#Harper’s #DumpsterFire: #Despotism vs #Democracy (Explained in 1946) #cdnpoli #elxn42

Since it is early morning on the 42nd Election, 2015 Edition, we felt it may be in our best interest as a Nation to review an “Old Stock” educational film that explains the differences between Despotism and Democracy to encourage everyone to think really hard before traveling to the polls. We would like to especially deliver this to the “undecided” potential conservative voters that may, or may not, grasp the importance of placing their Country above the Harper Regime’s ideology. In other words, it may be worth considering the option of falling on your swords with dignity today with honour as opposed to casting your kids and grand-kids futures under the ReformaCon bus while falling under another’s sword in disgrace. Below you will find the video that we have uploaded via our ytube channel followed by the transcripts for those that may like to read along or have trouble viewing as it has been rumoured that this is being blocked in Canada. As always, we encourage sharing and commenting…

---

#Harper’s #DumpsterFire: #Despotism vs #Democracy (Explained in 1946) #cdnpoli #elxn42

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YxkyF3CgY4

---

Despotism

by Encyclopaedia Britannica Films
Published: 1946
Usage: Public Domain
Topics: Political science

Measures how a society ranks on a spectrum stretching from democracy to despotism. Explains how societies and nations can be measured by the degree that power is concentrated and respect for the individual is restricted. Where does your community, state and nation stand on these scales?

The companion Encyclopedia Britannica Film “Democracy” can be found here.
Run time: 11:00
Producer: Encyclopaedia Britannica Films
Audio/Visual:sound, B&W

Shotlist

Illustrates the thesis that all communities can be ranged on a scale running from democracy to despotism. The two chief characteristics of despotism — restricted respect and concentrated power — are defined and illustrated. Two of the conditions which have historically promoted the growth of despotism are explained and exemplified. These are a slanted economic distribution and a strict control of the agencies of communication.

The end of World War II gave impetus to the “one-worlder movement.” Sparked by the sense that nationalism engendered conflict, this movement for world government viewed nationhood as a relic made obsolete in an age of economic interdependence and rapid air transportation. The movement was marked by the release of films calling for world government, such as Man: One Family; We, the Peoples; Brotherhood of Man; and Our Shrinking World, and exposing the nature of fascist and authoritarian rule.

Despotism treats the idea of nationhood differently than most other educational films. It sees nations not as static entities but dynamically, moving towards democracy or despotism as conditions change. This outlook doesn’t mesh well with old cliches about patriotism and democracy, because it doesn’t necessarily see the American system as democracy’s highest achievement.

Despotism offers a number of indicators by which the degree of democracy or despotism in a society can be measured, using a sliding, thermometer-like animated scale. According to an article in The New York Times (March 16, 1946), an advisory board of educators debated for eighteen months (at seventy-five conferences) over the definition of the terms “democracy” and “despotism,” the titles of the two films released at the same time. Finally, a compromise was reached, resulting in the “respect scale” and the “power scale” that we see in Despotism.

So how does our own system measure up? The film becomes a little frightening as we consider where we stand with regard to indicators like economic distribution, concentration of land ownership, regressive taxation and centralized control of information. Draw your own conclusions.

---

[Despotism. An Erpi Classroom Film. Produced by Encyclopaedia Britannica Films, Inc. in collaboration with Harold D. Lasswell, Ph.D., Yale University. Copyright MCMXLV by Encyclopaedia Britannica Films Inc. All rights reserved. main titles graphic design art cards]

You can roughly locate any community in the world somewhere along a scale running all the way from democracy to despotism. One at the democracy end, another somewhere in the middle, and a third (inaudible). [rotating globes rulers animation graphs charts measurement quantification scales measures points pointers]

Let’s find out about despotism. This man makes it his job to study these things. “Well for one thing, avoid the comfortable idea that the mere form of government can of itself safeguard a nation against despotism. [maps charts wallcharts professors academics commentators authorities]

Germany under President Hindenburg was a republic. And yet in this republic an aggressive despotism took root and flourished under Adolf Hitler. [maps flags art cards swastikas animation James Brill narrators]

When a competent observer looks for signs of despotism in a community, he looks beyond fine words and noble phrases.” “. . . for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.” [saluting flag pledge of allegiance flags hands over hearts lynchings hangings gallows capital punishment condemnation death murder ropes nooses]

“Many observers have found that two workable yardsticks help in discovering how near a community is to despotism. The respect scale and the power scale. [goal variables charts graphs posters pointing fingers]

A careful observer can use a respect scale to find how many citizens get an even break. As a community moves towards despotism, respect is restricted to fewer people. [shared fairness equality]

A community is low on a respect scale if common courtesy is withheld from large groups of people on account of their political attitudes; if people are rude to others because they think their wealth and position gives them that right, or because they don’t like a man’s race or his religion. [drugstores soda Palmer Pharmacy pharmacies prescriptions candy cosmetics Scarlet Stores pedestrians people walking sidewalks storm troopers goons fascists military uniforms SA men SS men brownshirts brown shirts Nazis Sam Browne belts leather boots spectators Good Germans Jewish people Jews anti-Semitism antisemitism racism prejudice bigotry private doors offices bosses employers management class chauvinism classism For a quiet, restful vacation. Camp Gentilhomme on the Lake. Reservation Blank.

Gentlemen: Enclosed please find $ — deposit for my party of: name, address, date of arrival, religion. We solicit Gentile patronage only. Are there any Hebrews in your party? Yes or no. I hereby swear that the above statements are true. Signed application blanks pencils pointing]

Equal opportunity for all citizens to develop useful skills is one basis for rating a community on a respect scale. The opportunity to develop useful skills is important but not enough. [schools colleges universities lawns trees graduates steps stairs mothers cap and gown mortarboards parental pride pictures snapshots photography parents diplomas]

The equally important opportunity to put skills to use is a further test on a respect scale. [newspapers jobs applications employment offices unemployment work lines employment agencies]

A power scale is another important yardstick of despotism. It gauges the citizen’s share in making the community’s decisions. Communities which concentrate decision making in a few hands rate low on a power scale and are moving towards despotism. Like France under the Bourbon kings, one of whom said, “The state – I am the state.” [shared concentrated political power democracy equestrian statues horses statuary public art]

Today democracy can ebb away in communities whose citizens allow power to become concentrated in the hands of bosses. “What I say goes. See, I’m the law around here. Ha ha ha.” [government buildings smoke fires political power Tammany Hall machines laughs laughing newspaper reporters press]

The test of despotic power is that it can disregard the will of the people. It rules without the consent of the governed. [Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776 booklets opening inserts printed pieces In Congress, the unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.]

Look beyond the legal formalities of an election in measuring a community on the power scale to see if the ballot is really free. [fascists Nazis elections voting booths rigged storm troopers soldiers terrorism voters crosses hats uniforms Sam Browne belts hats control]

If the citizens can vote only the way they are told, a community approaches despotism.

When legislatures become ceremonial assemblies only, and have no real control over lawmaking, their community rates low on a power scale. “Sieg Heil. Sieg Heil.” [Germany Third Reich Nazis Adolf Hitler swastikas ceremonies applause clapping newsreels salutes fascists fascism]

In a downright despotism, opposition is dangerous whether the despotism is official or whether it is unofficial. [signs fences concentration camps Camp 33 for Political Offenders political prisoners prisons prison camps hoods hanging nooses ropes executions deaths capital punishment condemned people murder flames fires burning crosses Ku Klux Klan terrorism hoods racism]

“The spread of respect and power in a community is influenced by certain conditions which many observers measure by means of the economic distribution and information scales.” [instrumental variables]

If a community’s economic distribution becomes slanted, its middle income groups grow smaller and despotism stands a better chance to gain a foothold. [balanced distribution of wealth money affluence poverty]

Where land is privately owned, one sign of a poorly balanced economy is the concentration of land ownership in the hands of a very small number of people.

