In the Canadain election the Liberals lost seats but still managed a
minotrity government. Voters rebuked the government for its scandals
but also smacked Stephen Harper and his gaggle of neo-con/Zionist
pinheads.

The NDP doubled its seats and looks like the odds-on favourite to form
a modus operandi with Prime Minister Paul Martin.

The dust hasn't settled yet, but the least Shelly should do is admit
that Greg Felton called this election accurately and for the reasons
stated in his column. Here's it is again.

"Christian populists, Israeli apologists and U.S.-style republicans do
not a Conservative Party make"

Greg Felton
Alberta Arab News (mediamonitors.net)
June 24, 2004

Four days from now, Canadians will decide if they want to legitimize
Paul Martin as prime minister and give the Liberal Party a fourth
majority in the House of Commons. If indications are accurate, they’ll
do the first, but not necessarily the second.

The public has no great passion for the Liberals. The government has
been taking a pasting over the sponsorship scandal, and Martin’s
decision, when he was finance minister, to balance the federal budget
at the expense of health care. Moreover, no federal party has ever won
four consecutive terms. As the saying goes, governments are voted out,
not voted in, and it would seem that the Liberals should be on the way
out.

“Seem,” though, is the operative word, because a fourth Liberal
government is a virtual certainty; the only question is whether it
will be a majority or a minority. The basis for this counterintuitive
prediction lies in the lack of a credible alternative this time round.

The New Democrats will doubtless pick up a lot of anti-government
votes and could see a record number of MPs elected, but the party
still doesn’t have enough appeal outside of its core left-wing
constituency to challenge for government. Nevertheless, it finally has
a strong leader in Jack Layton, who is already musing about supporting
a minority Liberal government.

That leaves only Stephen Harper’s “Conservative” Party as the only
national alternative. I say “Conservative” because the party is
nothing of the sort. Properly speaking, “conservative” connotes
support for national institutions, defence of tradition, incremental
change, and a preference for societal rights over individual rights.

None of these criteria applies to Harper and his puritanical posse of
Christian populists, Israeli apologists and U.S.-style republicans.
The party name reflects Progressive Conservative leader Peter McKay’s
decision to betray his party and his principles to merge with Harper’s
Canadian Alliance, which was hardly Canadian and not even an alliance.

On June 28, those who might ordinarily turn to the Conservatives now
face the spectre of voting for moral reactionaries and anti-statist
zealots who worship at the altar of unenlightened self-interest and
would reduce Canada into a full-blown lackey of the U.S. and Israel.
Therefore, enough disaffected Liberal voters might support the
government as the lesser of two evils.

The other factor in the Liberals’ favour is the appalling stupidity of
Harper and his posse. Because they are driven more by dogma than
reason, they are prone to dangerous lapses in judgment. The subject of
Canada’s refusal to join the invasion of Iraq is particularly
instructive.

In the House, the posse relentlessly berated, assailed and insulted
then-Prime Minister Jean Chrétien for refusing to stand
“shoulder-to-shoulder” with our American “allies.” On March 30, 2003,
Harper said on CTV’s Question Period: “This government’s only
explanation for not standing behind our allies is that they couldn’t
get the approval of the Security Council at the United Nations—a body
[on] which Canada doesn't even have a seat.”

It appears Harper hasn’t read the National Defence Act, or doesn’t
think it matters, or else he wouldn’t have uttered such a
condescending howler. The Act states that some or all of Canada’s
forces may be placed on active service if:

(a) by reason of an emergency, for the defence of Canada; or
(b) in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United
Nations Charter, the North Atlantic Treaty or any similar instrument
for collective defence that may be entered into by Canada. (my
emphasis)

Dubya’s pre-meditated aggression, based on willful disregard of
critical intelligence, does not in any way qualify as an instrument
for collective defence. Nevertheless, Harper called the attack force a
“multilateral coalition of forces,” giving the false impression that
it had some form of moral sanction. It did not. In fact, it violated
articles 2, 33-38 and 51 of the UN Charter.

In short, Harper would have had Canada violate national and
international law, and involve our soldiers in a war crime. Perhaps he
should warn Canadians that he plans to contract out the country’s
military policy to the Pentagon, but that wouldn’t go over well at a
time when the posse is trolling for votes and needs to downplay its
image as a bunch of gormless hicks.

Today, Chrétien is praised for his courage and principle, and Harper
is desperately trying to rewrite history. He charges that Liberals are
lying when the say that if he had been prime minister Canadians would
be in Iraq this year.

Yet here is Harper speaking to Canadian Press on April 1, 2003: “We
support the war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops
and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to
win.” The headline on a Globe and Mail column by Lawrence Martin said
it best: “Iraq: Harper, Harper, Pants on Fire!”

On the matter of Israel, foreign affairs critic and former party
leader Stockwell Day stands out as the posse’s most conspicuous
embarrassment, and potentially one of Martin’s biggest assets.

Believe it or not, Day is a biblical literalist who believes the Earth
is 6,000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Not
surprisingly, his understanding of Canada’s Middle East policy is
non-cognitive and obscurantist. Any attempt by Ottawa to hold Israel
accountable to international law is denounced as “anti-Israel” and any
show of support for the Palestinians is equated with endorsing
terrorism.

