Defeating the Harper Conservatives -- The peace movement and the federal election

by Dave McKee, Canadian Peace Congress President

The 2015 federal election is a critical opportunity for the people of Canada to defeat the Harper Conservative government and its reactionary, pro-war agenda. It is important that the peace movements in Canada begin work now to play a strong role in shaping the public policy debate.

Foreign policy matters do not normally play a defining role in Canadian federal elections, and it appears that this election may be one of the rare cases in which issues of peace, security, militarism and international policy are an important part of the public debate.

The Harper government itself has tried to maintain a high public profile for certain aspects of its foreign policy, under the recurring pretext of fighting terrorism at home (through Bill C-51) and abroad (through the expanding war in Iraq and Syria.) This is partly an effort to shore up the Conservatives’ political base. It is also an attempt to draw public attention away from the ongoing and deepening economic crisis, which has attracted increasing public anger to the Harper Tories, and toward foreign policy issues, where the Conservatives can differentiate themselves from opposition parties whose positions generally present weak alternatives.

Of course, the two issues of economic crisis and war are closely related and should not be counter-posed to one another. The Canadian Peace Congress put it this way at our 2011 Convention:

As the global, systemic economic crisis continues and deepens, competition for resources, markets, influence and profits has grown much more fierce and desperate. Capitalist governments have moved quickly to attack social and labour rights and impose severe austerity measures that will impoverish and marginalize masses of working people, at the same time that they are prosecuting wars and increasing military budgets.

The role of the peace movement is to draw attention to this relationship, to highlight the disastrous foreign policy record of the Harper Tories, and to identify the danger of continuing those policies. In the process, we must project the importance of a new, independent foreign policy of peace, international cooperation and solidarity. And we must insist that such a new foreign policy will work hand-in-hand with progressive, democratic domestic policies that serve the needs of the majority of the people in Canada.

Among peace and progressive groups, there are different proposals for how to approach the federal election. Some argue that the singular focus should be on defeating the Harper government. Others argue the broad foreign and military policies of the main parties are so similar that the tasks before the peace movement lie far beyond the scope of a single election.

The Canadian Peace Congress takes a different approach, one that includes both the immediate goals and the necessity of fundamental policy change. Our two-part proposal is that the Harper Conservatives must be defeated, and also that we need to build a mass movement that demands of all governments a foreign policy of peace.

It is very true that the main arena for peace and anti-war activism is “extra-parliamentary” – in workplaces, communities, schools and the streets. This is where we encounter interested, engaged people whose commitment and energy provides the backbone for the kind of mass movement we need to build. A strong and united movement, in action, can project a peace program for Canada that no government can afford to ignore or distort.

At the same time, however, Stephen Harper’s Conservative government has pursued the most aggressive and dangerous foreign and military policies in memory. Under the Harper Conservative government:

• Canadian military spending has soared, so that Canada is now the sixth largest military spender among NATO’s 28 members, and the 16th largest military spender globally.
• Canada has deeply embedded its foreign policies into those of the United States and NATO, to the extent that key economic policy is dictated by the military priorities of NATO and the US.
• Canada has promoted foreign intervention and participated in wars of aggression against sovereign states, including Libya, Syria, North Korea, Yemen, Brazil, Honduras, Venezuela and Ukraine.

Will defeating the Conservatives bring about a fundamental change in foreign policy? No, it won’t.

But it will remove the biggest immediate barrier to that change. Defeating Harper is key.

The Canadian Peace Congress Executive is developing the strategy for its federal election campaign, which will be launched soon.

Elements of the campaign will likely include:

• Window signs with messages that highlight the Harper government’s record on war and militarism and call on people to “vote for peace”
• A series of fact sheets and videos about foreign policy, militarism and war, and the importance of these issues in this election
• A speaking and organizing tour, to local groups across Canada, to draw together activists and identify ways cooperate in an effort to get foreign policy into the election discussion

We invite all members, supporters and friends to help with this campaign. If you want to get involved, or have ideas to share, please let us know.


‪#‎timeforpeace‬

This piece originally appeared in the Canadian Peace Bulletin, vol 2 no 1. It is reprinted here with permission.

Dave McKee is the Canadian Peace Congress President

You can find out more about the Canadian Peace Congress at www.canadianpeacecongress.ca 

Do you have a left point-of-view or opinion, a recipe or a story you want to share?

Send them to The Left Chapter via theleftchapter@outlook.com

Unintended consequences: Attacking Leadnow and "strategic voting"

The Leadnow strategic voting meme

As I have noted before, partisan political narratives often die very hard -- even when these narratives have begun to do far more harm than good to those who continue to espouse them.

One of these, increasingly, is the fixation by many New Democrat partisans on insisting that they are the only "real" "progressives" (while all the other parliamentary parties are supposedly the "same") as well as on attacking their old nemesis among progressive voters -- the Liberal Party.

Recently a group calling itself The Real Vote organized a petition calling on Leadnow, a group dedicated to the defeat of the Harper government via an Anything But Conservative (ABC) style "strategic voting" campaign, to stop advocating for voting Liberal in ridings where the Liberals have the best chance of defeating the Conservatives on the grounds that as the Liberals voted for Bill C-51 they are not "progressive". They are suggesting Leadnow, which is "non-partisan" in its efforts to defeat Harper, drop Liberal candidates from its strategic voting campaign; which would mean, in practice, an endorsement of the NDP in all but three or four ridings in the country.

Previously in April, Paul Moist, National President of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) also attacked Leadnow on the same grounds -- though he was at least openly doing so as an NDP partisan, as he included the Greens (in spite of Elizabeth May's steadfast opposition to Bill C-51 from the start, unlike Tom Mulcair) as also not being "progressive". At the time he said that Leadnow's strategy was "mistaken" and would lead to "unintended consequences".

Yet even if one accepts their premises in whole or in part, these attacks on Leadnow are, in my opinion, profoundly misguided.

If you are a New Democrat they are even misguided from a purely partisan point-of-view.

In fact, despite intentions, saying that “Neither the Liberal Party of Canada nor the Green Party are progressive”, as Moist did, not only implies differences between the progressive parties that are far greater in the minds of NDP partisans than they are in reality, but, far more importantly to those who wish to aid the NDP's cause, serves only alienate many "progressive" voters that the NDP absolutely needs to win government!

In any honest strategic voting effort or narrative (as I have argued previously) the NDP are certain to be the primary beneficiaries as even a cursory analysis of the existing parliamentary reality, as well as recent polls, shows.

Even if one rejects strategic voting as a concept (which I absolutely do -- in fact I support none of the mainstream bourgeois "progressive" parties, the NDP included) the point is that attacking a sincere desire on the part of progressive voters who are inclined to vote for the Greens or the Liberals for "strategic" reasons to defeat the Harper regime, or denouncing the parties that some progressives are normally inclined to support but who may be leaning to voting NDP this time, far from making them more likely to switch over to the NDP, is quite likely to have the opposite effect.