When farmers lose their farms they lose their independence. This one can stay on, but not as his own boss any more. To the extent that this condition exists throughout a nation, the likelihood of despotism is increased. [couples men women John J. Shea v. Walter Leeds.

Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale. mortgages fingers pointing United States maps animation]

In communities which depend almost entirely on a single industry, such as a factory or mine, maintaining economic balance is a challenging problem. [company towns monopolies smokestacks factories animation]

If this condition exists over the nation as a whole, so that the control of jobs and business opportunities is in a few hands, despotism stands a good chance. Another sign of a poorly balanced economy is a taxation system that presses heaviest on those least able to pay. [animation money graphs wealth national revenue large incomes small incomes regressive taxation]

A larger part of a small income is spent on necessities such as food. Sales taxes on such necessities hit the small income harder. [pie charts pie graphs large income small income]

In the days of the salt tax, feudal despotisms were partly sustained by this and other (inaudible). [historical recreations Colonial North America taxation without representation]

A community rates low on an information scale when the press, radio, and other channels of communication are controlled by only a few people and when citizens have to accept what they are told. In communities of this kind, despotism stands a good chance. [uncontrolled media monopolies monopolization oligopolies Time Warner Disney ABC Capital Cities Westinghouse CBS NBC General Electric Fox News Corporation Turner CNN critical evaluation automatic acceptance]

See how a community trains its teachers. “Bear this in mind. Young people cannot be trusted to form their own opinions. This business about open-mindedness is nonsense. It’s a waste of time trying to teach students to think for themselves. It’s our job to tell ’em.” [lecturers mental discipline drill classrooms agreement nodding heads manufacturing consent consensus]

And when teachers put such training into practice, despotism stands a good chance. These children are being taught to accept uncritically whatever they are told. Questions are not encouraged. [students conformity conditioning brainwashing writing learning education]

“How can you ask such a question? Have you got a textbook?” “Yes Ma’am.” “Does it say here that our law courts are always just?” “Yes Ma’am.” “Then how dare you question the fact? Sit down.”

And so we aren’t surprised when – “But it must be true. I saw it in this book right here.”

And if books and newspapers and the radio are efficiently controlled, the people will read and accept exactly what the few in control want them to. Government censorship is one form of control. [Ministry of Propaganda plaques signs doors windows Internal Censorship censors rubber stamps passed by censor deletions blue pencils manuscripts]
A newspaper which breaks a government censorship rule can be suspended. It is also possible for newspapers and other forms of communication to be controlled by private interests. [The Daily Citizen press control proclamations This Newspaper is Suspended editors journalists newspaper offices Advertising Manager Mgr.]

“I thought I told you to kill that story. It’ll cost us a lot of advertising.” “If that story goes out, I quit.” “All right.” [firings]

What sort of community do you live in? Where would you place it on a democracy/despotism scale? To find out, you can rate it on a respect scale and a power scale. And to find out what way it is likely to go in the future, you can rate it on economic distribution and information scales. [cities wipes]

The lower your community rates on economic distribution and information scales, the lower it is likely to rate on respect and power scales and thus to approach despotism.

What happens in a single community is the problem of its own citizens, but it is also the problem of us all because as communities go, so goes the nation. [animation United States]

[Encyclopaedia Britannica Films Inc. Bring the World to the Classroom. end titles]

Politics, Political science, Democracy, Despotism, Dictatorship, Censorship, Newspapers, Rubber stamps, Freedom of the press, Communism, Germany (Nazi) Third Reich, Students, Teachers, Political Indoctrination, Propaganda, Mass communications, Animation Graphic design Cartoons, Animation Scales (sliding), Information (visual), Surrealism, Capitalism, Economics

 

screen reader text

continue reading source: https://archive.org/details/Despotis1946

 

---

Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca

• Share: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/
• Follow: https://twitter.com/opHarper
• Join: https://www.facebook.com/groups/dumpharper/
• Like: https://www.facebook.com/DumpHarper
• Read: http://paper.li/opHarper/1330339678
• Watch: https://www.youtube.com/user/opharper

---

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

Harper Democracy vs Putin Democracy

This week in the Netherlands, Stephen Harper loudly decried the actions of the Putin government in Russia. He said that it was bad that the Russians were blocking a number of MPs from coming into Russia, but that one of the members of that group was denied entry because he was Ukrainian. He thought that was even worse if I understood his statement correctly.

I have to agree with Steve here. I think it is wrong to block someone or a group from doing a fact finding mission or even just a visit because of their ethnicity or because they are members of a foreign government that is currently at odds with the Russian government. If the Russians want to send a group to say oversee one of our elections, I say let ‘em in. I’d be curious what they’d have to say about how we do things versus how they do things.

But Steve is being a tad hypocritical here.

Let me explain. In the House of Commons, a Bill to change some of the rules that govern our elections is currently in Committee. A number of people who want to speak to the Bill are being denied the opportunity, not based on ethnicity, but because of their politics.

Elizabeth May (the Leader of the Green Party), as well as members of the Bloc Quebecois, and Independent Members of the House of Commons are being denied the opportunity to question witnesses or even speak to the matter of the so called Fair Elections Act. The Opposition Parties, the NDP and the Liberals are willing to hear Elizabeth May’s words, but the Harper Party, the majority on the Committee are not.

Basically the Harper Party is telling Elizabeth May and those other MPs “We don’t like your politics, you can’t speak here.” How different is that from the Russians telling Canadian MPs that they don’t like our politics, so those MPs should just bugger off?

Not very different at all.

The people who live in the ridings represented by these Democratically elected Members of Parliament are being denied a voice on this Bill. Not very Democratic at all, is it?

No, it appears that the Harper Party’s view of Democracy is not all that different than that of the Putin Party. We’ll get on fine as long as you recognize that everything We say is right, and everything You say is wrong.

The Russian backed referendum in Crimea echoes what we see in the House of Commons on a regular basis. The Crimean referendum was whipped up and voted on in record time. There was no debate, there was no questioning the referendum, the question put to the Crimean people was ludicrous…

Crimea should join the Russian Federation:___
Crimea should declare independence :___

What if you wanted Crimea to maintain its ties with the Ukraine?

Shut up, we don’t like your politics, you can’t vote here.

Back here in Ottawa, the Fair Elections Act was sprung on the House in a similar matter, rushed through to Second Reading and had Time Allocation slapped on it before anyone really had time to take a breath.

A new record?

No, a tired old record played over and over again by Lord Stephen and his Party of Minions.

The imposition of Time Allocation took away the right of the Members of the Green Party, the Bloc, and the independents to speak to the bill while it was at Second Reading. Again, Democracy denied to those people who sent the wrong Party to the House.

Oh, but didn’t Elizabeth May give a speech at Second Reading? Yes she did, but only because the Liberal Party donated the time to her. The Harper Party doesn’t want to hear what she has to say.

Maybe Steve and Vlad should sit down and have a nice chat. I’m sure they’d both be surprised by how much they have in common. Steve likes fishing and Vlad is a hunter, they both adore photo ops and like to be seen in action pictures (with guns–thankfully Steve keeps his shirt on though), and they both like to railroad things through and then look surprised when people challenge their methods.

Hmmmm.

Now before I sign off, if anyone wants to rant about how evil the West is in terms of the Ukraine and try and make the Russians look good, let me put it this way… both sides have dirty hands in this, you can’t see a White Hat anywhere when it comes to the situation in the Ukraine and Crimea. The ones that are going to be hurt are the everyday people of those regions, the ones that go to work, pay their taxes, and try to make ends meet.

Kind of like how we’re going to pay the price when the “Fair” Elections Act gets rammed through here.

TTFN, BC

Elizabeth May, Fair Elections, and the Bear (Oh, My)

‘Mr. Speaker, the crisis in Canadian democracy is not that Canadians are voting more than once but that they are voting less than once. And this bill will… increase cynicism.’   Elizabeth May, February 10th in the House of Commons Debate on Bill C-23, the Fair Elections Act

After the last few Federal Elections, I was involved in more than a few conversations about elections and how to increase voter turnout.  We talked about various ideas that we had come across that people thought would increase voter turnout.

