So needing a break from other tasks, I sat down to regain some of my youth.  The song I chose was Phil Ochs’ Here’s to the State of Richard Nixon, itself Ochs’ own rework of his original Here’s to the State of Mississippi.  My lyricist heart got little satisfaction or really any exercise in the end.  I was amazed at how little needed to be changed from a song about Richard Nixon to make it a song about Stephan Harper.   My political soul soared though.  This little exercise in a very few minutes brought home to me the reasons for my nagging discomfort with the Harper government.  I had watched it all unfold before:  The lies, the religious fakery, laws changed quietly, almost secretly through Order in Council.

How many thought after Watergate that government would never be able to get away with such shenanigans again with the watchful eye of the media ready to pounce at the first sign of government subversion and abuse of power.  Yet here we are, thirty-seven years after Nixon’s ignoble resignation.  Is it because of our delusion that Canada is somehow more moral than the United States?  Or is it just because the media we trusted to raise the warning is now owned by a handful of men who create our leaders for us?

Whatever the cause it seems so little changes.  Like lemmings we blindly we run merrily to our demise again and again.  So here it is.  The words are all Phil Ochs except for the name and a few minor adjustments to make it fit more snugly to Stephan ‘Milhous’ Harper.

Here’s to the State of Stephan Harper

Here’s to the state of Stephan Harper.

Where underneath his borders

The Devil draws no lines.

If you drag his putrid tar sands

Nameless toxins you will find

And the fat trees of the forest

Have hid a thousand crimes,

And the calendar is lying

When it reads the present time.

[Chorus]

Oh here’s to the land you’ve torn out the heart of.

Stephan Harper: find yourself another country to be part of.

And here’s to the schools of Stephan Harper.

Where they’re teaching all the children

That they don’t have to care,

All the rudiments of hatred

Are present everywhere,

And every single classroom

Is a factory of despair.

There’s nobody learning

Such a foreign word as “fair.”

[Chorus]

And here’s to the laws of Stephan Harper.

Where the laws are set in secret,

Proroguing every day.

He punishes with income tax

That he don’t have to pay,

And he’s tapping his own brother

Just to hear what he would say.

But corruption can be classic

In the Stephan Harper way.

[Chorus]

And here’s to the churches of Stephan Harper (and Billy Graham).

Where the cross once made of silver

Now is caked with rust,

And the Sunday morning sermons

Pander to their lust,

And the fallen face of Jesus

Is choking in the dust,

And Heaven only knows

In which God they can trust.

[Chorus]

And here’s to the government of Stephan Harper.

In the swamp of their bureaucracy

They’re always bogging down,

And criminals are posing

As advisors to the crown,

And they hope that no one sees the sights

And no one hears the sounds,

And the speeches of the prime minister

Are the ravings of a clown.

[Chorus]

Make it happen Canada!

If assessed lower taxes do corporations create more jobs or just accumulate more wealth?  The first rule of corporate economics is that you do not use your own money for investment, you always borrow.  Profits are passed to corporate executives and shareholders.  Plant expansion, R & D, etc. (i.e. the stuff that creates jobs) is always financed with borrowed money.  Therefore the quick answer to whether the Tory corporate tax cuts will create jobs is no.

Will corporations flee to countries with lower tax rates?  If a corporation relocates to Mexico or to some other developing country is the tax rate the difference?  If it were then all corporations would flock to whichever country has the lowest taxes today.  Corporations would need to be constantly relocating until finally all states offered them full tax exclusion.  Our current corporate tax rate is half that of our southern neighbour.  Shouldn’t corporations should be flocking across the border as we speak.  And if corporate taxes existed nowhere, what then would tilt the scale to country A or country B?  The scenario is of course absurd.  Tax rates are a part of the equation but they are not the whole story.  Labour exploitation and increasingly weak or nonexistent environmental protection are more powerful incentives for at least manufacturing operations.

Okay, corporations are huge nasty bloodsuckers and no they probably don’t deserve a tax break but you and I do.  Right?  Why shouldn’t we be able to keep more of our paychecks.  Sometimes it seems that Ottawa and the provinces have their hands so deep in our pockets it may soon cross the line into something obscene.  If the government cut taxes I would have more money to spend.  Right?  Wrong!  If the government continues to cut taxes for you and I and the corporations you will have far less money to spend.