There are some rather obvious reasons for this.

First, as the last Ekos poll showed, a far greater number of Liberal voters, 45%, see the NDP as their second choice as opposed to those who see the Conservatives as such, which is only 12%. Three times as many Green Party voters have the NDP as their second choice (24%) as opposed to the Liberals (7%) or the Conservatives (8%).

Regardless of how leftists and New Democrats may see these Liberal and Green voters, what is important is how they see themselves -- and many of them quite clearly see  themselves and the parties to which they are primarily committed as progressive.

Telling them that they are fundamentally wrong (or that all the other parties are the same) is, frankly, a truly bad "strategy" -- especially given that, to any objective observer, the NDP and Liberals have never been closer ideologically. They are almost like wings of the American  Democratic Party.

This is also a bad strategy irrespective of how one feels about strategic voting and is true even though there is no doubt that leftists and New Democrats should always be critical of specific positions taken by these parties, most especially the appalling and pandering position, now backfiring terribly it seems, taken by Justin Trudeau on Bill C-51.

The point is that the focus of the NDP, ( and, one might note, the party's strategists do seem to be increasingly getting this) should always be the Conservative government and not its opponents, as not only is this what an opposition party that truly sees itself as the next government would do, but also because it sets the NDP up as the natural alternative to the Tories in a way that is not designed to drive swing voters the NDP needs away from the party.

This is part of how the NDP and its partisans can reframe the strategic voting narrative. It will not happen by talking about how the Liberals and the Greens are "not progressive" (even if you cling to the notion that the NDP is fundamentally different) or by attacking groups like Leadnow whose supporters are committed opponents of Harper, which is, if nothing else,  a clear starting point in trying to get them to "lend you" their vote.

Ultimately, any strategy to attract the needed Liberal/NDP swing voters is not really about the Liberal Party at all -- it is about these voters!

And the ones that are important to the NDP are dedicated to seeing Harper defeated.

In the last Ontario election, the ONDP and its partisans almost seemed to go out of their way to alienate progressive voters like these using a similar line of reasoning to Moist's about the Liberals (and, one supposes, Liberal voters) as well as some odd notion that the really important objective was to win over Conservative "swing" voters -- an absurd miscalculation, even though the Liberals were the government (albeit a minority one), that would only be more absurd with a Conservative government.

This did not turn out particularly well.

The strategy's fundamental flaws continued to be revealed in the recent Ontario by-election in Sudbury. 

There can be unintended consequences to every strategy -- and this one could easily drive Liberals and Greens leaning to the NDP right back where they came from.

See Also: The NDP and the strategic voting narrative

May: Bill C-51, the "Men's Rights Movement", taxes & more -- The month on The Left Chapter in review

From: Tom Mulcair, the NDP & Bill C-51: Committed to a full repeal!

May was another busy month with 40 posts of various kinds on The Left Chapter.

Here are the top five posts, in terms of hits, for the month of May. For the first time so far, it includes a tie with two posts having an exactly equal number of hits as of 2 p.m. today. There was also an unusual circumstance, where one post from March would have made the top five, so we have included a link to it as well!

1) Tom Mulcair, the NDP & Bill C-51: Committed to a full repeal!

To date the story of Bill C-51 and the NDP has been one of somewhat contradictory messaging around the issue of whether or not, if elected, they would amend the bill or repeal it entirely. While some MPs said one thing to the party faithful in a variety of contexts, the leader of the party said something quite different on Global Television and these contradictions were never, until yesterday, publicly reconciled.

Read More!

2) Dan Perrins, CAFE & Canada's Men's Rights movement

A sticker has been appearing on lampposts and mailboxes in my west-end Toronto neighbourhood of Etobicoke (and, presumably, in other neighbourhoods as well). On it a website called antimisandry.com is listed below the claim that "Almost 80% of all suicides are men" and above the slogan "Men Matter".

Read More!

3) Trudeau outmaneuvers Mulcair on taxing the wealthy

Back when Linda McQuaig was running for the NDP in a federal by-election, NDP leader Tom Mulcair could not have been more clear that he opposed personal tax increases of any kind and on anyone -- from me to Conrad Black and all points in between!

Read More!

4) "Men's Rights" group CAFE is trying to march in Pride Toronto: You can help stop them!

The Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE), Canada's most prominent "men's rights" group is trying, again, to march in Toronto's annual Pride parade.

Read More!

5) Tie: Love in the time of Bill C-51 Submitted by Aidan Monis

Last night, as part of our weekly tradition, my Dad and I yelled at each other about politics. The topic at hand was Bill C-51, the recent legislation put forward by Stephen Harper in an effort to “combat terrorism,” which you surely recognize as a euphemism for “destroying freedom of expression and human dignity.” Canadians of all political stripes (including many with whom I mightily disagree on other issues) have expressed their intense distaste for the bill. The arguments for opposing the bill have been well-documented elsewhere, so I won’t really speak here about the nuts and bolts of C-51. In the spirit of the oh-so-clever title of this piece, I would rather say a few words about its emotional impact.

Read More!

5) Tie: Update: The NDP and Bill C-51 -- Amend or repeal?

So after an epic period of rhetorical equivocation it does appear that the NDP understands, despite some odd claims to the contrary, that there is actually a difference between amending Bill C-51 and repealing it.

Read More!

Although it was written and posted in March, the piece Is NDP MP Randall Garrison right that Tom Mulcair will repeal Bill C-51? suddenly began getting a high enough number of hits that it would have been the second place piece overall this month had it been written in May! This stopped as soon as Tom Mulcair announced that the NDP would, indeed, repeal the bill.

The top food blog for the month was Natalie Lochwin's uncovering of Stephen Harper's Mom's Bran Muffin Recipe from 1979.

Do you have a left point-of-view or opinion, a recipe or a story you want to share?

Send them to The Left Chapter via theleftchapter@outlook.com!

Check out our review for the month of April!: April: "Fred Checkers", Elizabeth May, Vintage Toronto & more -- The month on The Left Chapter in review

Love in the time of Bill C-51

Submitted by A.M.

Last night, as part of our weekly tradition, my Dad and I yelled at each other about politics. The topic at hand was Bill C-51, the recent legislation put forward by Stephen Harper in an effort to “combat terrorism,” which you surely recognize as a euphemism for “destroying freedom of expression and human dignity.” Canadians of all political stripes (including many with whom I mightily disagree on other issues) have expressed their intense distaste for the bill. The arguments for opposing the bill have been well-documented elsewhere, so I won’t really speak here about the nuts and bolts of C-51. In the spirit of the oh-so-clever title of this piece, I would rather say a few words about its emotional impact.

