Stephen Harper
by Lon Allen at
Dystopiad.com
- December 2005 -
As usual, we're getting an earful about 'traditional family values' from all political parties, but particularly from Mr. Harper - (reminiscent of Premier Ralph Klein's alcoholic ramblings) and you have to wonder just what the hell are 'traditional family values', and what's so great about them, anyway?
And just exactly when were these family values fully ensconced and operational in our culture - fifty years ago, perhaps?
You may remember that back in the '50s, black folks in the U.S. weren't allowed to use the same public washrooms, water fountains, or hotels as white folks - nor could black kids attend the same schools as white kids.
Here in Canada we were (and still are) enthusiastically carrying out the genocide, displacement, and general prejudice towards native people that's been going on ever since Europeans invaded this continent some 500 years ago.
The family values dictated by our leaders in the 1950's urged us to look under every rock and through every keyhole for non-existent Communists - people were goaded, bribed, and threatened with imprisonment unless they agreed to turn against friends and family - ratting them out to authorities for committing imaginary crimes against the State.
In the '50s, adhering to family values meant that a woman's place was 'barefoot and pregnant' - she was tolerated in the workplace only if she accepted menial work for menial pay, and didn't get too 'uppity'. She had little or no say in making household decisions or in exercising her reproductive choices - in the home, man was 'The Boss'.
Children fared no better - traditional family values, in a lot of cases, meant state-sanctioned child abuse. 'Spare the rod and spoil the child' has been the battlecry of conservative fundamentalism for centuries. In other words, race privilege, gender privilege, class privilege, sex privilege - all these were fully in place and operational in the North American culture of the 1950's. Are these the 'traditional family values' Mr Harper is pining for?
Or maybe he longs for the 'traditional family values' of a hundred years ago, when women were little more than chattel possessing few legal rights, subservient to men, with little recourse to deal with abusive husbands - and not even allowed to vote? Or maybe he would like to devolve even further - back to a little over 100 years ago when nannies, in true Edwardian style, were putting bloomers on piano legs to protect youth from impure thoughts?
Traditional values aside, the Harper crowd hasn't been without it's share of controversy, either. Abbotsford Conservative MP Randy White caused quite a stir when he suggested a Conservative government would use the Constitution's notwithstanding clause to override court decisions it didn't like - same-sex marriage for instance.
He told an independent filmmaker, "Well, the heck with the courts. You know, one of these days, we in this country are going to stand up and say, the politicians make the laws and the courts do not."
White has since announced he won't be seeking re-election, but denies the party is pushing him out. Maybe so, but his slip of the tongue has haunted Harper and the Conservatives ever since. Personally, I suspect Harper wouldn't hesitate to use the notwithstanding clause judging from the Reform and Alliance ideology he and White share.
Belinda Stronach crossing over to the Liberals was also a major embarassment to Harper and his Conservative cronies. Not only did Stronach dump the Conservative Party, but she also dumped Conservative Deputy Leader Peter Mackay, with whom she was having an affair, at the same time.
It would seem that Mackay's treachery in the Alliance and Progressive Conservative deal that assured Peter Mackay the leadership of the PC party had returned to take a sizeable bite out of his ass. Mackay promised Orchard (in writing) he would never hand over the Conservatives to the Alliance. But before the ink was dry on the agreement he did just that. So in effect, Belinda Stronach did to Mackay and the Conservatives exactly what Mackay did to David Orchard and the PC's. Irony or karma in action - any way you look at it there's a certain amount of poetic justice in the whole affair.
Gurmant Grewal has proven to be an embarassment to both Conservatives and Liberals. Over the past year, Grewal has been investigated for various reasons.
First he was cleared by the Federal Ethics Commissioner of conflict of interest allegations when it was discovered his office had been demanding cash guarantees to help foreigners seeking entry to Canada. Shapiro ruled Grewal had made an honest mistake.
Then, the RCMP and Transport Canada also cleared him of breaking security rules when he tried to get Ottawa-bound passengers at the Vancouver airport to carry a package for him.
Earlier in the year, Grewal made recordings of his conversations with Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh, Tim Murphy, the PM's chief of staff, and Sudesh Kalia, a Liberal supporter who acted as a go-between for Grewal and Dosanjh. Grewal alleged the tapes proved that he and his wife Nina, also a Conservative MP, were offered future rewards in return for supporting the Liberal government in last May's non-confidence vote. The Liberals denied the charges, with some analysts saying the tapes were altered and recently, Grewal announced that he would not run in the January 23rd election. His wife, Nina, plans to seek re-election in her B.C. riding of Fleetwood-Port Kells.
So, it begins already - the Conservatives haven't even been elected and already Harper and his henchmen are already courting scandal.