We pay taxes to the government for goods and services in return.  The Conservative plan is that we should pay less to the government for fewer services.  We cannot have it all.  The goods and services provided by the government cost money.  If government revenue declines then something has to go.  Health care?  Education?  Pensions?  What will it be?  The Conservative’s know this but say we can then purchase these services ourselves with the money we are no longer paying in taxes.  What they don’t tell you is that you will be paying more.  It is obvious if you just stop and think about it, which explains the Conservative gutting of education at both the provincial and federal level.  Wouldn’t want anybody out there with the capacity to think now would we.  I should maybe mention here that the Liberals are really Tories in red ties and have contributed almost equally to this overall misconception.  They may have less disdain for your intelligence than the Conservative party but they still work for corporate Canada, not you or I.

Let’s look at a practical metaphor.  I have to purchase a new toilet for my downstairs bathroom this year.  When I go to a plumbing supply store to buy one toilet I am going to pay full retail price.  I might get a small discount from one or another seller to entice me to purchase at his establishment rather than the one down the street.  But because I am only purchasing one unit the seller is limited in how much he can discount and still make a profit.  Profit is absolutely necessary for the seller to earn a living.  However, if one hundred of us got together because we all need a new toilet for our homes the seller’s latitude on price increases.  For a purchase of 100 units at the same time the discount can be much larger and the seller can still earn a living.  Everybody is happy.  As the number of purchasers increases, the price per unit can decrease.  This is basic economics.

Conservative policy wants us to each purchase what we need individually rather than collectively.  They say this is a saving.  In the case of policies like child care they actually tell us that this will lead to economic efficiencies.  What non sense.  Are the Conservatives just too simple to understand this basic principle of economics, the principle of economies of scale.  The Conservative party markets itself as the party of good business sense, the party of fiscal responsibility.  Either they are lying about this and they really are the party of business ineptitude or they are lying to the Canadian people that they are trying to save them money or as they put it keep more of your money in your pocket.  The opposite is the real truth.  Tory tax cuts will cut a deep swathe through not just your pockets but your savings and equity.

Political parties do not do things without reason and contrary to some popular opinion seldom do things out of sheer stupidity.  The Conservative party is not the party that will keep more of your hard earned money in your pocket.  Rather it is the party that will put more of your hard earned money into the pockets of their corporate friends.  Not only will corporations contribute less to the society and infrastructure upon which their profits depend but will receive a windfall in the extra profit from each of us lonely independent actors paying more for those services necessary to sustain our quality of life.  It is a win-win for corporations and a lose-lose for you.  Actually in recent years it has been a win-win-win for corporations — lower taxes, higher profits and a great big present of much of the money you gave to the government to buy services which they then never fully supplied because they diverted that money to their buddies on Bay Street.

The poll uncovered the other usual prejudices.  The poor are lazy, have lower moral standards, and any increase in benefits would discourage them from doing anything.  Most Canadians believe that if someone truly wants to work that they could find a job.  Of course the majority of the Canadians polled have likely not had to look for a job in the recent past.  Many of them I suspect are in my age bracket; too young to retire, too old to live a carefree life in my car.  Were my job to disappear tomorrow where would I go now.  Even ten years ago I might have had a competitive chance but at 58 (my current age) what employer would want to invest in me?

I still live in a working class neighbourhood (by choice, middle class people tend to bore me to the point of aggravation).  I see the struggles of some of my neighbours juggling more than one job often with unsympathetic employers who demand priority.  Any one of these are likely no more than three or four paycheques away from the streets.  The farther down the ladder one falls the more difficult the re-ascent.

We applaud corporations that cut costs by divesting themselves of full time permanent employees and then blame those same employees for their misfortune.  I suspect that most of this is just self deluding reassurance on our part.  It couldn’t happen to us.  There must be something wrong with those people.  If they had worked hard their employer could not have let them go.  My wife worked for years with a woman who believed she was indispensable to her employer.  She boasted with justification of being the hardest worker.  Both of them always met their production quotas and most times exceeded them.  Today neither of them have their high paying production jobs and neither will ever find another.  Both are crippled by the abuse of the plant and in their late 50s.  My wife is fortunate I have a good paying job with benefits and although it would be nice to have her $40,000 or so income coming in we live an opulent lifestyle compared to most of our friends.  Her friend from the plant is less fortunate and life is now a struggle with little to no option of retirement to rest her injuries.  Is she the architect of her own poverty?