These ideas ranged from penalizing people who did not vote, such as they do in Australia to rewarding people who do vote with tax breaks or otherwise.  We discussed the reasons that people don’t vote and tried to think of ways that people could be encouraged to vote.

Bill C-23 does nothing to encourage voting and it does nothing to make voting easier.  It does the contrary.  The Harper Party defenders of this bill keep saying that there are 39 pieces of information that can be used to allow you to vote.  What they don’t tell you is that if you are living with someone else, such as your parents, or if you are elderly, or if you are a student living in a dormitory, you may not have access to most of these pieces of information.

But as Elizabeth May points out, the real issue is that not enough people are making the effort to vote.

But how do you counter people who think their vote doesn’t matter?  It does matter, there are elections decided by a small number of votes every election.

It is your right and it should be your duty to vote in any election that you are allowed to vote in.  There are people fighting and dying for the privilege of voting all over the world.  But that doesn’t mean anything to some people.

But what is hard to defend is when an elected Member of the House of Commons cannot rise to speak to this bill simply because they are a Member of the House.  Because of the imposition of time allocation, only the three main parties were allowed to speak to the bill.  The only reason that Elizabeth May, MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands, Leader of the Green Party (a recognized federal political party) was able to speak was that the Liberal Party gave some of their allotted time to Ms. May.

How do you encourage people to vote when the people that they elect are not allowed to speak in the House of Commons?

You can’t. 

And that is a huge part of the problem.  Even if you do vote, your Member of Parliament will likely not be able to represent your interests anyway.  They vote the Party Line and unless they are selected to be a Minister or a Critic in the House, they don’t get much of a chance to say anything at all.  When the government decides to impose “Time Allocation” which is a polite way of saying “Closure” on a bill, your MP gets shoved even further back into the corner… even if they are the Leader of the Green Party.

This is why I keep hammering at the fact that “Democracy” is not limited to the day we cast our ballots, nor is it limited to the 30 days prior to that.

Democracy is the whole ball of wax.  Voting is part of it.  Debate and discourse is part of it.  The Media should be part of it, that is if the government will answer their questions.  And the House of Commons is supposed to be part of it too.

Every Member who wishes to speak in debate on a bill must have the right to speak, even if they are not the Official Critic or Minister or Party Leader. 

They are hired to be our voices in the House of Commons.  Any steps to stop them from speaking are decidedly UNdemocratic.  Time Allocation and Closure do have their place in the House of Commons, but only if it is a dire situation where we need to have legislation passed quickly.  Budget bills and C-23 don’t fall into this category.

If we want people to vote, maybe we should allow our Members to speak, all of them, to any bill that affects their constituents.  If people see this, they might be more inclined to pick one, instead of letting people like me vote for them.

Elizabeth May gets this.  It’s too bad the Harper Party does not.

*Random Thought*

When news came out that the Liberals had given some of their valuable time to Elizabeth May to speak on Bill C-23, some in the media were surprised.  I wasn’t.  Elizabeth May is a very smart person and a very effective speaker.  She doesn’t smother us or the House with bafflegab, the favourite of some in the House.  She speaks clearly to the issue in ways that most of us can understand, unless we wear Blue Sweater Vests I guess.

*Random Thought 2*

While Ms. May and I may not see eye to eye in all things, we are on the same page when it comes to Democracy.  Of all the people who sit on the Hill, she is one of the few that I wouldn’t mind having coffee with.

That’s meant to be a compliment, I hope you take it that way Ms. May.

BC

Election Reform, The Railroad Job.

I had a bit of a funny pass through my Facebook News Feed today.

It was a cartoon of a bunch of people in a room, and the caption was something like… Quick, Canadians are all watching the Olympics, let’s talk about election reform.

I snickered not just because it was funny, and I thought it was funny, but because it was true.  The sad part is the joke is being played on us.

I have some qualms about some of the items in the 247 page bill that Pierre Poilievre dropped on the House just the other day, but there is some good in there as well.  My biggest issue is in the way this bill was presented and the “debate” that has followed it in the House of Commons.

Some of the members in the House have said that traditionally, a bill of this importance would have been discussed by all the Parties in meetings or committees and that each Party would have the opportunity to have their input and hear the reasoning behind what the government was proposing be in there.  There would probably have been invitations to people involved like the Head of Elections Canada and others who are knowledgeable about our electoral system.  None of this happened.

Poilievre says that he had a meeting with Marc Mayrand, the Head of Elections Canada to which Mr. Mayrand and Elections Canada said never happened.  Apparently they did meet, but that was some time ago and it sounds like that meeting was not considered a discussion of what should be in this bill, according to Mr. Mayrand, but rather a more general discussion about how elections should be run and possible changes.

Think about it.

The bill was introduced by Poilievre on February 5^th at 3:30 pm and the ensuing debate lasted until about 5:30 pm.

By 1:10 pm On February 6^th, the very next day, Peter Van Loan rose to move that Time Allocation be applied to the bill and by 6:15 pm on the 10^th, the bill passed Second Reading and went to committee.  The government wants the bill back in the House by March 1^st.

It doesn’t seem very Democratic to me.

The Harper Party is telling us that Democracy is only 30 days long and happens every 4 years or so during the election period.  They have it wrong.

The vote is not Democracy.

The Election is not Democracy.

The campaign is not Democracy.

These are all parts of it, but no one thing is Democracy.

The Harper Party side seems to believe that once the votes are counted, that the winning side no longer has any responsibility to act Democratically.  What they don’t get is that the people that we elected are our representatives and it is their duty to ask questions that are pertinent on our behalf.  The shortened timeframe made it almost impossible for any of us to digest what is in the bill and to let our Parliamentarians know our feelings and to have our input considered in the House.  And heaven forbid that your MP is a Harper Party member, unless you side with him or her all you’ll get is lip service if you’re that lucky.

The way our Democracy is supposed to work is that a Prime Minister selects people who will make up his Cabinet.  That group is called “the government”.  Everyone else is a Private Member.  The government’s job is to produce legislation and the Members debate the bills.  They are supposed to hold the government accountable.

It is not supposed to be Blue Team, Orange Team, Red Team, and so on.  It is supposed to be People making the government prove its case that a bill is a good one.

I almost laughed when I scanned the “debate” on the Election Reform bill and saw none other than Ted Opitz stand up to laud the actions of the government to end vouching.  You may remember Ted took his case to the Supreme Court to avoid losing his seat after a court threw out a number of votes, enough votes to call the outcome of the election into question… not because there were “vouched for” votes but because the paperwork wasn’t properly filled out.

Didn’t we send Ted to the Ukraine to oversee the elections there too? *sigh*

This isn’t a case of passing legislation.  It’s a Blessed railroad job.

We don’t know who thought up these proposed changes other than Poilievre brought it to the House.  Most of us have no inkling of what these changes really mean, and that includes the people sitting in the House voting on it.

Most of us know that when things get rushed they tend to get messed up.  That goes for baking a cake or bringing in laws.

Poilievre had 18 months to talk with the Opposition, with elections experts, with everyday people… but he chose not to.  Instead he has chosen to ram who knows who’s ideas of what the reforms should be through the House using the same tools they foist on us every time (it seems) they want something passed.

If I make it sound like this is pretty much a done deal, I think it is.  We’ve seen in the past when the Harper Party has rushed bills through the House.  When they get to Committee any attempts at amendments are shot down without any real debate.  That and the enormous amount of time these Committees spend in camera… behind closed doors.

Yes we’ve seen this, even to the point where the Harper Party realized that a proposed amendment that they killed was necessary and order the Senate to amend the bill for them.  Rush jobs.

I’m reminded of a sign I saw in a computer shop.  “You can have it fast.  You can have it cheap.  You can have it right.  Choose any Two.”

Looks like the cutbacks have hit this sign too.  The only thing we’re going to get is fast.  Until the lawyers get hold of it, and it certainly won’t be cheap.

And guess who gets to pay the tab.