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, O’Brien tells Winston, “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.” These words, sadly, are coming to pass on an industrial scale. We live in a culture where certain human rights are more alienable than others. To be safe, we cannot be free – and vice versa. We live in a culture where teenagers can be incarcerated over mere accusations and wait years for due process. I’m speaking, of course, of recently released (former) Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr. After spending over a decade in various prison cells, Khadr is finally a free man. Stephen Harper, true to form, has reacted by ramping up his thinly-veiled, dog-whistle attacks on Khadr and the entire Muslim community.

It’s all “our way of life” this and “convicted terrorist” that.  For men like Stephen Harper (and past Liberal Prime Ministers and any number of other Canadian politicians) it is not enough to lock up a young man on trumped-up charges. It is not enough for these same men to enrich their friends in the prison- and military-industrial complexes with fat contracts and kickbacks built on the blood and suffering of human beings. None of this is ever enough. The few who do manage to escape their imprisonment are to be humiliated and sacrificed on the twin altars of private profit and political orthodoxy.

Bill C-51, at its core, is an article of hatred. It is a piece of legislation based in a profound distrust and loathing of the human being. We are not the empathetic creatures that built the NHS in Britain out of the ravages of the Second World War (and Medicare here in Canada). We are not the intelligent people who created modern telecommunications. We are not the autonomous beings who question authority and join in collective action with others to make a better world. To Stephen Harper and his cohorts, we are none of these things. We are livestock to be corralled, cornered and controlled.

As Daisy Fitzroy puts it in BioShock Infinite, “If they could bed you down in straw, they would bed you down in straw.”

So what are we to do? As I wrote above, I am writing this piece fresh off of a disagreement with my father about C-51. His advice to my brother who was asking about the bill (as we were Skyping him at the time) was to "watch what you write and say online. Just assume they’re tracking you.”

I assumed years ago that they were tracking me, but this sad fact has never and will never change the things I write or say. Freedom of speech and solidarity have cost so much to so many people – people who never had the white, male, middle-class privilege that I do. First Nations activists would be the very first people targeted under C-51, as it amounts to a de facto criminalization of civil disobedience and the blocking of Canadian industry. Assuming I simply keep my mouth shut, I can continue to benefit from the violence that is enacted every day against our First Peoples. I can not and will not do this. It is morally incumbent on all of us – and most especially the privileged – to speak out and resist.

Silence is complicity.

I’m reminded at this time of the October Crisis. It seemed then, to Canadians from coast to coast, that the very idea and existence of Canada were under siege by the FLQ. Prime Minister Trudeau’s response was to invoke the War Measures Act, a horrific piece of legislation that stripped Canadians of their civil liberties. The lone voice of reason in Parliament at the time was the great socialist leader Tommy Douglas.

Today, we have no Tommy Douglas (at least not in the mainstream). We have to settle for the boring neo-liberal that is Tom Mulcair who, to his great credit, has promised to repeal C-51 in its entirety should the NDP win a majority in this year’s election. I’m not a New Democrat, and haven’t been for some time, but they have my vote because of C-51. They should have yours, too.

So what’s love got to do with it? As I stated above, it’s imperative that we see Bill C-51 for what is: an article of profound human loathing. Recognizing this, we must then find ways to resist. We could start by changing our attitudes. Our culture feeds on hatred and despair, and feeds it back to us in turn. Our most popular forms of entertainment are pornography and violent movies and video games. So many of our celebrities are dim-witted, culturally illiterate buffoons whose primary function seems to be to distract people from living authentic, intelligent, engaged lives. We revel in the ritual humiliation of reality television and ambush comedy. We might benefit from taking a long, hard look at ourselves. We won’t always like what we see, but that’s not the point. By recognizing ourselves and our own potential, we would then be better equipped to see our fellow human beings not as livestock to be ruled over, but as partners and friends. Truly, I am my brother’s and sister’s keeper.

I don’t know what Canada will look like in ten years. Perhaps it will be a socialist paradise. Perhaps, instead, it will be a living nightmare -- a police state, through and through. I do fear for the future; for the world in which my children will live. But I know, from looking at the long arc of human history, that power never rests solely with men like Stephen Harper. There is great strength and courage among the rabble – the wretched of the Earth.

“Courage, my friends; ’tis not too late to build a better world.” – Tommy Douglas

A.M. is a writer in Toronto.

Tom Mulcair, the NDP & Bill C-51: Committed to a full repeal!

To date the story of Bill C-51 and the NDP has been one of somewhat contradictory messaging around the issue of whether or not, if elected, they would amend the bill or repeal it entirely. While some MPs said one thing to the party faithful in a variety of contexts, the leader of the party said something quite different on Global Television and these contradictions were never, until yesterday, publicly reconciled.

Some argued that this did not really matter all that much, but many activists, myself included, felt that it did and noted that the Green Party had already taken a very strong stance in favour of repealing the bill.

Happily this contradictory situation seems to finally no longer be the case, as Tom Mulcair stated publicly and clearly on twitter yesterday that an NDP government was committed to the repeal of the bill.

This means the NDP joins the Greens in their position on this and both stand in stark contrast to the ludicrous, bankrupt and gutless position taken by the Liberals and Justin Trudeau.

This is very good news. As I have argued in the past the importance of the Official Opposition and Canada's historic social democratic and labour aligned party taking this strong a position cannot be overstated.

However, it also clearly shows, in this increasingly blindly partisan era, the importance of any support for the parties of the "mainstream" left, or of any party for that matter, being critical support.

Not to belabour the point, but coming out clearly for the bill's repeal and using that exact language  did matter -- as is obviously the case or Mulcair would not now being saying it. Partisans of the NDP who showed up in countless threads, blogs and social media spaces to attempt to say it did not matter, or that they really had taken this position when they had not, helped delay this step on Mulcair's part, frankly, while he seemingly read the tea leaves and waited to see if public support shifted against the bill -- which it has.

It points again to the fact that uncritical support is just a free pass and is only helpful to the various party's leaders and their cliques -- not to the causes that matter to us as activists. If there was ever a case where  uncritical partisanship did more harm than good, we see one here.

It is, I think, abundantly clear that only pressure and criticism from activists both internal and external to the party, in conjunction with the shift in the polls and with the Greens outflanking him on an issue important to leftists and progressives, made this happen.

But, while this should be remembered, Tom Mulcair, finally, has made the position very, very clear and this is a really positive moment in the fight against the odious Bill C-51.

This strong stance may yet prove to be his finest moment after all!

Update: The NDP and Bill C-51 -- Amend or repeal?

So after an epic period of rhetorical equivocation it does appear that the NDP understands, despite some odd claims to the contrary, that there is actually a difference between amending Bill C-51 and repealing it.

While this tweet posted above from NDP HQ distorts the historical record, as the Greens actually opposed it before the NDP and have in far stronger terms, it is still very good and very important news, given that the NDP is the Official Opposition.

There were rumors this announcement was coming all day. While Tom Mulcair himself still has yet to say it, it would appear to be the newly stronger NDP position.

This shows the importance of keeping up pressure against opportunist and facile attempts to appear to play both sides and of standing up against the rhetoric and excuses of the partisan hacks.