All of us, myself included, are closer to poverty than we want to admit.  Such an admission would terrify most.  Today we are in the midst of a federal election.  Poverty is not even an issue.  Oh, the NDP and Liberals talk about pension reform for seniors ( a more sympathetic poverty group) but their programs will do little to help even that group.  The rest are left to struggle totally for themselves.  A couple of weeks ago I did my lecture on Pierre Trudeau’s Just Society.  In 1969 one in five Canadians lived in poverty.  The Just Society was to change that among other things.  But today the numbers remain virtually unchanged.  If anything they are higher.  Over the past several years food banks have reported ever increasing numbers of clients.   Those who have given up looking for employment fall unnoticed through the cracks.  When will we as a society finely do something to reverse this taint on our communal honour?

So when one of the party leaders arrives in your town over the next few weeks, tell him to pull his head out of his ass and look around at the reality of Canada.  This is fixable and it is time we did.

Today Remembrance Day has been hijacked by those who would support new unnecessary and counterproductive wars from Iraq to Afghanistan to the amorphous War on Terror.  The poppy is being made the symbol of those who romanticize war as a public good.  I will not join their number.  I will not be a hypocrit.  War is not romantic.  It is not glorious.  It is ugly and wasteful and a cancer upon human society that should be blotted out.  No one should support a war unless they admit the truth behind it.  I suspect that would be very difficult for most people.  How many Canadians would justify the murder of Afghan civilians or even partisan insurgents for the sake of controlling a pipeline route for our southern neighbour?  How many would say those who died to grease the wheels of cross-border trade were heroes?  Parents of the dead and injured must believe the fairy tales to cope with their loss.  But wouldn’t it be better to confront the truth before and have their children and siblings and parents with them still? 

This year I simply mourn.  Not just those whose lives were stolen in wars they were never allowed to fully understand, but those who they killed, who we all have killed.  I mourn the deaths of Afghan civilians and fighters.  I mourn the deaths of the children of Iraq.  I mourn the deaths of Palestinians as they are slowly exterminated in a genocide in which we are compliant.  I mourn the deaths of East Timorese whose killers were in part financed by Canadian taxpayers.  I mourn all those who have died unnecessarily for the greed of others.  And I mourn the poppy.  Murdered at the hand of those who have distorted its simple message and who now make its withered corpse dance to their beat.  If there ever was a death that I would not mourn it would be the deaths of these necromancers of war.  

John Kelly

The Web is a community.  Blogs are coffee shop conversations in a virtual reality.  They are the arguments, stories and laughter we share in a planetary cyber café.  Would the police have arrested Mr. Kelly, the accused in this case, if they had overheard him making similar remarks to some friends over cappuccino and biscotti?  I strongly suspect that the answer would be no.

The cornerstone of their case will be the obstruction of a peace officer in the execution of his duty of his duty.  This is a serious offence and certainly warrants criminal charges.  It is alleged that Mr. Kelly interfered with potential witnesses.  The Calgary Herald reports:

Much more than this should be necessary to charge someone with obstruction.  I fail to see how this would hamper police investigating a crime and so I expect police to explain to all of us clearly and concisely exactly how this action interfered substantially with their investigation.  .

In public service it is never enough to act correctly.  You must be seen to be acting correctly.  Perception is everything in the public domain.  This episode smacks of intimidation.  The CBC reports:

Why go to such lengths to uncover an obscure law?  It begins to sound like Calgary Police found Mr. Kelly to be a right pain in the ass and wanted to show him.   The Calgary Police do themselves or their fellow police services no favour by proceeding with this prosecution.  It makes us all wonder just what they have to be afraid of and unveils the lack of a real freedom in this country.  A revelation I would welcome far more than they.

An inquiry was certainly warranted if allegations were raised.  But in a democratic society that inquiry must be public.  We should not just now be finding out about this problem.  Why would the government not announce the inquiry at the time.  I am confident of the response that will come out once government officials begin their tap dance before the media.  It will all be ‘national security’.  It will all be bullshit.  There is absolutely nothing about an inquiry into the behaviour of our soldiers that will threaten this country or its citizens.  Do we think that the Afghans are unaware if our soldiers have tortured them or facilitated others to do so?  Are we afraid that the Taliban or other groups will torture our people if it becomes apparent we torture prisoners or tolerate others doing so?  Perhaps we think that the result might be terrorist attacks here.  What is it we are so afraid of.  Whenever the great ‘national security’ bogey man is evoked from the mists there is no effort to explain what that means.  It is a hollow threat to put us in our place.  We are being treated like children and frightened into not asking embarrassing questions.

