Post #132- A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE:

History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

By

Emily Dee

from her blog

Aberhart and Harper on Crusade

At

http://harpercrusade.blogspot.ca/

NOPE!

Introduction:

I ran across this article while surfing the other day and I was compelled to publish it here for you, my audience. It was written back in 2010 and was an astute warning of the evil to come.  Nobody listened and evil struck the election Harpo gained his majority  and here we are with stupid on his throne. This was a forewarning of the predictive powers of his speech to the Council for National Policy back in 2010 and it is revelatory. Ms. Dee shares my contempt for Harper and her commentary on that speech is one I wish I had written. I wanted to present this prediction because it has been 4 years since it was made and everything she warns us of has been coming true.

I also wanted to publish this to educate all the younger people who are really fed up with Fearless Leader why he is the monster he is. All of you people 30 and under have only paid attention to Harpo and witnessed his flaws for the past 9 years. How much attention did you pay to politics as a teenager? I and Ms. Dee have known of his shortcomings for the past twenty year and we have both watched with contempt as he has slithered up the Political Totem Pole. What follows is a lesson in in political history from a different perspective. Ms. Dee was cynical in 2010 when she wrote this article and concluded it with the statement .

“It's frightening really, but it shows what happens when you don't pay attention.”

I wonder what she would say today

To begin:

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE:

History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

In 1997, Stephen Joseph Harper, our current, at least current to my writing this, Prime Minister; was asked to give a speech on the Canadian political system, to the Council for National Policy, a secretive American lobby group, who were meeting in Montreal. CNP is an influential right-wing organization founded by Tim LaHaye and James Dobson, and in many ways is the military arm of the Religious Right in the United States.

Tim Lahaye is the co-author, along with Jerry B. Jenkins, of an enormously successful series of books, called Left Behind. These books have formed the foundation of Christians United for Israel, a religious group pushing for the annihilation of Muslims in the Middle East, as a step on their road to Armageddon. CUFI's founder John Hagee, calls it "God's Foreign Policy".

Their Canadian head is Charles McVety, a man who has a lot of clout with our current government and enjoys not only ready access to people like Jason Kenney (Immigration), Stockwell Day (Treasury) and Jim Flaherty (Finance), but also Stephen Harper himself.

James Dobson is the founder of Focus on the Family, an anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-public school, organization; that includes several of Harper's MPs; like Maurice Vellacott, Rob Anders, and Brad Trost. The Canadian founder of Focus on the Family, Darrel Reid, is now Harper's deputy chief of staff.

Dobson assisted in Harper's political success by running a series of radio ads in Canadian cities against same-sex marriage; an issue that Harper then adopted as part of his reaching out to the social conservatives.

When that 1997 speech first surfaced during the 2005-2006 federal election, it raised a lot of red flags, once again adding fuel to the fear of Stephen Harper's "Hidden Agenda".

Many quotes were pulled from it, and the Liberal campaign included bits and pieces. It is believed that it actually cost the Reform-Conservatives a majority government.

But I've read that speech several times, and what I get from it is arrogance: An arrogance that implies that we are all wrong, but we're too ignorant to even know that we are all wrong. That only he can see the error of our ways.

Now, having given you a compliment, let me also give you an insult. I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians.

What was the point of that remark? He's speaking to Americans, about Canadians.

First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it. Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States.

In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance. (1)

It's almost like an attack ad. Very much the way he acts in Parliament now against his political opponents, only in this case, it was against the Canadian people.

It wasn't a clever speech. There were no great pearls of wisdom. It was flip and if he was actually trying to educate this group on Canadian politics, it would have only created confusion. He talks about 'Whigs' without explaining who they were. States that most Catholics vote Liberal for 'reasons he didn't want to get into.' Why bring it up at all if he wasn't going to qualify it?

We do get a glimpse into his ideology when he refers to women's rights as 'feminist' rights, and "... including some that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution.." What is so horrifying about universal Medicare?

If I were in the audience, I definitely would never have got the impression that this was a man with political aspirations. If he wrote that speech it was grade eight at best.

"...and a whole bunch of fairly non-conservative economic things."