Think about it. BC

Some (More) Musings on Canadian Democracy

Let me get on my soap box so you can see me better. I ask that you hold your questions until the end… I can’t promise to answer all your questions or comments but I can assure that I will read them and consider them…

Friends and neighbours, I’d like to speak for a bit on a subject very dear to me, a subject I feel is very important to all of us, the subject of Democracy.

Now I don’t plan on going into a long winded explanation of how we got Democracy from the Greeks or how it was used throughout the ages, I’m just going to touch upon Canadian Democracy.

Our Democracy.

I came across an item while I was looking for something else about how Members of Parliament, prior to the Second World War, were required to surrender their seat in the House of Commons and run in a by-election if they were deemed worthy to be a member of Cabinet.

This intrigued me. Imagine, after winning an election the newly minted Prime Minister comes to you and says “I’d like you to be my Minister of …” and then you’d have to decide whether you wanted to be in Cabinet.

Today it would be a no brainer, a pay raise, a larger staff, a title, it all sounds good doesn’t it? But back then you’d have to decide if you wanted the headaches and hassle of running again for the seat that you had just won, and the risk that you might lose.

Why would they do such a thing?

It was tradition, it was the convention, it was done that way because that was the way it was done.

But this wasn’t some strange idea that Canadians dreamed up to complicate running a Country, it was in fact part of the Westminster Parliamentary system. This was and is the system we inherited from Britain when we became a Country in our own right.

At that time, the Parties didn’t have as much control over the individual or Private Members of the House of Commons. An MP’s job was to represent their constituency and to hold the Government to account. The Government being the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.

Now if you’ve ever watched Question Period from the House in London, you may have seen vestiges of this. Occasionally a Member from the Government Side of the House will rise to ask a pointed question about policy or a proposed law which would not be a good thing for their home constituency. As a Private Member, you have the ability to challenge the Government, as a Member of Cabinet, you do not.

You see as a Minister you are required to support any policy or legislation that the Government brings forward even if you think it is a bad idea, even if it is bad for your constituency.

So there was merit in having these by-elections back then. If the people supported Bob Brown because they thought he would do a good job of representing them even if he belonged to the wrong party, the people could toss Bob out and elect someone else if they didn’t like the Party he was affiliated with, the Government he would be representing.

But things certainly have changed. At least here they have.

It certainly is a rare event to hear an MP stand up to his or her own Party. It’s political suicide. At best you’d likely lose any status you have built up with the Party and be a back bencher for life, and at worst you might have your seat taken away and a new candidate parachuted in to replace you. Today you cannot run for the Party of your choice unless the leader of the Party signs your nomination papers so it is best to keep the leader happy if you want to be an MP.

So whatever happened to this odd rule? Well after a number of minority governments in the 1920s, it just disappeared in the 1930s.

You see this wasn’t a law that you had to run in a by-election, it wasn’t even a real rule. It was merely a convention, like saying “Thank you” or “You’re welcome”, you don’t Have to say these things, but we generally do anyway… it’s the way things are done.

Many of the “rules” we have in our Parliamentary system are just conventions. It’s part of the way our Democracy works.

Have you ever wondered why when the Speaker of the House is selected, they are escorted to the Speaker’s Chair by the leaders of the Government and the Opposition? Have you ever wondered why they pretend they don’t want the job?

It’s part of the same thing. Traditionally the Speaker was chosen from the Opposition side to weaken the Opposition and to show that the Speaker holds no favouritism to the Government. The Speaker also surrenders their ability to speak for their constituents in the House.

The use of the prorogue is another example. Traditionally the prorogue was used by the Government to show that they have met the goals they set out in the Throne Speech and to provide a break with which to draw up a new set of goals and a new Throne Speech. Often a prorogue would be called when there is a normal break scheduled for the Legislature. This would give the Government plenty of time to set a new agenda, but there are also examples of short breaks as well, such as a prorogue in Ontario’s Provincial Parliament that lasted only a few hours.

It’s kind of handy for historians too. A prorogue can break up a Parliament into Sessions, so if you are looking for a specific item, you wouldn’t have 4 or 5 years worth of information to go through, but only 2 or 3. You could look for the 42nd Parliament, 2nd Session for example.

However, the prorogue has also been abused, used as a “get out of trouble card” if a Government is having a bad go of it.

Jean Chrétien prorogued Parliament during the Sponsorship Scandal, but he was on his way out as Liberal leader and Paul Martin could very well have used the same tool to set his agenda as he was coming in to replace Chrétien.

Stephen Harper has also used the prorogue to get out of trouble twice so far. Once when the opposition parties were lining up to bring down his minority government and then again when the Afghan detainee situation was threatening to boil over. Lately Harper has said he will prorogue again this summer, he claims it is so he can set a new agenda, but the Senate Scandal that is knocking at his door suggests other motives are at play.

Listen, as a people we have seen some great changes in our electoral system. We have gone from a show of hands at a local beer hall to the secret ballot. We have gone from a time when only men of wealth or property were the only ones who could vote to a time where virtually all citizens have the right to vote and there are not a lot of places that can say that.

But, while our electoral system has been improved, our governance has gone the other way. Our individual MPs , our voices in the House are for the most part muzzled. If you want to be more than a backbencher for your political career you pretty much have to toe the Party line and that rings true for pretty much all the parties, but even more so for some.

I would love to see at least one backbencher on the Harper side of the House stand up and say “No” to limiting debate, to say “No” to omnibus legislation.

We need our MPs to have voices again and not just parrot the party line regardless which party is handing out the talking points.

So how do we do this? I don’t know.

I don’t even know If we can do this.

We have seen the gradual diminishment of the MP to the point where they are little more than place markers in the House of Commons. After we find out how many seats each party won, we don’t need ‘em any more.

The power in Ottawa appears to be getting so concentrated that we may not even need a Cabinet any more other than to reward good MPs for reading their talking points and not being an embarrassment to the Government. It seems all they do is read their talking points anyways, and that includes the Cabinet Ministers.

Short of pointy sticks or cattle prods, how do we remind our MPs that we sent them to Ottawa to represent us and not to just send us periodic reports on what a wonderful job their leader is (or would be) doing.

Maybe we should go back through the long forgotten conventions of our Parliamentary system and make them use them again, in the ways they are supposed to be used? Maybe 39 by-elections for Cabinet appointments would make people wonder what the devil is going on in Ottawa?

So endeth the Rant for Today,

I appreciate your time.

Cheers! BC

Is Canadian Democracy Just School Yard Stuff?

I thought the Boss said we were some kind of a beacon of Democracy or something to that effect?

Dear Steve Harper:

Many of us thought that the hallmarks of Democracy were openness and transparency, but you’ve shown us how silly we are Steve, committees disappearing behind closed doors for in camera meetings, omnibus bills that have grown so large that we really only need to have you folk in Ottawa for a couple of weeks to vote on it then take the rest of the session off.

Does that sound familiar? It should, it’s pretty much what you had to say after a Liberal omnibus bill a few years ago. It seems you want everyone else to be transparent but not when it comes to government. Or at least Your government…

Every time people try to find out what’s going on with Canada there are brick walls thrown up in their faces. The treatment of detainees in Afghanistan, the cost of the F 35 jets that may or may not ever come to fruition, the list goes on, and on, and on…

Certainly not open or transparent by any stretch of the imagination.

But I guess the real irony is when you send your MPs to far off places to ensure they have open and fair elections, but when someone takes your people to task over Robocalls and voter suppression, well they clam up, drag their feet, and generally make asses of themselves.

From what I gather, no one in the Party speaks without clearance from the PMO. Funny thing, we don’t get to vote on who is in the PMO do we?

And no one gets to ask questions without clearance from the PMO either?

It certainly looks like that. You can correct me if I’m mistaken, but I heard that the Press Pool decided to give up one of their valued questions to a foreign correspondent from China, a fellow named Li Xue Jiang. When Mr. Li stepped up to ask his question, your staff pulled the microphone away from him and when he had the temerity to try and grab the microphone back he was promptly wrestled away by four of your security detail.