The JTF 2 website contains the following statement:

Myth 11 – JTF 2 conducts activities outside the law.

Answer – All JTF 2 activities are conducted within the bounds of Canadian Law. Furthermore, the Government of Canada authorizes the overall missions and tasks undertaken by JTF 2, at all times. The unit is accountable to the Chief of the Defence Staff. The Chief of the Defence Staff is accountable to the Minister of National Defence who, as a Minister of the Crown, is responsible to the Prime Minister of Canada.

If that statement was made in good faith, and I have no reason to believe that it was not, then JTF 2 should want any investigation of their activities to be transparent.  It is not enough for a public organization to claim ethics it is imperative to be seen to be ethical.  A secret inquiry does not do justice to the service women and men of this unit.  If they have nothing to hide they will survive scrutiny under the light of day and be the better for it.  And it is imperative that we demand public oversight as ultimately you and I are responsible for their every action.  If we sit back and do not due our civic duty in holding our representatives to the highest possible standard then we are as guilty as they of any wrongdoing.

We pump up our chests and announce to the world that we govern ourselves.  Maybe we should drop the sanctimony and get down to the business of governing ourselves.

Conservatives are often the culprits in both countries though not exclusively as the reference to Clinton shows.  It is not really that the Liberals are all that chaste.  But Conservatives are always lecturing us to be choirboys, seemingly forgetting that being a choirboy can be hazardous to your virginity.

Some of us are old enough to remember the Gerda Munsinger Affair that scandalized the Conservative government of John Diefenbaker.  Apparently Gerda had done the rounds of the Conservative party leadership including the minister of defence.  She was rumoured to have connections to the East German secret police.  The story was disseminated in the early 1960s, likely by the Kennedy administration who worked tirelessly to oust poor old Dief and install the more likable (at least to Kennedy) Lester Pearson.

More recently there was the scandal over Maxime Bernier leaving secret documents at his girlfriend’s home.  Pundits at the time wondered why he would risk his political career by dating a  woman with biker connections who had once worked as an exotic dancer.  Ah! our intrepid media, a brain trust if there ever was one.  I can give you two very large reasons up front it you would like.  If the reporters don’t realize why they should talk to their cameramen because they always seemed to place the reason front and center.

I always knew Betty Davis eyes were a popular look but Sarah Palin hair?

Now we have the dynamic duo of scandal, Rahim Jaffer and wife Helena Guergis.  Allegations have been brought to the prime minister’s attention of some shenanigans by Ms. Guergis and she was asked to resign from cabinet and was at the same time expelled from caucus.  Although no official word has surfaced as to what specifically she is supposed to have done rumours abound.  The only observation I will make is that having a minister resign is a common tactic to ease pressure and embarrassment for the government.  But also expelling the member from caucus in one fell swoop is not an every day occurrence.  Whatever this is Harper must think it makes him and his government, which is the same thing, look really, really bad.  I can hardly wait I am so excited with anticipation.

In the meantime, let’s have a look at her husband Rahim Jaffer a former Conservative MP from Alberta, land of cold hearts and toxic waste.  Apparently, Mr. Jaffer was internalizing some toxic waste of his own last September when he was pulled over by Ontario police.  He was speeding, drunk and cocaine was found in his car.  In a plea bargain the more serious impaired and drug possession charges were dropped and he pled guilty to the lesser charge of careless driving.  Wait for it.  That’s not the best part.

The reason for pleading Mr. Jaffer down was the Crown’s decision that conviction was unlikely.  Why you might ask?  Well the Ontario Keystone Cops refused to let the man see his own lawyer on request and made the poor man get naked.  That’s right, naked.   Now I know we hear constantly in the media that there is a shortage of cops out there and the workload is getting pretty heavy.  Dalton McGuinty says these little slip ups will happen from time to time.  But really now, give these poor guys some R and R and let them see their wives and girlfriends once in a while.  We can’t have police roaming the highways looking for some unsuspecting speeder to fulfill their fantasies.