" ... and a whole bunch of other things"

But I think that it helps to define this movement. It has always been about protest and arrogance and ignorance. They adhere to the Old Testament and have a view of Canada as being in moral decay. They want to return to the "good old days" when women knew their place and there was prayer in school, and a sea of white faces.

In it's seventy-five year history, there have only ever really been five leaders: William Aberhart, Ernest Manning, his son Preston Manning, Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper, and their political views have not progressed but stagnated.

Their arrogance is born of ignorance. And rather than try to raise the level of debate, they want to bring it down to their level. Experts in their field are "elites", well-educated are reduced to "university types", advocates are "fringe-groups".

There is no desire to move Canada forward only dismantle it and strip it down. Isolate us from our former allies with high-handed foreign policy, and a refusal to co-operate. Base our laws on the Bible and our future on Biblical prophesy.

They have made Canadian politics so toxic that our very democracy is at risk. Secrecy is the order of the day and their media control is alarming.

This is a movement that was founded on anti-Semitism, nurtured on racism, and fuelled by extremism. And every time a party they create is exposed, they simply re-invent themselves, but using the same old worn out parts. Social Credit - Reform - Alliance - Conservative. The only thing that really changes is the name.

And what will their legacy be? Will we even recognize this country when they're through? Can their damage be repaired?

People who once lived on the fringe, are now in control and they have aligned themselves with the most extreme elements, here and in the United States. It's frightening really, but it shows what happens when you don't pay attention.

Hopefully, you'll pay attention now.

Chapter One: Bold Moves

Sources:

1. Full text of Stephen Harper's 1997 speech, Canadian Press, December 14, 2005

Posted by Emily Dee at 11:13 AM

 

The Dangers of Marijuana Challenged

Rebutting Rona’s Rotten Ramblings

Another Voice Speaks Out

I am please to present the first of what I hope will be many guest contributions to this Blog. On April 30, 2014 Rona Ambrose, Minister of Health announced a new government program to create more opposition to Cannabis use. As justification she presented a fabrication of its dangers to our youth. Fortunately for us Wayne Phillips took the time to write the following revelation of the distortions in her announcement which can be seen at the link referenced below.

Re: Health Canada Highlights Dangers of Marijuana Use for Youth,

OTTAWA, April 30, 2014/CNW

http://news.gc.ca/web/articleen.do?mthd=index&crtr.page=1&nid=844329

The Wicked Bitch of the East

The Dangers of Marijuana Challenged

Wayne P. Phillips, May 4, 2014

Health Minister Rona Ambrose hosted a roundtable with representatives of the healthcare community and research experts today to discuss the scientific evidence of the risks associated with the use of marijuana by youth, especially over the long term. This meeting, of course, builds on a presentation where Minister Ambrose announced funding for A Health Promotion and Drug Prevention Strategy for Canada's Youth - a national project led by the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA). How else would Health Minister Ambrose find support for her Ministry's convoluted fabrications posing as “scientific” evidence unless there were funding involved. Minister Ambrose's roundtable speaks to the (lack of) credulity of the current government; moreover, it flies in the face of history.

The 1923 House of Commons Debates, 14th of March, 1923, pages 1136 – 2124 under the title, "Narcotic Drugs Act Amendment Bill the "Hon. H.S. Béland1 (Minister of Health) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 72 to amend the Narcotic Drugs Act. He said, "The purpose of this bill is principally to consolidate previous legislation for the suppression of the traffic in narcotic drugs. . . ." Not only did the inclusion entail an act of tergiversation - that is, falsification by means of vague or ambiguous language – on the part of the Minister of

Health, Dr. H.S. Béland, the inclusion allowed for the transition of an

unspecified commodity. “There is a new drug in the schedule.” was all that was said. Moreover, the purpose of the bill, the consolidation, in effect was tantamount (in effect) to the manufacturing of a social problem. There was no traffic of cannabis in 1923. Panic and Indifference by Giffen, Lambert and Endicott also describe how “cannabis indica or hasheesh” was added by some unknown hand later.

Recently CBC News published an article by Daniel Schwartz entitled “Marijuana was criminalized in 1923, but why?” What the article failed to mention however that what was being consolidated, cannabis indica (Indian hemp), was a Proprietary or Patented Medicines Act commodity at the time of the transition in 1923. So consequently by not specifying what was being transitioned in 1923, the whole medicinal aspects of cannabis was, in effect, denied by the very

department that is still denying it today. The agenda is a Health Canada legacy.