Thoughtfully, the Globe and Mail has the video here.

Way to show those commies how the leader of an open and democratic society handles inconvenient questions. That’s sarcasm; I know it doesn’t always carry well in writing.

You want us to believe that you are in the “big leagues” internationally, but you’re not. This is just school yard stuff being played out by someone who should know better. Don’t like the question? Don’t let the Chinese guy ask it. (And have your minions drag him away) Too hot in Ottawa? Just yell “Prorogue”! That’s the parliamentary equivalent of picking up the ball and running away isn’t it?

We’re used to it here. We’ve seen how you have acted for the last seven years. Now you’ve gone and shown the world your management skills.

By the way Steve, yelling “Prorogue” from Whitehorse, in the middle of the summer break is pretty much like yelling “I’m telling my mom” and running away.

School yard stuff, and the saddest part is how many people don’t care.

Laters, BC

#opTeaKettle asks: @SunNewsNetwork @ezralevant vs #White #Canada vs #cdnpoli?

Well, as we journey throughout the interwebz we sometimes see the simmering threats that will soon emerge into another “War on…” Ponzi Scheme. Thanks to our good friends at @SunNewsNetwork, especially @ezralevant and his EXCELLENT investigative journalism, we know what to be on the look out for! Whew, that is a relief and should save us a lot of time to mount a counter-offensive before we lose our beloved Canada at the hands of benevolent dictators.

Senator to Harper Government: Stop ‘Slandering’ Charities

Saskatchewan’s Sen. Bob Peterson sticks up for advocacy by Suzuki Foundation, and the Fraser Institute, too.

By Robert W. Peterson, 7 Jun 2012, TheTyee.ca

Senator Bob Peterson: ‘I believe in including dissenting voices.’

Over the last few weeks the government has been intent on slandering charities and their foreign funders. Ministers have even publicly labelled foreign donors as “radicals,” and the Canadian charities that receive their donations, “money launderers.”

As directors of charitable organizations hold their ground, and as the Conservative hit list continues to grow, one has to ask the question that no one seems willing to ask — what about the Fraser Institute? Further, why does the government seem intent on labelling one section of foreign donors as radicals but not another? If the government is actually concerned about foreign donors influencing public opinion, shouldn’t they be worried about ALL foreign donors?

As a disclaimer, I believe in an open and engaged democracy; I believe in including dissenting voices; and I believe in groups attempting to sway public opinion — because after all, that’s what democracy is. I draw the line when a government picks and chooses which voices it wants to hear, while silencing those it disagrees with. That, after all, is not what democracy is.

Perfectly legal

According to Canada Revenue Agency rules, a charity is legally permitted to receive money from American foundations and use a portion of that money to conduct political advocacy. Opposing pipeline construction, for example, is legitimate political advocacy. Just as rallying against abortion laws, or protesting against any other piece of government legislation is also considered acceptable political advocacy.

So what is the government worried about? If the act of political advocacy is itself legitimate, it must be that foreign organizations that provide funding to environmental groups are exceptionally questionable.

The Fraser Institute is a think tank that produces research for public consumption. It is also a registered charitable organization, meaning that donors receive tax breaks from the donations they give. The Fraser Institute receives funding from a number of foreign sources.

Foreign funding on the far right

One of the Fraser Institute’s biggest funders is the Koch brothers, two U.S. billionaire oil tycoons whose wealth in the United States is surpassed only by Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. They control thousands of miles of pipeline, have given tens of millions of dollars to Republican candidates and have been called the “financial engines” behind the Tea Party movement. They have helped fund projects undermining work on climate change, destroying environmental legislation, taxes, trade unions and anything related to health care reform. They also have interests in the Keystone XL pipeline as an intermediary in the environmental review process.

Since 2007, the Koch brothers have donated over half a million dollars to the Fraser Institute and, prior to 2008, the institute received funding from the Claude R. Lambe Foundation, an umbrella of Koch Family Foundations. Documents released from the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library at the University of California, San Francisco, also list no less than 209 documents involving the Fraser Institute. They reveal years of funding from major American tobacco companies totalling in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

According to the Fraser Institute’s 2010 tax return, funding from all foreign sources amounted to nearly 16 per cent of their total funding — more than $1.7 million in 2010 and $2.9 million in 2009. These figures can be compared to the combined total of $1.1 million in foreign funding that the David Suzuki Foundation received in 2009 and 2010.

The Fraser Institute has, in the past, released reports criticizing anti-smoking legislation, a report questioning the evidence between second-hand smoke and lung cancer, as well as multiple reports questioning climate science and global warming. The Suzuki Foundation has, in the past, released reports criticizing pipeline construction, reports promoting the idea of man-made climate change, as well as reports dealing with carbon tax.

In the interest of balance

If money from American billionaire oil tycoons can be used to advocate against the science behind global warming, surely foreign money should be allowed to inform the public of the potential environmental impacts of a pipeline. If money from American tobacco companies can be used to question the science behind second-hand smoke and the legislation that prohibits smoking in public, surely foreign money should be allowed to be used to question the basis for restructuring environmental legislation and the environmental review process. Should it not?  

The Honourable Senator Robert W. (Bob) Peterson was appointed to the Senate by Prime Minister Paul Martin in 2005 and sits as a member of the Liberal party. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Saskatchewan and he has been a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Saskatchewan since 1964.

screen reader text

continue reading source: http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/06/07/StopSlanderingCharities/

Related

• Harper budget has $8M to restrict ‘political activities’ of charities

• Globe to Harper govt: Stop ‘smearing’ green critics

• US Tea Party’s Deep Ties to Oil Sands Giant

  Owners of Koch Industries, a major processor of Alberta crude, spent millions to foment and support a movement against Obama’s climate change policies.

---

Remember, politics is a contact sport, like hockey, so please feel free to add quick contributions, observations and relevant information as a comment below!

Contact us if you would like to contribute to our collaborative efforts or would like to share/submit articles, data or additional content, feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media outlets or email us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca

• Share: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/
• Follow: https://twitter.com/opHarper
• Join: https://www.facebook.com/groups/dumpharper/
• Like: https://www.facebook.com/DumpHarper
• Read: http://paper.li/opHarper/1330339678
• Watch: https://www.youtube.com/user/opharper

---

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/

I’m not “Harper People”… Do I get an Attack Ad too?

I was going to write about Bob Rae and the Harper Party attack ads but I got side tracked.

There was a bit on the news about Harper’s trip to Asia and how Canada was going to be open for business when it came to Asia.

He was talking oil.

He said it would be clear when the budget came down.

I’m not a gambler but I’d be willing to wager that a certain politician is about to ram his pipeline into B.C.’s interior and say it’s necessary for Canada’s Financial Interests.

Canada is getting a lot smaller, there are only two groups… the Pro Harperistas and everyone else.

If you stand against the Harper Party you get half truths and innuendos up the wazoo. Ask Bob Rae, he’s been marked by the Dark Lord as his inequal and is open to the Harper Propaganda Machine’s hate messaging system.

Using half truths and sound bites the Harperistas are trying to make Bob Rae look like the most incompetent Premier in Ontario’s history. Actually Rae did a pretty savvy job of steering a world class economy through a recession with no help from his Federal counterparts, the Mulroney PCs.

Compare that to Harper’s record on the economy and his dealings with the recession. When Rae got through Ontario was ready for business, Harper still whines and pules about how fragile the economy is even if we have supposedly recovered.

Then there was Thomas Mulcair who was merely a candidate for the leadership of the NDP and we got leaked stories about how he approached Harper to run for the Stephen Harper Party but he wanted to be a front row Cabinet Minister. Harper allegedly turned him down because he was greedy…

Thomas Mulcair was a free agent and a well know Quebec politician and talked with both the Federal Liberals and the NDP. Harper would have given his eye teeth to pull Mulcair into his circle. Imagine having Mulcair as his Quebec Lieutenant rather than having to appoint a Senator who wasn’t even from Quebec at the time to sit in his Caucus as the Quebec representative.

