favours. A $500 tax break for children to do ballet or hockey in the 2006 budget was good for a middle-class segment (this was doubled in 2014). A break for tradespeople’s tools could buy another. The Canadian writer Susan Delacourt, who tracked this in her book, Shopping For Votes, told of the finding in the Cims database that people who owned snowmobiles were potential Conservative voters. The Harper government has pledged $35 million to create new trails for snowmobiles.

These tactics have proved particularly effective in a world in which people are becoming alienated from politics itself. In Canada, nearly 40% of the electorate did not bother to vote at the 2011 election. Among voters under 24, more than 60% stayed away (compared with 35.3% in 2006). A poll in Quebec province two months ago found that as the federal election campaign was launched, 20% of respondents could not name the political party that was running the country. Delacourt cites one of Harper’s political marketers, Patrick Muttart, saying that much of Conservative activity was aimed at voters who paid no attention to politics & who needed messages that were “brutally simple”.

In power as in elections, Harper’s rule has been to keep winning, whatever it takes. Even parliament – the embodiment of the popular will – is merely an obstacle to be dealt with. Soon after the November 2008 election, as he began his second minority government, Harper launched an “omnibus bill”, which contained so many provocative proposals that he united the previously divided opposition parties, which decided not just to vote against the bill but to form a coalition that could replace his government. Harper didn’t want that. So he prorogued parliament. He needed the consent of the Queen’s representative, the governor general, to do so. He got it. And so the parliament that threatened him was simply suspended until the political storm passed.

A year later, Harper was in deep trouble again, over press reports that Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan had handed over Taliban prisoners to local security forces, who had then tortured them. Harper’s government had denied the claims, which amounted to allegations of war crime, but it was caught out badly in November 2009 when a Canadian diplomat & a general separately went public with evidence that parts of the government had known about this for more than 3 years. When the opposition united once more to demand the release of paperwork on the subject, Harper refused … & then persuaded the governor general to prorogue parliament again. There was a chorus of protest, led by professors of law & politics, but Harper scorned them. The elected representatives of the people were simply locked out for 3 months.

The following year, Harper clashed again with the rights of parliament. In July 2010, he announced that his government would buy 65 F-35 fighter jets, costing a total of $15 billion – the most expensive military purchase in Canadian history. The new Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff, reckoned the real price would be even higher & accused Harper of deliberately understating it. Harper refused to hand over the paperwork that would disclose the truth about the F-35s & about the cost of a clutch of other policies. In March 2011, the speaker of the House of Commons ruled that this was a contempt of parliament, & the House then passed a vote of no confidence in Harper’s government. There was an election (involving the robocalls), which Harper won. Ignatieff quit. And 11 months later, it emerged that the true cost of the F-35s was nearly twice what Harper had claimed. In 2007, his second year in office, the National Post disclosed that Team Harper had drawn up a guidebook for the Conservative chairs of parliamentary committees, advising them how to use delays, obstruction & confusion to block difficult inquiries. In opposition, Harper said he would reform the Senate, so that its members would be elected. In office, he changed his mind, kept the power to select them himself & appointed 59 new senators so that he had a built-in majority in the upper house. The House of Commons found itself being swamped with omnibus bills, which included dozens of contentious proposals that could not be properly debated in the time available. At the daily Question Period, when ministers traditionally provide information, Harper’s parliamentary secretary, Paul Calandra, gave answers so obstructive that, after a volley of complaint, he ended up apologising to the house, in tears.

Harper clamped down hard on senior officials whose job was to monitor the behaviour of the state. A report by the auditor general found that defence officials had misled ministers & parliament, & whitewashed cost overruns & delays in a determined effort to ensure Canada purchased the F-35 jet. Kevin Page, parliamentary budget officer, reported experiencing “significant amounts of intimidation” & that his office budget was cut by 30%. Linda Keen, head of Canada’s Nuclear Safety Commission, challenged Harper over the safety of the Chalk River nuclear site: she was denounced & sacked. Peter Tinsley, chair of the Military Police Complaints Commission, attempted to investigate the torture of Taliban prisoners who had been detained by Canadian forces: he lost his job. Beverley McLachlin, chief justice of the supreme court, blocked Harper’s choice for a new high court judge: she was denounced in terms which caused a wave of complaint that Harper was interfering in the independence of the judiciary.
* * *

As Harper launched his election campaign 10 weeks ago, he faced the tricky coincidence that one of his closest allies, Senator Mike Duffy, was sitting in court in Ottawa, charged with fraud. The trial is not yet finished, & Duffy has pleaded not guilty, but, whatever the outcome, the case has exposed in embarrassing detail the behaviour of the core of Team Harper – the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), which has been described eloquently by the Globe and Mail as “a 90-person juggernaut of political strategists, ‘issues managers’ & party enforcers who exercise strict control over cabinet, the houses of parliament & the bureaucracy.”