Now I could be interpreting this wrong.  After all I am reading it in a CBC report where the wording could be read another way.  The actual quote is “… repeatedly denying Jaffer access to his own lawyers and a strip search after he was pulled over on a rural road …”.  So was Jaffer asking for a strip search.  Maybe he’s thought the silhouette of his body in the moonlight would bring a soft sigh and a warning rather than arrest.  Either way our police need to find better ways to relieve the tension.  Perhaps that could be a new use for those tasers they are so fond of.

Of course, even if the Crown had moved forward on the cocaine charges Jaffer could have used Richard Hatfield’s defence.  Hatfield, then Conservative premier of New Brunswick, was found at Fredericton airport with a bag of marijuana in his luggage.  He denied it belonged to him and had the police dust the bag for prints.  When his weren’t found charges did not proceed.

So thank you for being consistent, Conservative party.  Hypocrisy is what you are best at.  Good thing cause you aren’t good for anything else.  The Liberals may be slimy, power-hungry spawn of Satan who would pimp their mother for a vote, but at least they admit it.  The Conservative choir may sing like angels but up close there cassocks smell of booze and stale sex.

Families of nine Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan were shown on the news yesterday visiting Kandahar and the memorial to the Canadians who have fallen in that conflict.  It was a touching moment.  Emotions played on the faces of the family members as they stood before the stone etchings of their son or daughter.  The media followed by interviews with a couple of the pilgrims who unanimously support the mission and support extending it if necessary.

What did the media expect them to say?  What else can they believe but that the mission is important and necessary in order to justify the sacrifice and the grief they have suffered?  The sudden loss of a loved one in a conflict half way around the world must stand for something or their grief would destroy them completely.  All families of fallen soldiers must believe the sacrifice had noble purpose or go mad.

This pilgrimage was a personal journey and should have remained so.  What purpose was served by the media presence?  To the families no purpose whatsoever.  But for the media and for the government the purpose is clear and as petty and self-serving as the reasons that drew us into this conflict in the first place.  Each group, media and government, are attempting to assuage their own guilt by maintaining the myth.  But we don’t need our government giving us myth we need the truth and we need the media to question that truth incessantly.  That is the role of the media.  I can almost forgive the government for lying to us.  In a poll in the United States a couple of years ago the American public admitted they preferred their government to lie to them.  A lie is often easier to deal with than the truth.  Besides governments are by nature secretive little entities.  So it is the media that bears the greatest guilt because it is their job to wake up the public to the truth before it is too late.

The evidence has been there from the beginning concerning our real purpose for deploying to Afghanistan.  Our neighbour, our closest ally and our friend the United States asked us to go so they could free up assets to deploy to their upcoming Iraq invasion.  We said yes because they are our neighbour, friend and ally and because we were in negotiations with them over a  number of cross border issues at the time.  The two most important were softwood lumber and border access following 9/11.  The United States has its own reasons for being there.  Chief among those are access to Kazakh oil and gas without having to ship through Russian territory.  There is also evidence of resources in some of the other Central Asian states as well.  Nothing about this mission has been about human rights or democracy or any of the other catch-phrases that allow us to sleep at night while murdering people half a world away.

But removing the Burka, routing out terrorists, building a modern society (aka. American society) and creating democracy raises pride to console the tears and makes the whole thing a little more bearable.  This war was never about that.  The Soviet backed government of Afghanistan that we worked so hard to topple, which led us to create the Taliban and Al Qaeda was a secular government that had outlawed the burka and encouraged women to engage fully as equals in society.  It was an American tactic to encourage Islamic fundamentalism among the mujaheddin as a way to gain popular support among village elders and traditionalists.  Following the collapse of the Soviet Union the United States and its western allies supported various groups in power in Kabul including the Taliban.  The Taliban were in close negotiations for a pipeline with the U.S. government and private firms such as Haliburton whose envoy to the Taliban was Dick Cheney.

Realpolitik is messy but it, not the spirit of humanity, motivates state actions.  No war has ever been fought for humanitarian reasons and none ever will be under our current international system.  Without a compelling selfish interest no state will risk its assets.  But without a higher moral purpose no democracy will sanction a foreign war.  Hence the lie.  We are manipulated to support something we really don’t understand.  We make it about nationalism just like the Nazis, the ultimate nationalists.  We, like them, take pride in the delusion that we are creating a better world; we, like them, believe we know the mind of god and it is consumerism.