No longer is solely a highly defensive (at the time) Randall Garrison saying it at a town hall meeting.

It would appear highly likely that The Greens played a very big roll in pushing the NDP's hand with petitions and memes like this:

At any rate, better late than never!

April: "Fred Checkers", Elizabeth May, Vintage Toronto & more -- The month on The Left Chapter in review

From "Fred Checkers and the state of democracy in the NDP"

April was a busy month with 33 posts of various kinds on The Left Chapter.

Here are the top five posts, in terms of hits, for the month of April:





1) Fred Checkers and the state of democracy in the NDP

It has long been apparent (as I have written about at some length before) that the drift away from any meaningful internal democracy within the NDP is a very pronounced one. The party is highly centralized, member resolutions are only symbolic and are totally ignored by the leadership and its clique come election time (frankly, it is not even clear to me why they bother with resolutions at their conventions at all anymore), the party will disregard its own constitution at will and invalidate internal elections or nominations it does not like (or seemingly stack them as the ONDP seems to have in the case of the disgraceful Adam Giambrone nomination) and the NDP will sometimes prevent members from even running for a nomination in the first place!

Read More!

2) Elizabeth May needs to be at the federal leader's debate 

In 1997 the leader of a seemingly failing party, that had received only 6.88% of the vote in 1993, as well as the leader of a decimated party that had been reduced to simply 2 seats, squared off in nationally televised debates against not only the Prime Minister of the day and his Reform Party opposition opponent, but also the leader of a Quebec based nationalist party that could not, and had no intention of trying to take, power within Canada.

Read More!

3) 10 Vintage Toronto Postcard Streetscapes (and one bonus one of Port Credit!)

I am very fond of both vintage postcards and streetscape photography generally so I was thrilled to stumble upon a collection of Toronto postcards in a South Etobicoke antique store (called Treasure Hunt and located just east of Islington and Lake Shore) that were both.

Read More! 

4) Sorry NDP "Field Director" James Pratt...but Tom Mulcair is NOT the only leader "opposing" Bill C-51

Progressive politics in Canada appears to be heading to a new low.

Recently the NDP released a campaign video, narrated and presented by their "Field Director" James Pratt, in which he actually claims that Tom Mulcair is the "only leader who is sticking to his principles and working to expose Bill C-51".

But that is simply not true. It is ludicrously false in fact.

Read More! 

5) Is Harper's Last Day Coming?

There is a website selling buttons that celebrate, in advance of course, "Harper's Last Day" which they claim will be coming October 19, 2015. The buttons are available in "ironic blue" or in the colours of the three mainstream progressive parties, the Greens, Liberals and the NDP.

While to most on the left they express a no doubt deeply desired outcome, they also embody the contradictions that face Canadian "progressives" in the upcoming election.

Read More!

I also wanted to take a proud dad moment to congratulate my 13 year old son, Nathaniel, for his first blog post, which actually was sixth overall and was virtually tied with the number five above! It looks at one of his favourite strategy games and you can read it here: Victoria 2's Communist Flags

As none of the food or Leftist Throwback Thursday blogs made the top five (though these two came very close), we also include links to the top two of those:

1968's Japanese Cooking Cookery Cards with Sushi, Tempura, & more: Vintage Cookbook TBT

Nixon Drinks Canada Dry (with a special appearance by Phil Ochs!) - Leftist Throwback Thursday

Do you have a left point-of-view or opinion, a recipe or a story you want to share?

Send them to The Left Chapter via theleftchapter@outlook.com!

Check out our review for the month of March!: March: Mulcair, Tory, Bill C-51 & more - The month on The Left Chapter in review

Sorry NDP "Field Director" James Pratt...but Tom Mulcair is NOT the only leader "opposing" Bill C-51

Progressive politics in Canada appears to be heading to a new low.

Recently the NDP released a campaign video, narrated and presented by their "Field Director" James Pratt, in which he actually claims that Tom Mulcair is the "only leader who is sticking to his principles and working to expose Bill C-51".

But that is simply not true. It is ludicrously false in fact.

Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party and a Member of Parliament, opposed the bill from the beginning and has done so in far stronger terms than Tom Mulcair.


She has, unlike Mulcair, actually called for the repeal of the bill.

So, clearly, Tom Mulcair is NOT the only leader doing what Pratt claims and it is impossible to see how he or his staff can claim this with a straight face.

It is astounding that the NDP would release a video asserting this.

Given that many NDP supporters want to see a turn away from the simplistic and often facile politics of  the Liberals and Tories, trying to do so with a video that is premised on total bullshit is not a good start.

It is also not terribly surprising.

On April 18th, we’re organizing our biggest NDP Day of Action yet - to stop Stephen Harper's dangerous Bill C-51. Watch, then find an event near you: www.ndp.ca/events
Posted by Canada’s NDP / Le NPD du Canada on Thursday, April 9, 2015

Elizabeth May needs to be at the federal leader's debate

In 1997 the leader of a seemingly failing party, that had received only 6.88% of the vote in 1993, as well as the leader of a decimated party that had been reduced to simply 2 seats, squared off in nationally televised debates against not only the Prime Minister of the day and his Reform Party opposition opponent, but also the leader of a Quebec based nationalist party that could not, and had no intention of trying to take, power within Canada.


If Alexa McDonough of the NDP and Jean Charest of the Tories were allowed to represent their apparently collapsing and rump parties on the national stage in  1997, so should the obviously growing, interesting and vocal leader of the Green Party, Elizabeth May, be allowed to now.

Especially given that her party has two seats in the legislature.

May, unlike Tom Mulcair or Trudeau, has steadfastly opposed and fought Bill C-51, for example, from day one. May has taken strong and forceful positions on any number of issues.

But, more importantly, she should not have to justify being there at all. The Greens obviously and clearly represent a now major political force in Canada. They have two seats. May is widely regarded as an effective and important  parliamentarian and leads a party that has every chance as doing as well or better than the Alexa McDonough led NDP of 1997.

In fact, of course, McDonough and Charest both led their parties back from the brink in 1997. Would they have had they been excluded from the national debates?

Some hacks of the other so-called "progressive" parties, the Liberals and the NDP, try to claim that May should not be included as she has no chance of winning government.

If that were true the NDP should never have been included (and the 2011 "Orange Crush" would never have happened) in any leader's debate ever held in the history of the party until now.

Would this have been good for the political discourse in Canada?

I suspect few supporters of the NDP would claim so.

But now, for generally ludicrous partisan and specious reasons, the Liberals and New Democrats remain gutless and silent as the "consortium" that makes the choices around this has, so far, not said they would include May.

Her exclusion, regardless of how one feels about her politics, would make the "debate" a shallow travesty and farce and an affront to democracy.

There is literally no valid reason for the other leaders to keep May out of the debates, save one.

Cowardice.