The Harperistas were trying to poison the NDP against Mulcair… didn’t work.

Congratulations Thomas Mulcair on your successful leadership bid for the New Democrats!

I understand Bob Rae sent a nice note of congratulations to Mr. Mulcair, Stephen Harper’s Team sent one too, accusing him of being a tax and spend socialist or something of that sort.

Class act Stephen, the ads start tomorrow right? [Edit apparently they start Monday]

When it comes to aboriginal relations, Harper seems to like the natives, when they wear their fancy Indian clothes and make him an honorary chief or sit with him in the high class box at the Olympics. When they are polite and don’t ask for much.

Contrast that when the Harper Party was shocked and amazed by the squalor that the people of Attawapiskat were living in. When they asked for help (by declaring a state of emergency) the Harper Party berated them for being wasteful, smearing them and accusing them of mismanagement of their Native allowance.

This is the same community whose children went all the way to the United Nations to beg for money to have a proper school in their community.

Not long ago an Inuit boy died while travelling from his grandmother’s house to his home on a snowmobile.

When he was overdue, a search was organized and National Defence was contacted to assist. They declined.

They said the weather was too bad for their helicopters. It was not.

They said they have a “call back” policy where the searchers have to call them again before they can act. The policy does not exist.

Turns out there were no helicopters available, they were down for service, both of them.

Apparently Stephen Harper would rather give tax breaks to big oil than ensure the safety of Canadians by ensuring we have adequate search and rescue available at all times.

In Stephen Harper’s world, a Cabinet Minister can lie to the House of Commons, be found in contempt of the House of Commons, and still get a promotion.

In Stephen Harper’s world, a Cabinet Minister can misappropriate money for pet projects and still get a promotion.

In Stephen Harper’s world, a Cabinet Minister can have an affair with a subordinate and still get a promotion.

In the real world these acts would get you terminated and possibly tossed in jail.

In Stephen Harper’s world, those who do not want a pipeline full of bitumen run through their back yards are not allowed to have experts talk on their behalf. Those experts are banished because they are interfering foreigners attempting to damage Canada’s economy. Take that Sierra Club, you bunch of hooligans.

But the other interfering foreigners, the oil companies, are allowed to argue in favour of running the muck through your back yard.

But then again, they’re “Harper People”.

But the thing these “Harper People” need to keep in mind, you are only “Harper People” as long as you are useful to him.

Ask the grain farmers who are fighting to retain the Canadian Wheat Board.

He got your votes and now he gets his way.

Trudeau called MPs pawns. Harper has made them Marionettes. They can only speak when Harper puts words in their mouths.

You and me? We are only important for one month every four years or so.

The smears and attack ads are just his way of telling you how to vote, so you can be “Harper People” too.

The Stephen Harper Party Vs. Democracy

Stephen Harper, you just doesn’t get it do you?

People have fought and people have died for democracy in every land around the world except possibly Antarctica.

Canadians serving in our forces have travelled to far off countries to help in the fight to achieve democracy for other people.

Canadians as private citizens have travelled to other countries to help ensure that their elections are properly done and the peoples of those lands were able to take part in fair and free elections.

Canadians believe in freedom. Canadians have risked their lives for freedom. Canadians have died for freedom.

Free and Fair Elections are the cornerstone of freedom, and Canadians are concerned that we may no longer have Free and Fair Elections.

When Elections Canada approached the Procedure and House Affairs Committee for increased investigative powers, it was your people, the members of the Stephen Harper Party that said “No”.

This request or rather recommendation was part of the Elections Canada Report on the 2008 General Election. These reports follow every General Election. I do not know if Increased Powers of Investigation was included in past reports but it certainly seems to be a good idea.

The Provinces already do this, why not the Nation?

In the past General Election of 2011 we have seen reports of automated “robocalls” claiming to be from Elections Canada directing people to wrong and nonexistent Polling Stations. We have seen reports of incomplete Voter Registration cards and now we are hearing about undisclosed bank accounts and “third party” agents hiring services for campaigns and being reimbursed for these expenses rather than those campaigns paying for the services directly.

This all looks less than above board to me. How about you?

I understand that you have a Party Lawyer investigating these claims internally.

I have a simple question for you. Would you have accepted an internal investigation of the “Sponsorship Scandal” done by the Liberals? Should we accept your internal investigation any more than you would have accepted theirs?

You claim to be the “Law and Order” Party, it’s time you acted like it.

Grant the powers requested by Elections Canada and make it law. Not in six months’ time in a nonbinding private member’s motion, in a real law now.

Give Elections Canada unfettered access to the information they need to see and do not cause any interruption of this investigation and do not use your position to try and influence the investigation.

I am willing to give Elections Canada the time to do their investigation, but only if it is done without interference from the government.

If they recommend a Royal Commission, I expect you to make that happen as quickly as possible.

If Elections Canada chooses to lay charges against individuals or organizations as a result of their investigations I expect you to allow the cases to proceed without interference.

The bedrock on which a democracy is built is the ability of citizens to participate in free elections. Any attempt to block a citizen from voting is an attack on democracy. Marking an X on a ballot is for most people the only time they get a chance to influence the government. Help us to ensure that no Canadian is denied their voice.

One of your supporters told me that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

Will you join with us or have you something to fear?

Power, Propaganda and Conscience in The War On Terror

by John Pilger
UWA Extension Summer School Lecture
Winthrop Hall, The University of Western Australia, 12 January 2004

In the days before September 11, 2001, when America routinely attacked and terrorised weak states, and the victims were black and brown-skinned people in faraway places like Zaire and Guatemala, there were no headlines saying terrorism. But when the weak attacked the powerful, spectacularly on September 11, suddenly, there was terrorism.

I am a reporter, who values bearing witness. That is to say, I place paramount importance in the evidence of what I see, and hear, and sense to be the truth, or as close to the truth as possible. By comparing this evidence with the statements, and actions of those with power, I believe it’s possible to assess fairly how our world is controlled and divided, and manipulated – and how language and debate are distorted and a false consciousness developed.

When we speak of this in regard to totalitarian societies and dictatorships, we call it brainwashing: the conquest of minds. It’s a notion we almost never apply to our own societies. Let me give you an example. During the height of the cold war, a group of Soviet journalists were taken on an official tour of the United States. They watched TV; they read the newspapers; they listened to debates in Congress. To their astonishment, everything they heard was more or less the same. The news was the same. The opinions were the same, more or less. “How do you do it?” they asked their hosts. “In our country, to achieve this, we throw people in prison; we tear out their fingernails. Here, there’s none of that? What’s your secret?”

The secret is that the question is almost never raised. Or if it is raised, it’s more than likely dismissed as coming from the margins: from voices far outside the boundaries of what I would call our ‘metropolitan conversation’, whose terms of reference, and limits, are fixed by the media at one level, and by the discourse or silence of scholarship at another level. Behind both is a presiding corporate and political power.

A dozen years ago, I reported from East Timor, which was then occupied by the Indonesian dictatorship of General Suharto. I had to go there under cover, as reporters were not welcome – my informants were brave, ordinary people who confirmed, with their evidence and experience, that genocide had taken place in their country. I brought out meticulously hand-written documents, evidence that whole communities had been slaughtered – all of which we now know to be true.

We also know that vital material backing for a crime proportionally greater than the killing in Cambodia under Pol Pot had come from the West: principally the United States, Britain and Australia. On my return to London, and then to this country, I encountered a very different version. The media version was that General Suharto was a benign leader, who ran a sound economy and was a close ally. Indeed, prime minister Keating was said to regard him as a father figure.

…This episode is a metaphor for what I’d like to touch upon tonight.