The media knows this.  Instead it pretends as if it is too stupid to be able to assemble diverse evidence into a meaningful package and present a comprehensive report to the public.  That is news and the job of the news organization.  So we don’t have to research raw government documents and expert data on our own; or interview public figures and experts to tease out meaning; the  news media is to bring all this information together, plot its interactions and present us with understandable meaning .  Instead our newsrooms more resemble the Reichsministrie of Propoganda than the movie All the President’s Men.  Much of what is reported is lifted directly from press releases and the rest is assured not to ruffle the feathers of advertisers or their close buddies in government.

It is not just the loss that we experience in the Afghan debacle but where such complicity could lead that is of most concern. We are already experiencing a powerful move toward authoritarianism in our domestic society.  The anti-terrorism laws are only the prominent tip of the iceberg.  Whether police in Ontario charge people with a law that doesn’t exist in the statutes, shoot an innocent man (Dudley George) and then perjure themselves rather than take responsibility or the RCMP taser Robert Dziekanski in British Columbia and again lie in court or  resource companies invade and pollute your land in Alberta without allowing you recourse to protect it, the breakdown in trust between the agents of authority and the citizen continues apace.  Yet the media keeps its silence filling our minds with pleasant snippets and diversions rather than attacking the issues that will impact us most profoundly, if often without our notice until it is too late.  We ourselves must shoulder some of the blame for this.   Where are the crowds outside the major publishers and broadcasters demanding their right to know.

Individual reporters take shelter in their jobs.  They can only report what their editors, publishers and news directors allow.  It is there job.  That was the defence the Nazis used at Nuremburg as well.  We were just following orders.  We had our families to think of.  If not us someone else would have done it.  All true as far as it goes.  But it still boils down to one of two things.  Either they don’t stand up because they agree with maintaining the lie in which case they are complicit.  Or they fear the consequences of standing up and speaking their mind in which case they are cowards.  Those who are complicit I have no words of comfort for you.  May you soon be together in hell with your mentor Josef Goebbels.  To those who shrink from fear I have greater understanding.  But while you might be able to lie to the country you can’t lie to yourself.  You know the truth and you know your neighbours rely on you to make decisions.  Sometimes decisions concerning the life and death of those closest to them.

Each journalist must make their self assessment  and decide whether they are collaborators complicit in undermining the ethic of our society or cowards who to save their own skin let their neighbours suffer.  But shame on both for victimizing the families again to use them as a prop in your deceit.

NDP is often jokingly translated as the No Dissent Party or as meaning No Discernible Prospects.  While the latter is just a mean attack on their flagging fortunes it may be more related to the former than first glance reveals.  No Dissent necessarily means no new ideas and why would anyone vote for a party without ideas?  It is equally a wonder why the party would cling to the same old same old when it faces loss after loss.  No Dissent Party is not just a mean joke at the NDP’s expense but a legitimate description.  Of all the Canadian political parties the NDP is arguably the most dogmatic.  The Liberals and Conservatives stand for little beyond trying to get their man (usually) into the Prime Minister’s residence.  The Bloc has similar dogmatic problems to the NDP but these are sometimes softened by the coalition it needs must bring together around its special policy of getting Quebec the hell out of Canada.  To make a comment, ask a question, or worse actually make an argument at an NDP meeting that is not in lock step with the sanctioned view of the party establishment is to invite an atmosphere comparable to a commissar failing to clap long enough for Stalin or suggesting health care is a good thing at a Republican Party convention.  (I wanted to provide a metaphor from the Left and the Right lest any of my readers fall into the trap the only the Left becomes dogmatic.  It can happen to any political group).