To a progressive, the fact that Harper, a mindlessly dictatorial conservative, does not want to debate May is hardly surprising.

But the Liberal and NDP leaders have no excuse. They need to vocally and publicly demand her inclusion. If Justin Trudeau and Tom Mulcair are not willing to debate Elizabeth May -- if they are not willing to stand up forcefully for basic democratic discourse and ensure she is included in the nationally televised leader's debate -- they really do not deserve your vote.

March: Mulcair, Tory, Bill C-51 & more - The month on The Left Chapter in review

From "42-2: John Tory, Toronto City Council and the austerity consensus"

March was a busy month with 34 posts of various kinds on The Left Chapter.

Here are the top five posts, in terms of hits, for the month of March:



Top Posts

1) 42-2: John Tory, Toronto City Council and the austerity consensus:

"Remember how, during last year's municipal election in Toronto, supporters of Olivia Chow and progressive activists and organizations warned that John Tory, were he to be elected as Mayor of Toronto, would simply be a more effective version of Rob Ford?"

Read more! 

2) Keep the progressive announcements coming, Tom: An open letter to the Leader of the NDP (by Simon Dougherty) 

"Dear Tom,


It’s been great to hear you’ll pull Canadian troops from Iraq if elected. Also, having a Prime Minister who’ll take from the rich and give to the poor will be a great relief to Canadians struggling with record levels of inequality."

Read more!

3) Rabble's Karl Nerenberg is wrong: Repealing and amending Bill C-51 are not at all the same thing

"Writing on rabble.ca Karl Nerenberg makes an unconvincing case, in response to a piece I had written, that NDP Leader Tom Mulcair and his party's stance that states that they will "amend" or "change" Bill C-51 is basically the same as Elizabeth May's stance that she will "repeal" it."

Read more! 

4) Harper, Mulcair, May & Trudeau: They all support the "Tribute to Liberty"

"Lately we have been hearing some loud "protest" from New Democrat,  Liberal and Green partisans and hacks sharing articles and statements online critical of and denouncing the hideous and absurd memorial for the "victims of communism" the Harper government has planned for Ottawa.

There is a large irony to this."

Read More!

5) Is NDP MP Randall Garrison right that Tom Mulcair will repeal Bill C-51?

"As many are aware, there has been something of a controversy on the left as to whether or not the NDP is committed to fundamentally scrapping Bill C-51 as opposed to, as the Trudeau Liberals are, seeking to "improve" or change it through amendments."

Read More! 

As none of the food or Leftist Throwback Thursday blogs made the top five (though these two came very close), we also include links to the top two of those:

Egg and Cheese Oven Bake with Vegetables or Meat (or both!)

Laxer, Lewis and Watkins sitting in a tree!: Leftist Throwback Thursday

Do you have a left point-of-view or opinion, a recipe or a story you want to share?

Send them to The Left Chapter via theleftchapter@outlook.com!

Keep the progressive announcements coming, Tom: An open letter to the Leader of the NDP

An Open Letter by Simon Dougherty

Dear Tom,

It’s been great to hear you’ll pull Canadian troops from Iraq if elected. Also, having a Prime Minister who’ll take from the rich and give to the poor will be a great relief to Canadians struggling with record levels of inequality.

These progressive announcements are important pieces of the “compelling new alternative” Jack Layton left for New Democrats to build. As you roll out more announcements in the months before the election, Canadians will “give them a careful hearing; consider the alternatives -- and consider that we can be a better, fairer, more equal country by working together.”

People are listening and ready to build the alternatives; hopeful alternatives that overcome Harper’s politics of fear. Clear alternatives that cut through Trudeau’s mixed-messaging.

Offering clear alternatives to Harper’s war measures and hopeful alternatives to his austerity measures has the Conservatives stalling, the Liberals slipping, and the NDP surging. But there’s still a long way to go before the election; ample time to give a careful hearing to more alternatives and make them even better. Let’s build on the momentum.

Keep the progressive announcements coming, Tom.

Like that $15/day childcare plan to be phased in over eight years -- let’s go even further and make Quebec's $7/day the Canadian standard immediately. Then, let’s phase in a free and universal program like other countries around the world.

Like that $15/h minimum wage pledge -- let’s make it universal upon election, not just for a small number of federal workers in 2019. American cities like Seattle and Portland are showing $15/h can be achieved right now. Australia passed that threshold five years ago and is on track to hit $19/h in 2019. While strong minimum wages are being put in place, let’s secure living wages with a Guaranteed Annual Income program, like the successful "Mincome" experiment in Dauphin, Manitoba.

Like closing tax loopholes on CEOs  -- recovering $700 million is a good start. Let’s recover another $31 billion by uniting against austerity with Quebec’s second wave of the “Maple Spring.” The World Bank, IMF and OECD admit that inequality is killing growth. Let’s implement a comprehensive set of progressive tax reforms as outlined by Linda McQuaig, the Broadbent Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Uruguay has utilized progressive taxes to achieve the greatest income equality in a region that has seen 16 of 18 countries successfully reduce inequality.

Like the urban agenda you introduced in Toronto and Vancouver -- let’s make clear commitments to affordable housing and start moving towards free public transit. Many medium-sized cities across Europe and the Americas have made the transition, already. Cities as large as Paris have experimented with the idea.

Like your rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline and all your talk about “sustainable development” -- let’s reject the Energy East pipeline and develop a transition plan to 100% renewable energy by 2035 as Canadian researchers have shown is possible. Costa Rica has already been powering itself on 100% renewable energy for the last 75 days.

Like your promise to establish a national inquiry into Murdered and Missing Aboriginal Women -- let’s build on that by honouring Treaty, respecting Aboriginal sovereignty, working in solidarity with Idle No More, and developing people-to-people partnerships as Canada was supposed to be doing from the start. Consider allotted seats for Aboriginal representation, as is done in New Zealand.

Like that promise to bring in Proportional Representation -- let’s join President Obama in advocating the idea of mandatory voting. Democracy is the NDP’s middle name, and many democracies, from Australia to Greece, already have compulsory voting.

Like your opposition to Bill C-51 -- let’s fully repeal it once in power. Repealing attacks on civil liberties is better than amending attacks on civil liberties. Tommy Douglas unequivocally opposed Pierre Trudeau's War Measures Act, and the same must be done with Harper’s ‘Secret Police’ Bill.

Like your promise to return the retirement age to 65 from 67 -- while we’re making sure Canadians can access the pensions they have earned, let’s make sure they can also access education and prescription drugs when they need them. A universal pharmacare program would save Canada billions. With savings like that we could abolish tuition like Germany and over a dozen other OECD countries.

All of these things have already been accomplished in some place at some time.

Another world is more than possible -- it’s actual. Don't let them tell you it can’t be done!