Denouncing the atrocities committed in Rafah and Jenin, to say nothing
of Israel’s role in the tortures in Iraqi prisons, matter not to a man
whose idea of reality comes out a self-contradictory book of myth and
interpretive narrative. Day might as well say he would let Tel Aviv
make Canada’s Middle East policy, but that also wouldn’t go over very
well.

Come to think of it, you don’t hear these “Conservatives” say very
much at all. Their campaign looks a lot like George Bush’s—keep your
mouth shut and don’t give your opponent an opening. Do we really want
to entrust our country to these people?

For Canadians, the most important consideration should be to keep
Canada in the hands of Canadian parties. No party that would have
Harper or Day as a member deserves to govern.

In the Canadain election the Liberals lost seats but still managed a
minotrity government. Voters rebuked the government for its scandals
but also smacked Stephen Harper and his gaggle of neo-con/Zionist
pinheads.

The NDP doubled its seats and looks like the odds-on favourite to form
a modus operandi with Prime Minister Paul Martin.

The dust hasn't settled yet, but the least Shelly should do is admit
that Greg Felton called this election accurately and for the reasons
stated in his column. Here's it is again.

"Christian populists, Israeli apologists and U.S.-style republicans do
not a Conservative Party make"

“Seem,” though, is the operative word, because a fourth Liberal
government is a virtual certainty; the only question is whether it
will be a majority or a minority. The basis for this counterintuitive
prediction lies in the lack of a credible alternative this time round.

The New Democrats will doubtless pick up a lot of anti-government
votes and could see a record number of MPs elected,

still doesn’t have enough appeal outside of its core left-wing
constituency to challenge for government. Nevertheless, it finally has
a strong leader in Jack Layton, who is already musing about supporting
a minority Liberal government.

That leaves only Stephen Harper’s “Conservative” Party as the only
national alternative. I say “Conservative” because the party is
nothing of the sort. Properly speaking, “conservative” connotes
support for national institutions, defence of tradition, incremental
change, and a preference for societal rights over individual rights.

None of these criteria applies to Harper and his puritanical posse of
Christian populists, Israeli apologists and U.S.-style republicans.

The party name reflects Progressive Conservative leader Peter McKay’s
decision to betray his party and his principles to merge with Harper’s
Canadian Alliance, which was hardly Canadian and not even an alliance.

It appears Harper hasn’t read the National Defence Act, or doesn’t
think it matters, or else he wouldn’t have uttered such a
condescending howler. The Act states that some or all of Canada’s
forces may be placed on active service if:

(a) by reason of an emergency, for the defence of Canada; or
(b) in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United
Nations Charter, the North Atlantic Treaty or any similar instrument
for collective defence that may be entered into by Canada. (my
emphasis)

Dubya’s pre-meditated aggression, based on willful disregard of
critical intelligence, does not in any way qualify as an instrument
for collective defence. Nevertheless, Harper called the attack force a
“multilateral coalition of forces,” giving the false impression that
it had some form of moral sanction. It did not. In fact, it violated
articles 2, 33-38 and 51 of the UN Charter.

In short, Harper would have had Canada violate national and
international law, and involve our soldiers in a war crime.

Believe it or not, Day is a biblical literalist who believes the Earth
is 6,000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

Denouncing the atrocities committed in Rafah and Jenin,

of Israel’s role in the tortures in Iraqi prisons,

whose idea of reality comes out a self-contradictory book of myth and
interpretive narrative.

make Canada’s Middle East policy, but that also wouldn’t go over very
well.

Come to think of it, you don’t hear these “Conservatives” say very
much at all. Their campaign looks a lot like George Bush’s—keep your
mouth shut and don’t give your opponent an opening. Do we really want
to entrust our country to these people?

For Canadians, the most important consideration should be to keep
Canada in the hands of Canadian parties. No party that would have
Harper or Day as a member deserves to govern.

The dust hasn't settled yet, but the least Shelly should do is admit
that Greg Felton called this election accurately and for the reasons
stated in his column. Here's it is again.

Greg Felton
Alberta Arab News

In the Canadain election the Liberals lost seats but still managed a
minotrity government. Voters rebuked the government for its scandals
but also smacked Stephen Harper and his gaggle of neo-con/Zionist
pinheads.

The NDP doubled its seats and looks like the odds-on favourite to form
a modus operandi with Prime Minister Paul Martin.

The dust hasn't settled yet, but the least Shelly should do is admit
that Greg Felton called this election accurately and for the reasons
stated in his column. Here's it is again.

"Christian populists, Israeli apologists and U.S.-style republicans do
not a Conservative Party make"

Greg Felton
Alberta Arab News (mediamonitors.net)
June 24, 2004

Four days from now, Canadians will decide if they want to legitimize
Paul Martin as prime minister and give the Liberal Party a fourth
majority in the House of Commons. If indications are accurate, they’ll
do the first, but not necessarily the second.