Minister of Health, Rona Ambrose, states, “As Health Minister, I am standing side by side with medical professionals and researchers with a clear message -- There are serious health risks for youth associated with marijuana. It is not safe. It should not be promoted or endorsed. Together, with our partners we will work to make sure youth and parents have the right information about the risks associated with smoking and using marijuana.”

Fair enough. It should not be promoted or endorsed. How then is the inclusion of cannabis in the CDSA not, in and of itself, an endorsement? And, if Minister of Health, Ambrose, is so concerned with “health risks for youth associated with marijuana”, why then would the Minister want to see cannabis/marijuana legislated in a manner that insures the perpetuation of its availability to the very youth she claims to be concerned about? How can the Minister deem to have the right information about any supposed risks associated

with marijuana when the Minister's agenda of perpetuating a social problem is the only primary concern for either the Minister or Health Canada.

The actions, words and motives of Health Minister Ambrose are as questionable today in 2014 as Health Minister H.S. Béland's were in 1923. He sought to consolidate what she (in this instance) seeks to perpetuate. In order to do that Minister Ambrose must continue to rail in the face of both history and court rulings that in both instances recognize cannabis as medicine. As such, funding health promotion and drug prevention become red herrings to distract both media and the general public from the fact that the inclusion of cannabis

in the CDSA is precisely that which perpetuates the problem thereby increasing the probability of youth becoming vulnerable. It doesn't matter how much funding is provided because the underlying agenda is perpetuating usage not safeguarding youth.

Health Canada's new Medical Marijuana Program Regulations (MMPR) and Health Minister Ambrose's position has prompted further concerns for Canadians as the Conservative government sought to unceremoniously transition those holding Authorizations To Possess (cannabis) from the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations (MMAR) to the new program. Given the fact that the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations (MMAR) is a court ordered program that continues to be challenged as unconstitutional, for the Government to think that a new program can be just enacted as if it were business as usual more than demonstrates the degree of dysfunction this type of irrationality, for which Health Minister H.S. Béland should ultimately be held to accounts for (posthumously), is capable of.

Increasingly though those holding Authorizations To Possess (cannabis) under the Medical Marijuana Access Regulations (MMAR) are taking up the call to stand side by side with the 200+ Canadians that have already filed Statements of Claim for a two dollar Registry fee using the John Turmel Kits at

http://johnturmel.com/kits.htm  or http://johnturmel.com/mmprinst.htm

 after B.C. Lawyer John Conroy's Allard Ruling left many, who either did not fall under the time-frames specified or beyond the 150 gram limit, out. Many that did fall under the time-frames specified could also, for numerous other reasons not mentioned, count themselves among the Left-Outs as well. The Turmel Kits are provided in numerous formats and YouTube videos outline the process. The time is long overdue for Health Canada and the Minister to acknowledge the wrongheadedness of Health Canada's gambit and seriously consider the idea of reparations. Canadians know about both cannabis and its world renowned medical properties. Moreover, the idea of maintaining the pretext of health promotion and drug prevention in the face of the inclusion of cannabis in the CDSA stands as both the crime of the century and the joke of the century.

Renewal of My Complaint to Surrey City Council

Renewal of My Complaint to Surrey City Council

Do I Sound Pissed Off?

 

November 10, 2012 I e-mailed Surrey City Council some questions regarding the growth of Marijuana and the severity of the by-laws regarding its legal growth under strict supervision. It was named

An Open Letter of Complaint to Surrey’s Mayor and Council

The point of an Open Letter as set by Emile Zola with “J’Accuse” is to provoke a response from your opponent. After badgering them for only 20 weeks I finally got one Feb. 25. I was not disappointed with what I received because I have been expecting an evasion of all the questions asked. What I received was not a report with any detail or suggestions: It was a  178 word e-mail that boiled my questions down to 3 that were anwered:

1.    It’s City Policy – 3 lines – 32 words

2.    No. – 3 lines – 36 words

3.    Little use but advised location of some files.- 104 words

It is not a Reply from Council: it is a Reply from the City Solicitor.