People will try to tell you that you have no choice but to vote for more of the same. More wars. More oil pipelines. More breaks for mining companies. More small business tax cuts. More corporate ‘free’ trade deals. But you do have a choice, Tom. It’s time to keep the focus where it belongs -- on helping Canadians with living wages, affordable homes, universal childcare and pharmacare, free tuition, public transit, a clean environment, a fair electoral system, the protection of civil liberties, the rejection of austerity, and justice for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis.

C'mon, Tom—together, we can do this.



Simon Dougherty is a former NDP candidate from Scarborough, Ontario. The son of Irish and Slovenian immigrants, he worked in trades and senior care like his parents, and then in education before graduating from York University. Simon has also done work in community organizing and videography. He is currently conducting doctoral research at ACU’s Institute for Social Justice in Sydney, Australia.

Photo via wikimedia commons

Justin Trudeau, Bill C-51 and the perils of political pandering

It is, in a sense, refreshing to see some of our political leaders openly and honestly admitting that they are taking a specific political position so as to pander to the misgivings or fears of the electorate.

Recently we saw Shawinigan, Que. Mayor Michel Angers acknowledge that he had capitulated to the sentiments and fears of constituents, against his own beliefs, when he and his council rejected issuing a permit for a small mosque in a town industrial park.

Now, on the national level, we find no less than the leader of the Liberal Party, Justin Trudeau, telling a University of British Columbia crowd,  while trying to explain why he is not voting against the government's dangerous Bill C-51:

But we know that, tactically, this government would be perfectly happy if the opposition completely voted against this bill because it fits into their fear narrative and [their desire to] … bash people on security. 

I do not want this government making political hay out of an issue … or trying to, out of an issue as important as security for Canadians...

...This conversation might be different if we weren’t months from an election campaign, but we are.

In other words, Trudeau and his caucus are going to vote for a bill they know to be, at the very least, profoundly flawed, it seems in large part explicitly because an election is coming!

It is perhaps admirable, on a certain level, that he is admitting to utterly gutless and terribly cynical political maneuvering - but only if that level is set at the lowest of expectations.

Similar comments at an event in Toronto, at which he also criticized the Tories for engaging in fear-mongering against Canada's Muslim community, but where he again reaffirmed his willingness to vote for the Tory security bill ("I don't want to get into a political fight over this" he admitted) led to a Vice headline "Trudeau Says Conservatives Are Prejudiced Against Muslims, But Is Still Cool with C-51".

Trudeau is completely correct that the Tories are seeking to use the politics of fear to get re-elected and that they seem to be willing to stoop to just about any low in this goal.

From totally ludicrous "surveys" being mailed to constituents by Tory MPs, to outrageously incendiary  Facebook memes, to facile and simplistic narratives about the Niqab, to the straight-up dog-whistle rhetoric, the Harper Tories are betting heavily that this will get Canadians to overlook falling oil prices, a sluggish economy and an awful record in government.

The problem for Trudeau when he says that he does not want to get into a "political fight" over the bill or let the Tories make "hay" is precisely that this Tory strategy is a political strategy and they are actively trying to make hay out of it!

It is, ultimately, inane for Trudeau to attack all of the premises, bigoted rhetoric and fear-mongering that the Tories are using to sell C-51 but then to commit to voting for it with-or-without amendments.

Doing so accepts fundamentally as a given that Harper is actually politically right about Canadians and admits that their "fear narrative" is a more powerful one than would be a strong and principled stance rejecting a bill that Trudeau knows to be wrong.

It will likely lead many Canadians to ask, if the bill, seemingly by Trudeau's own admission, is, in fact, necessary enough that the Liberals will vote for it, Harper must be at least partly right that terrorism represents a truly profound threat to the country and about his "us-versus-them" stance.

If Harper is partly right about the need for the bill, then why not, as voters, get fully on board with the "tough-on-terrorism" regime proposing it?

Trudeau may yet find that the totally bankrupt stance that he has taken due to his own fears and cynicism about the Canadian electorate will become prophetically self-fulfilling.

Hack Attack: Online "progressive" idiocy in the era of neo-liberalism

In recent days I have, after at first praising him for saying he would oppose Bill C-51, written a number of critical pieces asking if, in fact, Tom Mulcair's opposition to the bill is as comprehensive and serious as his defenders would have us believe.

My criticisms of Mulcair, in this or in any other case, may or may not be correct. They are, as with basically all of my political pieces, opinion pieces that, while I feel do attempt to and do show they are supported by the evidence, are an opinion! I certainly have no monopoly on the truth and those who disagree with my positions should do so and frequently do do so.

There is one type of "critic", however, who has always been present but who, especially with the explosion of social media and the online comment phenomenon, is raising their ugly head more-and-more often - the online party hack.

Anyone involved in politics or political commentary online has encountered them. They are the rabid, angry, often very insulting people who show up in comment threads or on twitter to defend the party they belong to in any and all instances.

In the case of the pieces related to the NDP and Bill C-51, as a single small personal example, when I wrote the piece praising Mulcair, Liberals and Greens attacked me as a "Dipper" or said it ignored the fact that Elizabeth May had taken a strong stand first (it didn't). When I then critiqued what I see as Mulcair's backtracking, NDPers showed up to say I was "helping Harper", was a Green or a Liberal apologist and much worse (we have a history!).

In the case of Liberals and New Democrats the comments also often insisted that their party was the "only progressive" party that could "defeat Harper". For reasons I have outlined elsewhere, claiming this is beyond silly and is intellectually dishonest for either group.

New Democrats usually also like to throw in a claim that the Liberals are "the same" as Harper or are "Harper Lite"; a claim that, whatever its veracity, is humorous when tossed out by the hacks given the very long history of active parliamentary cooperation between the two parties in the recent modern era (two obvious examples being the Layton-Dion coalition agreement and the support of two Liberal austerity budgets in Ontario by the ONDP that kept the Liberal minority provincial government there in power until last year's election) and the near certainty that if the 2015 election results in a minority situation that they will formally or informally work together to keep Harper out. (An excellent piece on the Liberals recently talks about how this situation is likely to unfold depending on whether it is the Liberals or Tories who have more seats in a minority context.)

Many frame this as if any type of criticism of the NDP is "not helpful" and is aiding in derailing the New Jerusalem! One, refreshingly not abusive, comment recently, as an example,  read "Do you want another four years of Harper or Harper lite? Or do you want real change in Canada? Because if you want real change, then get donating and volunteering for the NDP."

While stirring to the person who put it up no doubt, this is nothing more than a de facto political ad as opposed to a meaningful counterpoint! As a leftist, activist and political commentator it is not my "job" or function to be "helpful" to an extremely well paid political leader like Mulcair who wants to become Prime Minister. It is, actually, the opposite. Leftists should always, in my opinion, be seeking to hold those with power and in leadership roles to account, including. and perhaps especially, those who are perceived to be or who claim to be on the left.