The public has no great passion for the Liberals. The government has
been taking a pasting over the sponsorship scandal, and Martin’s
decision, when he was finance minister, to balance the federal budget
at the expense of health care. Moreover, no federal party has ever won
four consecutive terms. As the saying goes, governments are voted out,
not voted in, and it would seem that the Liberals should be on the way
out.

“Seem,” though, is the operative word, because a fourth Liberal
government is a virtual certainty; the only question is whether it
will be a majority or a minority. The basis for this counterintuitive
prediction lies in the lack of a credible alternative this time round.

The New Democrats will doubtless pick up a lot of anti-government
votes and could see a record number of MPs elected, but the party
still doesn’t have enough appeal outside of its core left-wing
constituency to challenge for government. Nevertheless, it finally has
a strong leader in Jack Layton, who is already musing about supporting
a minority Liberal government.

That leaves only Stephen Harper’s “Conservative” Party as the only
national alternative. I say “Conservative” because the party is
nothing of the sort. Properly speaking, “conservative” connotes
support for national institutions, defence of tradition, incremental
change, and a preference for societal rights over individual rights.

None of these criteria applies to Harper and his puritanical posse of
Christian populists, Israeli apologists and U.S.-style republicans.
The party name reflects Progressive Conservative leader Peter McKay’s
decision to betray his party and his principles to merge with Harper’s
Canadian Alliance, which was hardly Canadian and not even an alliance.

On June 28, those who might ordinarily turn to the Conservatives now
face the spectre of voting for moral reactionaries and anti-statist
zealots who worship at the altar of unenlightened self-interest and
would reduce Canada into a full-blown lackey of the U.S. and Israel.
Therefore, enough disaffected Liberal voters might support the
government as the lesser of two evils.

The other factor in the Liberals’ favour is the appalling stupidity of
Harper and his posse. Because they are driven more by dogma than
reason, they are prone to dangerous lapses in judgment. The subject of
Canada’s refusal to join the invasion of Iraq is particularly
instructive.

In the House, the posse relentlessly berated, assailed and insulted
then-Prime Minister Jean Chrétien for refusing to stand
“shoulder-to-shoulder” with our American “allies.” On March 30, 2003,
Harper said on CTV’s Question Period: “This government’s only
explanation for not standing behind our allies is that they couldn’t
get the approval of the Security Council at the United Nations—a body
[on] which Canada doesn't even have a seat.”

It appears Harper hasn’t read the National Defence Act, or doesn’t
think it matters, or else he wouldn’t have uttered such a
condescending howler. The Act states that some or all of Canada’s
forces may be placed on active service if:

(a) by reason of an emergency, for the defence of Canada; or
(b) in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United
Nations Charter, the North Atlantic Treaty or any similar instrument
for collective defence that may be entered into by Canada. (my
emphasis)

Dubya’s pre-meditated aggression, based on willful disregard of
critical intelligence, does not in any way qualify as an instrument
for collective defence. Nevertheless, Harper called the attack force a
“multilateral coalition of forces,” giving the false impression that
it had some form of moral sanction. It did not. In fact, it violated
articles 2, 33-38 and 51 of the UN Charter.

In short, Harper would have had Canada violate national and
international law, and involve our soldiers in a war crime. Perhaps he
should warn Canadians that he plans to contract out the country’s
military policy to the Pentagon, but that wouldn’t go over well at a
time when the posse is trolling for votes and needs to downplay its
image as a bunch of gormless hicks.

Today, Chrétien is praised for his courage and principle, and Harper
is desperately trying to rewrite history. He charges that Liberals are
lying when the say that if he had been prime minister Canadians would
be in Iraq this year.

Yet here is Harper speaking to Canadian Press on April 1, 2003: “We
support the war effort and believe we should be supporting our troops
and our allies and be there with them doing everything necessary to
win.” The headline on a Globe and Mail column by Lawrence Martin said
it best: “Iraq: Harper, Harper, Pants on Fire!”

On the matter of Israel, foreign affairs critic and former party
leader Stockwell Day stands out as the posse’s most conspicuous
embarrassment, and potentially one of Martin’s biggest assets.

Believe it or not, Day is a biblical literalist who believes the Earth
is 6,000 years old and that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Not
surprisingly, his understanding of Canada’s Middle East policy is
non-cognitive and obscurantist. Any attempt by Ottawa to hold Israel
accountable to international law is denounced as “anti-Israel” and any
show of support for the Palestinians is equated with endorsing
terrorism.

Denouncing the atrocities committed in Rafah and Jenin, to say nothing
of Israel’s role in the tortures in Iraqi prisons, matter not to a man
whose idea of reality comes out a self-contradictory book of myth and
interpretive narrative. Day might as well say he would let Tel Aviv
make Canada’s Middle East policy, but that also wouldn’t go over very
well.

Come to think of it, you don’t hear these “Conservatives” say very
much at all. Their campaign looks a lot like George Bush’s—keep your
mouth shut and don’t give your opponent an opening. Do we really want
to entrust our country to these people?

For Canadians, the most important consideration should be to keep
Canada in the hands of Canadian parties. No party that would have
Harper or Day as a member deserves to govern.