“Information is the lifeblood of a democracy. Without adequate access to key information about government policies and programs, citizens and parliamentarians cannot make informed decisions and incompetent or corrupt governments can be hidden under a cloak of secrecy.”
Stephen Harper,
Montreal Gazette, 2005

Our March 13 posting this year, “Democracy? Stephen Harper’s nimbyism”, is an earlier reference to his 2005 comments in the Montreal newspaper. Check it out.

In the meantime of course, Stephen Harper is correct. But, do we really need to list all the ways and means he and the government he leads has stymied access to all manner of information, hiding “under a cloak of secrecy”?

Stephen Harper’s own words condemn him, his party, and the government he heads.

The 1980s British sitcoms, “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister”, were selected as among the top ten television programs of all time by the British Film Institute. Written by Sir Anthony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, with Paul Eddington as Jim Hacker, first a cabinet minister and later Prime Minister, Sir Nigel Hawthorne’s Sir Humphrey Appleby as his Permanent Secretary and then Cabinet Secretary, and Derek Fowlds’ Bernard Woolley as Hacker’s Principal Private Secretary, the series were not only hugely popular (fans included Margaret Thatcher), but were also the subject of university level dissertations.

The Globe and Mail’s Report on Business Magazine’s August 1992 edition gave a nod to the shows’ wit and wisdom under the title, “Ask and thou shalt receive”. The Globe article posited that polling results could easily be manipulated, and used a segment from a “Yes, Prime Minister” episode as an example.

Sir Humphrey’s insights into the fine art of polling came up in the context of National Service, or military conscription. The question: Would a so-called balanced sample of Britons who fairly represented the country’s demographic diversity agree to reinstate National Service? According to Sir Humphrey, it depended on how the question was posed, and he then illustrated by ‘interviewing’ Bernard Woolley, whose responses appear here in italics.

“Mr. Woolley, are worried about the rise in crime among teenagers? Yes. Do you think there is a lack of discipline and vigorous training in our schools? Yes. Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives? Yes. Do they respond to a challenge? Yes. Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service? Yes.”

“Well, naturally, I said yes,” Woolley admits. “One could hardly have said anything else without looking inconsistent.”

Then again, one might just as easily commission another poll, depending on one’s point of view.

“Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war? Yes. Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments? Yes. Do you think there’s a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill? Yes. Do you think it wrong to force people to take up arms against their will? Yes. Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service? Yes.”

“I’d said ‘Yes’ before I’d even realized it,” Woolley concedes.

Humphrey was crowing with delight. “You see, Bernard,” he said, “you’re the perfect balanced sample.”

………everywhere a poll poll!

So, the Conservative Party thinks that being prime minister is not an entry level job.  Well, it was for Stephen Harper, so why can’t it be for Justin Trudeau, Thomas Mulcair or Elizabeth May, too?

The current government has about 30% support among voters at the moment and that should embarrass them. It embarrasses us, but for different reasons. Perhaps one day, when lightning strikes the Peace Tower twice, a progressive thinking government will allow ranked balloting or proportional representation in this country. For now though, we have to play by the rules we’ve got.

turnoverarocktoday is making a small effort to fly its colours in enemy territory. We’ve picked finance minister Joe Oliver’s riding of Eglinton/Lawrence in Toronto as a battlefield worth contesting. The issues we address are humanitarian, a measure of the worth of a candidate’s moral compass. We are not supporting the views of any opponents of Mr. Oliver. We are asserting that Mr. Oliver is not qualified to sit in the House as a member of the Conservative Party under Stephen Harper.

Here’s the handout and mailer:

DO YOU SUPPORT
STEPHEN & THE CONSERVATIVES?

STAND IN FRONT OF A MIRROR
READ THIS

YOU SUPPORT A PARTY LED BY A MAN WHO BELIEVES
TORTURING TEENAGERS IS OKAY.

YOU SUPPORT A PARTY LED BY A MAN WHO DISMISSES
THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF OUR TIME……
…….CLIMATE CHANGE.
NOW
LOOK UP

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE PERSON LOOKING BACK AT YOU?

IT’S LONG PAST TIME STEVE AND HIS FRIENDS ARE
OUT OF GOVERNMENT
OUT OF OTTAWA
OUT OF CANADA

turnoverarocktoday.com
& the give-a-damn team

Rob Ford’s tenure in Toronto’s mayor’s office did us all one big favour.  He proved the argument we and others like us have been making for decades:  electing someone to an office is not always the best option.

“A sobering look at Canada’s human-rights record” Globe and Mail, op-ed, July 10, 2015 
Alex Neve, Secretary-General, Amnesty International Canada

“Report slams Canada’s human rights record” The Toronto Star, July 24, 2015
Donovan Vincent, staff reporter

“UN report details failings in Canada’s human-rights record” Globe and Mail, July 24
Stephanie Levitz, Ottawa bureau

“Canada should heed UN’s human rights warning” The Toronto Star, op-ed, July 24
Renu J. Mandhame, University of Toronto, international human rights program

As a signatory to the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Canada is subject to periodic reviews of its human rights record. One recently concluded, the first in 10 years, was conducted by a committee drawn from countries around the world, including Britain’s Sir Nigel Rodley, a law professor and chair of the Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex. “This is not the Canada I once knew,” was his comment after six hours of back-and-forth over two days between the UN committee and a sizeable Canadian contingent from various federal departments and the province of Quebec.

Canada is not among the worst violators in the world of course, and reviews include all countries who are a party to the covenant. Signatories are obliged to protect all rights, and there’s an expectation that a country with the resources like ours would set a high example for others to follow. That is not the picture that emerged.

The July 23rd final report raises concerns about discrimination under the federal Indian Act, makes many references to the Anti-Terrorism Act Bill C-5l, points to a failure to recognize and protect aboriginal land rights, and decry’s the direction Canada is taking with cuts to health care for refugees. Canada still appears dismissive of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and, our representatives were clear that we have no human-rights responsibilities for Canadian mining companies operating abroad.

The list goes on: ignoring requests from the UN to delay troubling cases of deportation pending thorough examinations, making no commitment for human-rights talks with governments across Canada for the first time since 1988 in order to ensure implementation of international obligations, an unwillingness to hold a public inquiry into murdered and missing aboriginal women, homelessness, torture, pay equity, prison conditions, police conduct, Canadian Revenue Agency investigations of political activity of charities, and more. It was difficult to find a serious social issue that had not come up. Some research pointed to high levels of fear and intimidation Canadian activists felt on the freedoms of assembly and association.

The government’s response through Foreign Affairs is to say, “We are proud of our human-rights record at home and abroad.”

Don’t laugh. They mean it.