Much of this ludicrous partisan idiocy stems from the terribly counter-productive and false notion, strongly held by many leftists, that a party member or supporter needs to rally around or defend their party in this black-and-white way to show unity, aid the party's electoral ambitions (which is why the hacks are especially vitriolic when an election is nearing or happening) and out of some bizarre sense of solidarity with their "leadership".

The old and nonsensical line that leaders of parties, unions, left organizations, and so on, use that we owe it to them to lend them this solidarity and to express uncritical unity publicly is fundamentally bankrupt and accepting and practicing it explains in large part how we have gotten to a point of so little internal democracy and critical thought within much of these formations.

As I have noted elsewhere, we do not owe our "leaders" solidarity at all. They owe us their solidarity.

It is easy to get why MPs and MPPs are total "my leader and party right-or-wrong" hacks. They get paid incredibly well to stand up and salute when their leader says to and caucus discipline and campaign management these days pretty much forces them. And I get why employees of parties do this. They have little choice.

But I am mystified at the countless unpaid party partisans out there who buy into the obvious idiocy that the party or leader they support is always, or virtually always, right and go through endless mindless "intellectual" contortions to find ways to say this essentially every chance they can no matter the context. I see it in all of the three major "progressive" parties, though sadly especially angrily from New Democrats.

It is stunning that these keyboard warrior partisans cannot see how much this online behaviour, which is usually reductionist, simplistic and expressed in insulting ways. both looks exactly like what it is and alienates further those at whom it is directed.

Anyone who actually feels that the party and leader they support is always right is, frankly, delusional. As this is obviously not literally the case for most of them, I can only think that their willful Orwellian double-think is done as they suppose it serves a greater good.

It does not. Uncritical support for any party  enables and facilitates the very worst in our stunted political culture, it emboldens the centralization of power in the hands of the leader and their clique, it comes off as idiotic to any objective observer, and it actually hurts their own party by doing all of this in a very, very public way.

Give it up and think and speak critically. Any chance at a meaningful political discourse depends on it.

Is NDP MP Randall Garrison right that Tom Mulcair will repeal Bill C-51?

As many are aware, there has been something of a controversy on the left as to whether or not the NDP is committed to fundamentally scrapping Bill C-51 as opposed to, as the Trudeau Liberals are, seeking to "improve" or change it through amendments.

This even got to the level where some were seeking to claim that to call for a bill's repeal or its amendment were not actually that different. (They are!).

This all resulted from NDP leader Tom Mulcair saying, in an interview on Global News and in answer to a direct question as to whether or not he would, if elected, repeal the bill (it was even phrased as Yes or No) answering "we would change it for sure".

This seeming equivocation and backtracking from his previous seemingly stronger stance left some NDP supporters and others questioning Mulcair's commitment to overturning the bill.

Now it turns out that NDP MP Randall Garrison is saying that Mulcair is, in fact, in favour of repealing Bill C-51.

At a "town hall" meeting held in Victoria BC on February 27, 2015, Garrison, rather testily one might note, responds to a question from an audience member about what Mulcair said on Global by both seeming to say that Global had somehow "retracted" the interview as an "error" and that Mulcair had, in fact, said to him directly after the interview that the NDP was "committed" to repealing C-51.

I guess the language does matter after all.

However, outside of this town hall answer, shown below, Mulcair, to the best of my knowledge, has not said this publicly anywhere.

Would the real Tom Mulcair step forward please and answer a simple question...is the NDP, if elected, as his own MP Garrison claims he said, going to repeal Bill C-51 or not?

(The video is extracted from a video publicly posted on You Tube. The full video can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V3-ikkBlOA The comments referenced here come at the 55 minute mark).

Rabble's Karl Nerenberg is wrong: Repealing and amending Bill C-51 are not at all the same thing

Writing on rabble.ca Karl Nerenberg makes an unconvincing case, in response to a piece I had written, that NDP Leader Tom Mulcair and his party's stance that states that they will "amend" or "change" Bill C-51 is basically the same as Elizabeth May's stance that she will "repeal" it.

This is predicated on a variety of bourgeois parliamentary technicalities that both ignore many other objections I stated to the way Mulcair is supposedly "opposing" the bill and that seeks to claim that saying that one will amend legislation is not really different from saying that one will repeal it as doing so is technically an amendment! According to this logic Mulcair's stance is, therefore, not "wobbly" (Nerenberg's word).

Nonsense.

Parliamentarians, political parties, unions and organizations call for the repeal of legislation all the time and everyone knows that this means something different from calling for the amending of legislation. One could point to nearly endless examples of this, as anyone on the left knows.

For the benefit of those who, somehow, do not understand the difference, "repeal", according to The Free Dictionary means "to revoke or rescind, especially by the action of a legislature." Whereas "amend" means "to alter the wording of (a legal document, for example) so as to make more suitable or acceptable."

These are not the same thing. Obviously.

As rabble.ca's parliamentary reporter Nerenberg surely knows that when leaders and parties are fundamentally opposed to a specific piece of legislation they call for its repeal, as opposed to its amendment, so as to reflect the totality of this opposition.

Countless bills have been said to have been repealed in Canada's history, both federally and provincially. Simply google "Bills repealed in Canada" if you doubt this. Here is a handy link to a search I did.

This is why the Tories were said to have "repealed" the long-gun registry as opposed to amending it.

It is also why Justin Trudeau, in 2014, on CTV News said he would "repeal in its entirety" the Fair Elections Act. You can watch him do so in the video linked to.

Thomas Mulcair has, to date, not said this about Bill C-51. Why?

On the very pages of rabble itself Elizabeth May - who has actually taken the principled stance in the necessary firmness and language that the NDP backslides on - said "Of course, if I ever were Prime Minister, one of the first things I would do is to repeal this act."

Again, Mulcair, when directly asked on Global TV, did not say this about Bill C-51. Why not? If there is no difference between "amending" and "repealing", again, why not commit to repeal?

While I am sure Nerenberg's apologia for Mulcair will make the NDP hacks and faithful happy, and while it seems to be aimed at easing the misgivings of many progressives about Mulcair's clear equivocations and retreats, language actually matters.

Perhaps some need a reminder that, in the real world, calling for the repeal of legislation and calling for amendments to legislation are not, in fact, the same thing and it is completely ludicrous and bizarre to claim otherwise.

From opposition to retreat: Tom Mulcair's complicated relationship with Bill C-51

At the end of last week it looked like Tom Mulcair and the NDP caucus were going to rise to the occasion on one of the great threats to Canadian civil liberties and Canada's activist community in many years, Bill C-51.

Bill C-51 is sweeping and dangerous. From the Privacy Commissioner, to commentators like Karl Nerenburg, to Green Party leader Elizabeth May  to the Communist Party, a wide-array of people and organizations have denounced and exposed the very disturbing implications of its passage.

Mulcair seemed to say as much and seemed poised to take a strong stance rejecting the bill, which earned him the praise of many, myself included and which reassured many on the left that Canada's historically social democratic party was not going to abandon them or let them down.