For 15 years, a silence was maintained by the Australian government, the Australian media and Australian academics on the great crime and tragedy of East Timor. Moreover, this was an extension of the silence about the true circumstances of Suharto’s bloody ascent to power in the mid-sixties. It was not unlike the official silence in the Soviet Union on the bloody invasion of Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

…During the 1990s, whole societies were laid out for autopsy and identified as “failed states” and “rogue states,” requiring “humanitarian intervention.” Other euphemisms became fashionable – “good governance” and “third way” were adopted by the liberal realist school, which handed out labels to its heroes. Bill Clinton, the president who destroyed the last of the Roosevelt reforms, was labelled “left of centre.”

Noble words like democracy, freedom, independence, reform were emptied of their meaning and taken into the service of the World Bank, the IMF and that amorphous thing called “The West” – in other words, imperialism.

Of course, imperialism was the word the realists dared not write or speak, almost as if it had been struck from the dictionary. And yet imperialism was the ideology behind their euphemisms. And need I remind you of the fate of people under imperialism. Throughout 20th century imperialism, the authorities of Britain, Belgium and France gassed, bombed and massacred indigenous populations from Sudan to Iraq, Nigeria to Palestine, India to Malaya, Algeria to the Congo. And yet imperialism only got its bad name when Hitler decided he, too, was an imperialist.

So, after the war, new concepts had to be invented, indeed a whole lexicon and discourse created, as the new imperial superpower, the United States, didn’t wish to be associated with the bad old days of European power. The American cult of anti-communism filled this void most effectively; however, when the Soviet Union suddenly collapsed and the cold war was over, a new threat had to be found.

At first, there was the “war on drugs” – and the Bogeyman Theory of History is still popular. But neither can compare with the “war on terror” which arrived with September 11, 2001. Last year, I reported the “war on terror” from Afghanistan. Like East Timor, events I witnessed bore almost no relation to the way they were represented in free societies, especially Australia.

The American attack on Afghanistan in 2001 was reported as a liberation. But the evidence on the ground is that, for 95 per cent of the people, there is no liberation. The Taliban have been merely exchanged for a group of American funded warlords, rapists, murderers and war criminals – terrorists by any measure: the very people whom President Carter secretly armed and the CIA trained for almost 20 years.

One of the most powerful warlords is General Rashid Dostum. General Dostum was visited by Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, who came to express his gratitude. He called the general a “thoughtful” man and congratulated him on his part in the war on terror. This is the same General Dostum in whose custody 4,000 prisoners died terrible deaths just over two years ago – the allegations are that wounded men were left to suffocate and bleed to death in containers. Mary Robinson, when she was the UN’s senior humanitarian representative, called for an inquiry; but there was none for this kind of acceptable terrorism. The general is the face of the new Afghanistan you don’t see in the media.

…Like the Suharto dictatorship, these warlords are our official friends, whereas the Taliban were our official enemies. The distinction is important, because the victims of our official friends are worthy of our care and concern, whereas the victims of our official enemies are not. That is the principle upon which totalitarian regimes run their domestic propaganda. And that, basically, is how western democracies, like Australia, run theirs.

The difference is that in totalitarian societies, people take for granted that their governments lie to them: that their journalists are mere functionaries, that their academics are quiet and complicit. So people in these countries adjust accordingly. They learn to read between the lines. They rely on a flourishing underground. Their writers and playwrights write coded works, as in Poland and Czechoslovakia during the cold war.

A Czech friend, a novelist, told me; “You in the West are disadvantaged. You have your myths about freedom of information, but you have yet to acquire the skill of deciphering: of reading between the lines. One day, you will need it.”

That day has come. The so-called war on terror is the greatest threat to all of us since the most dangerous years of the cold war. Rapacious, imperial America has found its new “red scare.” Every day now, officially manipulated fear and paranoia are exported to our shores – air marshals, finger printing, a directive on how many people can queue for the toilet on a Qantas jet flying to Los Angeles.

The totalitarian impulses that have long existed in America are now in full cry. Go back to the 1950s, the McCarthy years, and the echoes today are all too familiar – the hysteria; the assault on the Bill of Rights; a war based on lies and deception. Just as in the 1950s, the virus has spread to America’s intellectual satellites, notably Australia.

Last week, the Howard government announced it would implement US-style immigration procedures, fingerprinting people when they arrived. The Sydney Morning Herald reported this as government measures to “tighten its anti-terrorism net.” No challenge there; no scepticism. News as propaganda.

How convenient it all is. The White Australia Policy is back as “homeland security” – yet another American term that institutionalises both paranoia and its bed-fellow, racism. Put simply, we are being brainwashed to believe that Al-Qaida, or any such group, is the real threat. And it isn’t. By a simple mathematical comparison of American terror and Al-Qaida terror, the latter is a lethal flea. In my lifetime, the United States has supported and trained and directed terrorists in Latin America, Africa, Asia. The toll of their victims is in the millions.

In the days before September 11, 2001, when America routinely attacked and terrorised weak states, and the victims were black and brown-skinned people in faraway places like Zaire and Guatemala, there were no headlines saying terrorism. But when the weak attacked the powerful, spectacularly on September 11, suddenly, there was terrorism.

This is not to say that the threat from al-Qaida is not real – It is very real now, thanks to American and British actions in Iraq, and the almost infantile support given by the Howard government. But the most pervasive, clear and present danger is that of which we are told nothing.

It is the danger posed by “our” governments – a danger suppressed by propaganda that casts “the West” as always benign: capable of misjudgment and blunder, yes, but never of high crime. The judgement at Nuremberg takes another view. This is what the judgement says; and remember, these words are the basis for almost 60 years of international law: “To initiate a war of aggression, it is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”

In other words, there is no difference, in the principle of the law, between the action of the German regime in the late 1930s and the Americans in 2003. Fuelled by religious fanaticism, a corrupt Americanism and corporate greed, the Bush cabal is pursuing what the military historian Anatol Lieven calls “the classic modern strategy of an endangered right-wing oligarchy, which is to divert discontent into nationalism.” Bush’s America, he warns, “has become a menace to itself and to mankind.”

…Today, the United States is currently training a gestapo of 10,000 agents, commanded by the most ruthless, senior elements of Saddam Hussein’s secret police. The aim is to run the new puppet regime behind a pseudo-democratic façade – and to defeat the resistance. That information is vital to us, because the fate of the resistance in Iraq is vital to all our futures. For if the resistance fails, the Bush cabal will almost certainly attack another country – possibly North Korea, which is nuclear armed.

…In the nineteenth century, Australia had a press more fiercely independent than most countries. In 1880, in New South Wales alone, there were 143 independent titles, many of them with a campaigning style and editors who believed it was their duty to be the voice of the people. Today, of twelve principal newspapers in the capital cities, one man, Rupert Murdoch, controls seven. Of the ten Sunday newspapers, Murdoch has seven. In Adelaide and Brisbane, he has effectively a complete monopoly. He controls almost 70 per cent of capital city circulation. Perth has only one newspaper.

Sydney, the largest city, is dominated by Murdoch and by the Sydney Morning Herald, whose current editor in chief Mark Scott told a marketing conference in 2002 that journalism no longer needed smart and clever people. “They are not the answer,” he said. The answer is people who can execute corporate strategy. In other words, mediocre minds, obedient minds.

The great American journalist Martha Gellhorn once stood up at a press conference and said: “Listen, we’re only real journalists when we’re not doing as we’re told. How else can we ever keep the record straight?” The late Alex Carey, the great Australian social scientist who pioneered the study of corporatism and propaganda, wrote that the three most significant political developments of the twentieth century were, “the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.”

Carey was describing the propaganda of 20th century imperialism, which is the propaganda of the corporate state. And contrary to myth, the state has not withered away; indeed, it has never been stronger. General Suharto was a corporate man – good for business. So his crimes were irrelevant, and the massacres of his own people and of the East Timorese were consigned to an Orwellian black hole. So effective is this historical censorship by omission that Suharto is currently being rehabilitated. In The Australian last October, Owen Harries described the Suharto period as a “golden era” and urged Australia to once again embrace the genocidal military of Indonesia.