Duffy has been an Ottawa character for years, famous as a TV journalist & notorious for his Conservative bent, which paid off in January 2009 when Harper appointed him as a senator for the small eastern province of Prince Edward Island.

It was nearly 4 years later, in December 2012, when a diligent journalist, Glen McGregor of the Ottawa Citizen, reported that Duffy had told Senate authorities that his cottage in Prince Edward Island was his real home & had been claiming public money for the expense of living in Ottawa. The Senate’s internal economy committee hired a firm of auditors, Deloitte, to check the housing claims of all senators, including Duffy. When the PMO realised that Duffy might be tempted to talk to his old friends in the press, it aimed – as an internal email put it – “to prevent him from going squirrely in a bunch of weekend panel shows.”

Harper’s then chief of staff, Nigel Wright, persuaded the Conservative Party Fund, which is partly funded by the taxpayer, to stump up $32,000 to pay off Duffy’s debt for him, although the troubled senator would be allowed to pretend that he was repaying the money himself. Since, as his own emails disclosed, Wright thought it was “morally wrong” that the senator had taken the money, this looked rather like an attempt to use taxpayers’ money to repay money that had been taken from the taxpayer. In the event, it turned out that Duffy owed much more. With Duffy pleading poverty, Wright quietly paid the $90,100 himself. (He had made millions in the world of finance before joining Team Harper.)

Duffy managed to keep his seat until a second diligent journalist, Robert Fife of CTV, disclosed that it was Wright who had paid Duffy’s debt & that the Senate’s report had been “sanitised”. In an avalanche of embarrassment, Mike Duffy was dumped by the Conservatives & charged by the police; Wright resigned, & Stephen Harper denied knowing anything about the cover-up. At the end of May, an Ipsos-Reid poll suggested that only 13% of Canadians believed him.

Harper’s leadership style is all about control – of information & of people. In 2010, Harper provoked fury by cancelling the national census & then scrapping a series of long-term surveys, thus effectively concealing the facts about significant trends in Canadian society, including poverty, inequality, housing need & health. In a report in March, the information commissioner, Suzanne Legault, complained that Canada’s Access to Information law “is applied to encourage a culture of delay … to deny disclosure. It acts as a shield against disclosure. The interests of the government trump the interests of the public.”
* * *

The Harper government’s obsession with control may look simply like a means to maintain power. But it can achieve something more important, to reverse the flow of influence: instead of government responding to people, the electorate become passive recipients of state decisions. Consider the case of climate change.

Harper has never made any secret of his support for the oil industry. Emerging from his formative years in Alberta, he was a founder member of the neoconservative Reform party, which was baptised with a $100,000 cheque from the head of Gold Standard Oils. Soon after taking power in 2006, Harper started to clamp down on research into global warming. He got rid of his own science adviser & killed the climate-change section of the Department of Foreign Affairs. He shut down the official website on climate change & tried to cut funding for the Polar Environment Atmosphere Research Laboratory, which had been at the forefront of monitoring deterioration in the ozone layer as well as climate change.

But he opened his door to the other side of the argument. The Polaris Institute thinktank reported in December 2012 that 45 oil lobbyists had been allowed to work inside Harper’s government & that during the previous four & a half years, officials & ministers had held some 2,700 meetings with the oil lobby. By contrast, the Climate Action Network had managed just six.

Having changed the flow of information into government, he then dramatically changed the direction outwards to his electorate. A new protocol required all government scientists to ask for clearance from the PMO before speaking publicly. As a result, important research has been buried, stalled or misrepresented, including an analysis of changes in snowfall, an inquiry into the loss of ozone over the Arctic, & research on the impact of a 2C rise in global temperature. Meanwhile, the government department that oversees the oil & gas industries increased its advertising budget from less than $250,000 in 2010 to a massive $40 million only two years later.

Activists, too, felt the rough hand of government. Harper set aside $8 million to check the activity of charities, including environmental groups, to stop them campaigning politically. David Suzuki, the Gandalf-like founding father of the Canadian green movement, stepped down from his own charitable foundation so that he could speak freely without the organisation being attacked. In British Columbia, a green group called Dogwood Initiative, reported that material that it had obtained under the Access to Information law revealed that it had been under “illegal surveillance” by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS).

Having distorted the flow of information, Harper then moulded the policy to fit. Ever since he first took power in February 2006, he has been promising action on climate change, particularly in relation to the carbon that is released from Canada’s huge reserve of tar sands, now the third-biggest reservoir of oil on the planet.