I think I am quite correct that on receipt of my Open Letter, the clerk noted the Marijuana and automatically referred it to the Legal System where it sat. I doubt the Mayor and Councilors ever saw a copy but I think this will correct t.

I don’t get ignored and dismissed by some pompous shyster with an over-inflated self-image.

This has now turned into what will be the Publication on the Blog of me and Council having a good argument

Renewal of My Complaint to Surrey City Council

TheSmeeGoanGuy Blaine Barrett thesmeegoanguy@gmail.com	4:17 PM (1 minute ago)
to Clerks, bcc: me

Ref: Legal Services File # 3900-20-17410

In Mid- October I e-mailed Surrey City Council some questions and on the basis of advice given by phone sent them to you at

clerks@surrey.ca

Attn: Mayor and Council

I was advised that on receipt with that Attn; Mayor and Council you would ensure that a copy was made for and sent to each individual councilor.  In early November, two weeks after submission I called and was informed my complaint had been received and a referral to Legal Services was warranted and they would advise when it had been considered.

After one month of patience and one more month of frustration and no reply to requests for information, I finally contacted the City Solicitor, Mr. MacFarlane just before Christmas and was advised he would look into it but due to his schedule requested I call back after the New Year and we could get down to details. He was reasonable, polite and seemed to understand my frustration when I vented. No problem.

We reconnected in Mid-January and talked things out. In anticipation of misunderstanding I requested a reply in writing and he agreed to supply one.

This was the beginning of dodging my request for information and refusing to contact me despite manifold requests that he do so. He received those messages via Lisa his secretary who confirmed she had relayed them all. Only after I relayed a message via Lisa that either he could contact me within one week or I was getting on the phone to Mayor Watts and raising shit did I actually get a result.

If Mr. MacFarlane had the courage and courtesy to phone me so we could have discussed his findings I would not have written this complaint.

MacFarlane, Craig	Feb 25 (3 days ago)
to me, Lisa

 Hi Mr. Barrett:

1.                In answer to your first question, regarding access to City property to campaign for the Sensible BC Referendum, it is City policy not to allow political campaigning in City recreation facilities.

The whole point was to ask Council “WHY” it was City Policy. I want to know how a Referendum qualifies as “political campaigning” and I want an argument showing how it does. I think it’s a violation of my Elections Canada qualifications and : and it is an infringement of my own personal right as a private citizen to ask a fellow citizen a question about his knowledge and provide corrective information if he requests it. There is no political identification except the advisory that there is a Referendum in process and there is no political gain.

2.               You have asked whether there will be a revision to the “Medical Marijuana Growth By-law”. In 2013, the Zoning By-law was amended to prohibit the cultivation of marijuana in all zones except the C8-B Zone.

I never asked whether there will be a revision to the “Medical Marijuana Growth By-law”. I was trying to determine if there is any way to negotiate a modification of the bylaw to permit the growth of Medical Marijuana in areas other that Zone C8-B. That is still my intention.

3.       Regarding the source of the “800 addresses as targets for surprise grow-op bylaw inspections”, I have been advised that Health Canada through our federal Freedom of Information request informed the City that 788 Health Canada licensed producers were located in Surrey but that no information was given as to the identity or location of the sites. The City does have information on the location of approximately 300 grow- ops, which information was obtained through Hydro excess consumption records and the subsequent inspections for electrical and fire safety. The City also receives information on the location of grow-ops from complaints made to the City.

This was extremely helpful in advising that No Personal information or Locations of Grow-ops has been provided by Health Canada. He was also helpful in identifying the 300 grow-op files on hand as a source of information related to all the hazards Chief Garis has concocted related to the cultivation of marijuana.

 Best regards,

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

I want to continue with a modified complaint but there is little point in doing so until I know that Council has actually received and read my initial complaint. As yet I have not received an acknowledgement of receipt from anyone except Legal Services.

I do not have a file ref for my original complaint but it can be found at

City of Surrey Legal Services File # 3900-20-17410.

I would very much appreciate that a copy of this e-mail be forwarded to all the Council with a request for an acknowledgement from each that they have received and read my initial complaint before I file a continuation. Can this be done?

Best regards

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

I Wonder what I’m Going to Get Back

?

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>