…If Australia is the microcosm, consider the destruction of free speech in the United States, which constitutionally has the freest press in the world. In 1983, the principal media in America was owned by fifty corporations. In 2002, this had fallen to just nine companies. Today, Murdoch’s Fox Television and four other conglomerates are on the verge of controlling 90 per cent of the terrestrial and cable audience. Even on the Internet, the leading twenty websites are now owned by Fox, Disney, AOL, Time Warner, Viacom and other giants. Just fourteen companies attract 60 per cent of all the time Americans spend online. And these companies control, or influence most of the world’s visual media, the principal source of information for most people.

“We are beginning to learn,” wrote Edward Said in his book Culture and Imperialism, “that de-colonisation was not the termination of imperial relationships but merely the extending of a geo-political web that has been spinning since the Renaissance. The new media have the media to penetrate more deeply into a receiving culture than any previous manifestation of Western technology.” Compared with a century ago, when “European culture was associated with a white man’s presence, we now have in addition an international media presence that insinuates itself over a fantastically wide range.”

He was referring not only to news. Right across the media, children are remorsely targeted by big business propaganda, commonly known as advertising. In the United States, some 30,000 commercial messages are targeted at children every year. The chief executive of one leading advertising company explained: “They aren’t children so much as evolving consumers.” Public relations is the twin of advertising. In the last twenty years, the whole concept of PR has changed dramatically and is now an enormous propaganda industry. In the United Kingdom, it’s estimated that pre-packaged PR now accounts for half of the content of some major newspapers. The idea of “embedding” journalists with the US military during the invasion of Iraq came from public relations experts in the Pentagon, whose current strategic-planning literature describes journalism as part of psychological operations, or “psyops.” Journalism as psyops.

The aim, says the Pentagon, is to achieve “information dominance” – which, in turn, is part of “full spectrum dominance” – the stated policy of the United States to control land, sea, space and information. They make no secret of it. It’s in the public domain.

Those journalists who go their own way, those like Martha Gellhorn and Robert Fisk, beware. The independent Arab TV organisation, Al-Jazeera, was bombed by the Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the invasion of Iraq, more journalists were killed than ever before – by the Americans. The message could not be clearer. The aim, eventually, is that there’ll be no distinction between information control and media. That’s to say: you won’t know the difference.

That alone is worthy of reflection by journalists: those who still believe, like Martha Gellhorn, that their duty is to keep the record straight. The choice is actually quite simple: they are truth-tellers, or, in the words of Edward Herman, they merely “normalise the unthinkable.”

….I can almost hear a few of you saying, “OK, then what should we do?”

As Noam Chomsky recently pointed out, you almost never hear that question in the so-called developing world, where most of humanity struggles to live day by day. There, they’ll tell you what they are doing.

We have none of the life-and-death problems faced by, say, intellectuals in Turkey or campesinos in Brazil or Aboriginal people in our own third world. Perhaps too many of us believe that if we take action, then the solution will happen almost overnight. It will be easy and fast. Alas, it doesn’t work that way.

If you want to take direct action – and I believe we don’t have a choice now: such is the danger facing all of us – then it means hard work, dedication, commitment, just like those people in countries on the front line, who ought to be our inspiration. The people of Bolivia recently reclaimed their country from water and gas multinationals, and threw out the president who abused their trust. The people of Venezuela have, time and again, defended their democratically elected president against a ferocious campaign by an American-backed elite and the media it controls. In Brazil and Argentina, popular movements have made extraordinary progress – so much so that Latin America is no longer the vassal continent of Washington.

Even in Colombia, into which the United States has poured a fortune in order to shore up a vicious oligarchy, ordinary people – trade unionists, peasants, young people have fought back.

These are epic struggles you don’t read much about here. Then there’s what we call the anti-globalisation movement. Oh, I detest that word, because it’s much more than that. It’s is a remarkable response to poverty and injustice and war. It’s more diverse, more enterprising, more internationalist and more tolerant of difference than anything in the past, and it’s growing faster than ever.

In fact, it is now the democratic opposition in many countries. That is the very good news. For in spite of the propaganda campaign I have outlined, never in my lifetime have people all over the world demonstrated greater awareness of the political forces ranged against them and the possibilities of countering them. The notion of a representative democracy controlled from below where the representatives are not only elected but can be called truly to account, is as relevant today as it was when first put into practice in the Paris Commune 133 years ago. As for voting, yes, that’s a hard won gain. But the Chartists, who probably invented voting as we know it today, made clear that it was gain only when there was a clear, democratic choice. And there’s no clear, democratic choice now. We live in a single-ideology state in which two almost identical factions compete for our attention while promoting the fiction of their difference.

The writer Arundhati Roy described the outpouring of anti-war anger last year as “the most spectacular display of public morality the world has ever seen.” That was just a beginning and a cause for optimism.

Why? Because I think a great many people are beginning to listen to that quality of humanity that is the antidote to rampant power and its bedfellow: racism. It’s called conscience. We all have it, and some are always moved to act upon it. Franz Kafka wrote: “You can hold back from the suffering of the world, you have free permission to do so and it is in accordance with your nature, but perhaps this very holding back is the one suffering that you could have avoided.”

No doubt there are those who believe they can remain aloof – acclaimed writers who write only style, successful academics who remain quiet, respected jurists who retreat into arcane law and famous journalists who protest: “No one has ever told me what to say.” George Orwell wrote: “Circus dogs jump when the trainer cracks the whip. But the really well-trained dog is the one that turns somersaults when there is no whip.”

For those members of our small, privileged and powerful elite, I recommend the words of Flaubert. “I have always tried to live in an ivory tower,” he said, “but a tide of shit is beating its walls, threatening to undermine it.” For the rest of us, I offer these words of Mahatma Gandhi: “First, they ignore,” he said. “Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”

Quotable quotes…

“…The so-called war on terror is the greatest threat to all of us since the most dangerous years of the cold war. Rapacious, imperial America has found its new “red scare.” Every day now, officially manipulated fear and paranoia are exported to our shores – air marshals, finger printing, a directive on how many people can queue for the toilet on a Qantas jet flying to Los Angeles. The totalitarian impulses that have long existed in America are now in full cry. Go back to the 1950s, the McCarthy years, and the echoes today are all too familiar – the hysteria; the assault on the Bill of Rights; a war based on lies and deception. Just as in the 1950s, the virus has spread to America’s intellectual satellites, notably Australia…”

“…we are being brainwashed to believe that Al-Qaida, or any such group, is the real threat. And it isn’t. By a simple mathematical comparison of American terror and Al-Qaida terror, the latter is a lethal flea. In my lifetime, the United States has supported and trained and directed terrorists in Latin America, Africa, Asia. The toll of their victims is in the millions…”

“…In the days before September 11, 2001, when America routinely attacked and terrorised weak states, and the victims were black and brown-skinned people in faraway places like Zaire and Guatemala, there were no headlines saying terrorism. But when the weak attacked the powerful, spectacularly on September 11, suddenly, there was terrorism…”

“…The judgement at Nuremberg…says… “To initiate a war of aggression, it is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” In other words, there is no difference, in the principle of the law, between the action of the German regime in the late 1930s and the Americans in 2003. Fuelled by religious fanaticism, a corrupt Americanism and corporate greed, the Bush cabal is pursuing what the military historian Anatol Lieven calls “the classic modern strategy of an endangered right-wing oligarchy, which is to divert discontent into nationalism.” Bush’s America, he warns, “has become a menace to itself and to mankind’…”

John Pilger was born and educated in Sydney, Australia. He has been a war correspondent, film-maker and playwright. Based in London, he has written from many countries and has twice won British journalism’s highest award, that of “Journalist of the Year,” for his work in Vietnam and Cambodia.

---

Please feel free to add feedback, additional info, alternative contact details, related links, articles, anonymous submission, etc. as a comment below, via web-form, through social media or mail us directly and confidentially at: dumpharper [at] live [dot] ca

---

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. and intend its use to be for education and instructional purposes only. Therefore, we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

ShareAlike Statement: https://dumpharper.wordpress.com/sharealike/