To give you an example:  I attended the 1997 Ontario NDP Leadership convention in Hamilton Ontario as a Riding delegate.  The second evening I spent enjoying the benefits of free Scotch from a number of hospitality suites and conversing with fellow members of the party from across the province.  In one of these conversations the topic of open shops came up.  Only in Canada, Britain and the United States is the automatic check off system exclusively used.  This is called a closed shop because workers have no choice but to join the union if they wish to work at that ‘shop’.  In Europe an open shop system is used where workers choose not only whether or not to join the union but which union they want to join.  Their membership and the benefits of it continue even it they are unemployed.  I have always believed that the closed shop, automatic check off system was a mixed blessing.  Canada adopted it during the second world war in a deal between the union organizations of the time and the government.  While it benefits workers by making if very difficult to break a union or to set worker against worker, it also has a tendency to make unions complacent toward their membership and narrow in their outlook.  European unions are broader organizations and far more politically active and effective than North American unions who cannot see beyond the legalism of the contract.  Anyway such was what seemed a pleasant argument between two men well into their cups.

Little did I know that my conversation in its entirety would be reported to union and party delegates who would duly descend upon their minions within my own Riding group at the convention to set me straight.  Slightly hungover and badly needing more coffee I stumbled onto the convention floor the next morning oblivious to the ambush that awaited me.  Suddenly surrounded I was accused of being a dupe of corporations and anti-union.  I was told I did not know what socialism was (it apparently having been conclusively defined by the NDP without my awareness) and that I was damaging the party by having discussions like that of the night before even in  such a private setting as a hospitality suite of an NDP convention.  I suppose there might have been Liberal or Conservative spies present who might have used my words to undermine the prospects for the party to take power.  Considering the party has No Discernible Prospects I thought this fear a little far fetched.  The whole affair seemed to me to be over dramatic.  Again this was just a casual academic conversation over the pros and cons of two sides of an issues to pass the time fueled by liberal (oops. Oh my God! they were right see how it sneaks in) amounts of alcohol.  The idea of a plan to raise a resolution concerning the matter on the floor of the convention didn’t even exist.  We were killing time so we could continue to drink, nothing more.

My relationships within the Riding Association were permanently affected by this incident and  a couple of more like it.  Times when I just, erroneously, believed that I could question the status quo, explore new ground or freshen those things we had come to believe in for a long time by giving them a thorough examination at a meeting or in conversation with another member without being labeled a heretic and my motives and loyalties coming under suspicion.  The final break for me with the NDP came three years after the events described above when a rather innocent incident concerning a strike was twisted into an assault on me by someone who felt it appropriate to settle an unrelated personal grudge using the mechanisms of the party.

So today I avoid joining political organizations of all sorts.  It saddens me because I love the social interaction of people of like mind but I have yet to see one not fall victim to dogmatism, a set truth from which variance is discouraged.  The world is not a set place.  As I said above that which refuses to grow must die.  It is true for organizations as it is for human beings.

What the public needs to see is the evidence that could only be attained through the use of the enhanced police powers contained in the anti-terrorism laws and how that evidence directly prevented catastrophic loss of life.  Anything else is diversion.  Everything thus far released could have been achieved using standard police procedures.  Why then do we need the added tools of the anti-terrorism law.  That is what must be justified if those laws are to be extended. 

The weakness of the government’s arguments for maintaining the anti-terrorism laws is demonstrated by the mock explosion.  The only reason to include that footage is to terrorize the public.  Terrorism in service of preventing terrorism, there is a metaphor for the new millennium.  Scared and confused the electorate is prepared to accept whatever the government claims will safeguard them, whether it really will or not.  I am surprised that this footage was allowed in court as it is clearly irrelevant.  Whether you are planting a bomb capable only of cracking a ceramic pot or a nuclear device capable of taking out an entire city, you are still committing a crime.  What possible value could a demonstration of the blast from a particular size of explosive be in a trial to determine if these men were guilty of plotting a terrorist attack?  Would they have been less guilty if the explosion planned had been for instance half the size demonstrated.  Or is this the purpose of out anti-terrorism laws?  Are they needed so that the crown may enter irrelevant and inflammatory evidence in order to convict by hatred and anger rather than law.  If so, then it is a frivolous and dangerous justification. 

Eight years after the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington it is time to return to sanity and allow these over-reactions to pass into history.  In the wake of those events a terrified population lost track of what this country and western democracies are supposed to stand for.  Yes it is a dangerous world out there and yes we should be vigilant against those who would threaten our lives.  But in being vigilant let us not become vigilantes.  Let us remember that while law and individual rights and freedoms can leave us vulnerable to dangers, the dangers of a police state without rights are far greater.  In retrospect the chaos of Weimar was preferable to the order of the Third Reich.