After a false start in 2006 with a bill that was killed by parliament for being too weak, he launched a sleek new vehicle – “Turning the Corner” – in March 2007, with new emissions targets for each sector of the economy, crucially including oil and gas. It could all come in to force as early as 2010, he said. But the sleek new vehicle was soon diverted into the oil lobby’s bog, where it stalled & stuck in endless negotiation. At one point, in February 2013, Harper’s environment secretary, Peter Kent, said the rules were “very close” to being finalised. Four months later, Kent was out of the job, later reflecting ruefully that perhaps he had been “pushing too hard”. To this day, Canada still has no emissions rules for its oil & gas sector.

In the background, Harper’s government announced a “cap & trade” system to cut emissions in 2008, then dropped the plan in 2011. It failed to hit the targets that it had agreed at the Copenhagen summit in 2009, scrapped a raft of environmental rules, &, in 2011, became the first government to back out of the Kyoto protocol, which the Liberals had ratified in 2002. When the Centre for Global Development, in 2013, ranked 27 developed nations according to their handling of the environment, it placed Canada at number 27.
* * *

Canada’s current election campaign has followed a path that is now familiar. The Conservatives have more money. Harper has stopped public funding for political parties, which yields a financial advantage to his own party, with its Cims database full of potential private donors. In a neat symbol of its purchasing power, the Conservative party has been accused of buying likes on Facebook (it declined to comment, saying it was an “internal party matter”). His team have restricted the flow of information to voters: the prime minister makes speeches & holds photocalls but avoids questions from the press. With few exceptions, Conservative candidates have been told not to take part in public debates. Big issues are raised, but it is the small issues that dominate. Canada’s most idolised hockey player, Wayne Gretzky, may not be a political thinker, but his endorsement of Harper made big headlines. The collapse in the price of oil may have driven the Canadian economy into recession, but Harper is microtargeting market segments by offering a new tax break for home renovations & for those who belong to organisations such as the Rotary Club.

At a point when the party was slipping backwards in the polls, Harper’s team came up with a brilliantly successful wedge issue, insisting that no Muslim woman should be allowed to take the oath of Canadian citizenship while wearing a niqab. In the past 4 years, the number of women who wanted to wear the niqab while taking the oath has reached a grand total of two. But this became a big issue as it split off two sections of voters in Harper’s favour: the “old stock” Canadians, who fear Muslim migrants as intruders, & liberal feminists, to whom one of Harper’s ministers appealed by describing the niqab as “a medieval tribal custom that treats women as property rather than people”. For speaking up in favour of a Muslim woman’s right to choose what she wears, the leader of the centre-left New Democratic party, Tom Mulcair, was punished with a disastrous collapse in his poll ratings, while Harper surged upwards.

Harper has the natural advantage of an opposition which is divided between Mulcair’s NDP & Justin Trudeau’s Liberals. He also has the advantage of what looks like a form of voter suppression which, unlike robocalls, is legal – a requirement that voters produce an official document in addition to their voter card to prove that they have a home in the riding. Harry Neufeld, who has been running elections in Canada since 1982, said he estimated that at least 250,000 qualified electors would be denied a vote. These are likely to be people who would not vote Conservative – students, the poor, aboriginal people. “I believe the legal changes amount to systematic manipulation,” he said. “It saddens me to see this happening in Canada. It reduces the perceived integrity of our national elections. And it damages our reputation as a country with deep democratic values.”


Nick Davies is the bestselling author of Flat Earth News, on falsehood & distortion in the media, & a former Journalist of the Year. His latest book, Hack Attack, is out now in paperback.

Sex Education, Then & NOT Now

As all Canadians may know already by now that new sex-ed curriculum of Ontario has been revealed & come September 2015, 7-year-olds (Grade 3) will come to know the meaning of same-sex relationships & gradually, within 5 years (age 12), will know what oral sex is.

I deliberately chose this article / opinion because that's the general attitude of people who are supportive of this curriculum. However, what it shows to me:

1. Disregard of people in a "democratic" govt: is this we called "democracy"? Is this the democracy Western leaders incessantly harping about in their speeches all over the world? It may as well be an absolute monarchy because at the end of the day, gov't is acting like, "I am going to throat-gag you with this, & you not only going to love it but will ask more for it."

2. What happened to diversity, Canadian multiculturalism & assimilation of new immigrants? As soon as something bad happens by a few deranged individuals, in the name of a specific religion, the whole group associated with that religion is blamed for not assimilating in the population & living in their own little bubbles (I'm deliberately not putting in any infamous labels here).

Who should be blamed for French ban on burqa in public or as Mr. Harper itching to bring burqa ban in Canada (it's a slippery slope, starting with niqab ban in citizenship oath ceremonies) or Mrs. Kathleen Wynne ignoring all immigrants, a sizable majority of which hails from South Asia, in bringing this curriculum?

Who is considering whom a "second-class" citizen & doing every bit that can be done to help push immigrants away, instead of helping them assimilate, to the point, that that immigrant / "second-class" citizen packs up & leaves Canada for good?