But in the days since Mulcair first announced his and his party's intention to oppose the bill, this "opposition" has quickly begun to look far more like a retreat.

Mulcair almost immediately, presumably to reassure Canadians in an election year that he too was "strong on terrorism", started to sound a position very similar to that of Justin Trudeau who has decided to vote for the bill - namely that it was not the bill itself or a new "get tough on terrorism" bill in general that they oppose, but some aspects of the bill.

After telling Global News that he would not promise to repeal the legislation if elected but would, rather, change it (a position de facto identical to Trudeau's in that the bill is certain to pass), he also added the further amendment that he would not support the bill without amendments, which by definition means he might be willing to support it with some amendments!

So what are these amendments and changes and what would make the bill presumably acceptable to the NDP?

In a response to a constituent who had emailed their MP and had CCed Mulcair (an email that was forwarded to me and the full text of which can be read at the end of this piece) Mulcair says:

Here's why we can't support C-51:
- This bill is vague, far-reaching and ineffective.
- Giving CSIS significant new powers without oversight could lead to abuse.
- There is no plan to counter radicalization.
- Because of Conservative budget cuts, CSIS and the RCMP don't have enough resources to fully enforce the existing laws, let alone the new provisions.
- We share some of the Privacy Commissioner's serious concerns:https://www.priv.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2015/s-d_150130_e.asp
- We believe the existing laws are sufficient.
Here's what we think the Anti-Terrorism Bill should do:
- Provide strong oversight of security and intelligence agencies.
- Ensure appropriate resources are available for security and intelligence agencies to track and identify threats to our safety.
- Include efforts to combat radicalization, working with at-risk communities to help counter radicalization.

First, one has to note, these proposed amendments (and the letter itself as you can read below) seem to assume the need for new legislation is a real one. Mulcair's postion can only be read as accepting the premises underlining the bill if not exactly the bill itself as it is now.

Beyond that, however, while calling for more oversight, again exactly as the Liberals are, they also effectively call for actually increasing the resources available to our security and intelligence services. The final, and I suspect deliberately vague, provision about including "efforts to combat radicalization" could be interpreted and implemented any number of ways, many of which would actually be quite negative.

He goes on to say:

What's more, Stephen Harper showed his contempt for the democratic and Parliamentary process by unveiling this bill at a campaign style event. He didn't give this bill the sober, parliamentary treatment it deserves. And, he's limited debate in Parliament and limited testimony from stakeholders and witnesses at Committee. We think it's critical to hear from experts and community leaders to get their input and suggestions. Instead, the Conservatives have chosen to bulldoze ahead with the legislation with little regard for dissenting voices or constructive feedback.

While I think most would agree about Harper's "contempt" for the democratic process, these comments from Mulcair provide an insight as to what are likely the real objectives of the stance that he is taking, especially when he speaks, nauseatingly, of "sober, parliamentary treatment".

It is to appear the responsible, mature, Prime Minister and government in waiting that he and his party have sought so desperately to project themselves as. They are not rash and impetuous, they are serious! They are, indeed, ready to govern and to take the helm.

NDP MP Robert Chisholm expressed this outright in a Facebook post when he said, "Standing up for Canadians, proposing solutions, and doing the right thing. That’s how you earn the privilege of government."

By opposing the bill in one way, while acknowledging the need for and opening the door to it in another, they hope, clearly, to seem to be principled to their base and progressives, while being seen as willing to stand up against "terror" to those voters who have been swept up in the media hysteria and government propaganda and made to feel there really is an imminent threat to our "way-of-life" from terrorists.

They are, rather cynically, trying to play both sides.

Bill C-51 is unnecessary legislation that panders to racism and fear and that will massively enhance the police state. The Tories brought it forward for exactly these reasons. It needs to be fully opposed.

It cannot possibly be amended in any way that will make it acceptable.

Progressives and leftists need to put serious pressure on the NDP to take a truly principled stance against the bill, (a bill which, as May said, is "about creating a secret police"), by rejecting it entirely.

Amending or tinkering with a bill this terrible is not really opposing it and is not good enough.

Full text of email:

 Thank you for your recent email regarding the Conservatives' anti-terror legislation (C-51). As Leader of the Official Opposition, I feel a profound sense of responsibility to give this bill the scrutiny and study it deserves. I also feel a deep obligation to stand up for and protect Canadians' way of life—our freedoms and our values. Unlike the Liberal Leader who rubber stamped the bill sight unseen, I talked with my NDP team, civil society partners and community leaders---I even tried, to no avail, to get clarification from Stephen Harper and the Conservative ministers responsible for the file. After all this deliberation, I, along with the NDP caucus, came to the conclusion that we could not support the bill.

I think we can all agree that terrorism is a very real threat—both here at home and abroad. But we need to be very careful with how we move forward and consider the reckless changes the Conservatives are making to the Canada we know and love—they're legislating increased state security powers, more surveillance and potential breaches of our Charter of Rights. New Democrats firmly believe that we don't have to give up any of our hard won freedoms, our rights and our privacy to be secure. Stephen Harper keeps giving us a false choice—one that tells us that we need to give up our rights to be safe. New Democrats know that free societies are safe societies, and we'll keep fighting for your rights and freedoms.

Here's why we can't support C-51:

- This bill is vague, far-reaching and ineffective.
- Giving CSIS significant new powers without oversight could lead to abuse.
- There is no plan to counter radicalization.
- Because of Conservative budget cuts, CSIS and the RCMP don't have enough resources to fully enforce the existing laws, let alone the new provisions.
- We share some of the Privacy Commissioner's serious concerns:https://www.priv.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2015/s-d_150130_e.asp
- We believe the existing laws are sufficient.

Here's what we think the Anti-Terrorism Bill should do:

- Provide strong oversight of security and intelligence agencies.
- Ensure appropriate resources are available for security and intelligence agencies to track and identify threats to our safety.
- Include efforts to combat radicalization, working with at-risk communities to help counter radicalization.

What's more, Stephen Harper showed his contempt for the democratic and Parliamentary process by unveiling this bill at a campaign style event. He didn't give this bill the sober, parliamentary treatment it deserves. And, he's limited debate in Parliament and limited testimony from stakeholders and witnesses at Committee. We think it's critical to hear from experts and community leaders to get their input and suggestions. Instead, the Conservatives have chosen to bulldoze ahead with the legislation with little regard for dissenting voices or constructive feedback.

I'll continue to raise our objections and questions on the anti-terrorism legislation relentlessly in the House of Commons, in the media and everywhere I can.

You can count on New Democrats to continue to take a strong, principled stand for our freedoms, our values and our way of life.
To learn more about our position and what others are saying, I've included additional links below. I encourage you to share my email with your friends and family.

Thank you again for taking the time to write to me about this very important issue. I hope you'll add your voice to our petition telling Stephen Harper you oppose this bill: http://www.ndp.ca/c-51

Best regards,

Tom Mulcair