Will a majority of Muslims (I can't talk about other religious groups, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs etc but I do believe they are in the similar situation as Muslims) happily embrace this curriculum & gladly assimilate in the multicultural fabric of Canadian society? I firmly don't think so. This will only alienate those immigrants further, & next thing you know, someone is again pointing fingers at this group for not assimilating.

Assimilation is a two-way street & how can the majority of a group identify with their new country or society when a majority of the residents of that country are always coming up with laws & regulations to encourage those immigrants to disavow their whole belief systems? Is this called "freedom of religion" as such enshrined in the Charter? In fact, it seems more like, "be like me or you are my enemy" or that famous Mr. Bush's quote, "either you are with us or against us."

3. Do I really want my future kid to learn about same-sex relationships at the age of 7? Yes, as a Muslim, I am against homosexuality, & no I don't want my kid to learn about homosexuality. I don't care what people do in the hallowed halls of their bedrooms. People who support it in this country ... well, put it bluntly, are the same people who naively believe that Western countries are the beacon of peace in the world, & religion is the source of all evils in this world & women are only liberated when they take all their clothes off ... what's the point of wearing a bikini in the public, anyway (thanks to this curriculum, even little kids will know what breasts, nipples & female genitalia look like) ... might as well be completely free ... take everything off !!! (this will be explored more in my next blog with the help of Irina Shayk's fabulous choice of dress in the Vanity Fair's after-Oscars party).

Even as a very involved parent (once in the future), how will I be able to "un-teach" homosexuality at home when my kid is learning all about the wonderful world of same-sex relationships from those teachers in the school? As the article suggests, it's better that schools are teaching this than parents. Really? That kid will be even more confused then. Do I believe the story of Lot in the Quran, as told by my parents or do I believe what my teacher told me that my budding love for another human of the same sex is because of my genes? (everything nowadays is genetic; obesity, homosexuality & next will be racism, drug addiction, hatred ... all happen because of our genes ... eventually, we won't need to have a debate on "nature v nurture" because it's all nature's fault).

To further compound the confusion of a little kid, if he/she is enrolled in an Islamic school & he/she is learning about same-sex relationship in Grade 3, but then he/she can't find any of his/her friends / classmates having 2 daddies or mommies (since, homosexuality is strictly forbidden in Islam), then learns about story of Lot from the Quran; that kid is completely confused by now. What is right & what is wrong? Is homosexuality right or natural or is it right what the Quran says & what punishment those people in the Quran got? Do we want this confusion for tender minds of our kids?

4. Another argument is put forward in support of this curriculum that today's kids are learning all about sex through social media & they are learning this at a very young age. My problem with that is why are parents enthusiastically buying smartphones for their kids with such expensive data plans to go along with them. They won't able to sext, at least from their own phones, when they have those dumb phones (yes, they are still available in the market) with parental locks on it.

Furthermore, what happened to parents getting involved with their kids & teaching them about sex & relationships when they themselves see fit, according to their own religion, customs, & beliefs. I will explain the story of Lot & dangers of homosexuality to my kid when I see fit, as per my religion, & not when Mrs. Kathleen Wynne likes to think.

5. Some may say now, well, why don't you move out of Ontario, since this is only being instituted in Ontario. My belief is that this curriculum will spread, if not already, all over Canada like wildfire. Take my word for it. Some of it is already in other provinces' sex-ed curriculum & other provinces who doesn't have this invasive curriculum will enthusiastically adopt it.

Regardless of what the Charter or Constitution espouse, the North American gov'ts enthusiastically adopt anything & everything which remotely sounds Liberal, as long as it helps their agenda; homosexuality is all market-driven (money from marriage licenses, weddings etc), so why not promote it even more, line up govt's pockets behind the clever charade of equality & in the process, look good too in the eyes of voters.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/sex-education-then-and-now/article23160602/

Canads's secret arms deal with Saudi Arabia

Just in case, if you were thinking after reading (assuming you read & not closed your eyes & jammed fingers in your ears) that article about how an activist crashed a glitzy arms industry dinner, that it's all other countries & got nothing to do with Canada, & Canada is the beacon of peace. Well, here's an article on arms deal between Canada & Saudi Arabia, & ironically, government isn't revealing much info on the deal ... wow, what a great democracy ... people cannot know what the gov't is doing ... the same people who voted for the govt.

My tax $$$ are going to support human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. I don't think I voted for that in last election (I voted NDP). Isn't this a great feeling that Canadians are supporting human rights abuses in foreign countries? Then, when people in those countries don't feel that great about us, we are like, "they don't like our way of life." Frankly, why would or should they? We are complicit in them being abused through our tax $$$.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-arms-deal-with-saudi-arabia-shrouded-in-secrecy/article22547765/