Book review: Losing Control

Hot on the heels of Marci McDonald’s bestselling The Armageddon Factor, comes another expose on the religious right in Canada. I just finished Losing Control: Canada’s Social Conservatives in the Age of Rights, which was written by gay activist Tom Warner and published by Between the Lines.

Full disclosure: My review copy was provided at no charge by BTL publishing. Nevertheless, take my review as my honest opinion on this book.

Losing Control provides a good supplemental reading to the narratives provided by McDonald. While McDonald provides the detailed look into some of the cast of characters involved in the religious right, Warner adds an academic history in the events that date back to the formation of the modern rights movements in the 1960s.

Warner documents a shift in Canadian thinking from it’s Christian roots to a secular society that prizes individual and minority rights. This shift has obviously come hard for the social conservatives in the country, who have since rallied around various conservative parties, from the Progressive Conservatives to the Reform, Canadian Alliance and modern Conservative Party.

Warner breaks his treatment thematically, treating the abortion debate, repressive sexuality laws, gay rights and gay marriage in successive chapters. He finishes with some discussion about the social conservative inroads in politics.

Unfortunately, he only has passing references to the debates over evolution vs. creationism and school prayer, both of which have been hot topics for social conservatives.

In The Armageddon Factor, McDonald used mostly original research to compose her book, however the vast majority of Losing Control is based on 29 pages of third-party sources. This extensive bibliography provides a valuable resource for anyone wanting to get the dirt straight from the source.

I partially criticized McDonald for minor editorializing at points in The Armageddon Factor, and while Warner uses the mostly neutral term social conservative to refer to Canada’s vast network of religious right figures (which includes evangelical protestants, Catholics, conservative Jews, Sikhs and Muslims), he does end many of his chapters in a more of a warning style.

As an example, at the end of the chapter on regulating sexuality he states:

Sadly, there is no realistic reason to believe that members of Parliament will take the next logical step and actually decriminalize prostitution and repeal the repressive bawdy house sections of the Criminal Code. As has so often been the case in the past, the best hope for progress on those issues rests with the justices of the Supreme Court and their interpretations of the rights guaranteed by the Charter.

This is of course not to say that I disagree with anything Warner has to say, I’m with him almost the entire way through this book. He does come down firmly with the BC Civil Liberties Union and criticizes other gay activists who have used the Human Rights Tribunals to censor hate speech, to which I’m still undecided upon, but otherwise I’m in total agreement.

I think the greatest value in Losing Control is in its framing the battles with the religious right in terms of conflicting societal values. It’s secular rights (which include religious freedoms) versus theocratic ambitions to regulate morality.

One final chapter I was hoping for was for Warner to connect the dots (something McDonald attempted to do) and discuss the main organizations that have been active in the fights against progressive minority rights. Such organizations as REAL Women Canada, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Catholic Civil Rights League and Focus on the Family Canada. At the very least, a brief perusal through the comprehensive index will identify the organizations that routinely come up in church-state separation debates.

Overall, Losing Control is a well-researched book that covers the history of social conservatives in Canada and the battles that have been fought and progress that has been made since the introduction of various Bills of Rights and the Charter. While not an outright replacement for The Armageddon Factor, it does make a good supplement for anyone who wants to dig a bit deeper into these issues.

Retribution or rehabilitation?

I think I have the wrong idea about the point of the modern judicial system.

I was under the impression that sentencing a convict was at least in part to help rehabilitate them and make them see the “error of their ways.” A part was always retributive punishment, but there was supposed to be some focus on actually returning that prisoner to society as a contributing member.

Prisoners are still human beings, and they have rights.

Well, it turns out that even the most progressive parties out there want to take some steps to take any hope for forgiveness out of our system and ensure that it remains focussed on good old “eye-for-an-eye” scriptural punishments (while forgetting the contradictory turn the other cheek passages).

Perhaps it’s just all politics though. No party really wants to be known as supporting murderers and child molesters. Who really wants to be “soft” on crime?

Nevertheless, my support goes to the John Howard Society in Manitoba on this case. Their arguments are rational and rights-based.

“Someone has to point out that it does not serve public safety to make it harder for people to reintegrate after a prison sentence,” said [John Howard Society executive director] John Hutton.

…

Hutton offered statistics from the National Parole Board showing out of 400,000 pardons granted in the last 40 years, only 4,000 have been revoked after an offender committed another crime.

Fox News Canada?

So there’s talk about a “Fox News North” coming to Canada to spew lies and propaganda for the Conservative Party.

Besides the obvious issues with such a network, it’s worth wondering how much Harper’s cabinet would use such a network as its sole voice in the media, as journalists are increasingly getting stonewalled by the PMO. Rather than muzzling everyone in the government, Harper could get away with letting everyone talk to the media – so long as its only through the Con-Ad machine.

Fraser Institute vs Stephen Harper

I’m not completely sure what to make of two new studies in the Vancouver Sun and The Province today, one authored by the Fraser Institute, the other peer-reviewed by them, but both condemning the current Harper government.

The first study was done at UBC, and found that Canada’s recent mini-War on Drugs has caused increase gun violence and “has done nothing to stop the supply of street drugs.” The Fraser Institute, for some reason, peer-reviewed this study for the real researchers at the Urban Health Research Initiative. And of course The Province has to interview the apparently most ignorant cop in Vancouver, RCMP Staff Sgt. Dave Goddard who gave this money quote:

"These intellectuals who come up with these ideas are great at pointing out the problem, but what’s their solution?" demands Goddard.

Just read the comments Mr. Goddard, most people suggest legalize and tax, alternatively we have successes like the safe-injection site, InSite, which is helping to deal with the actual problems of addiction rather than just continually punishing it.

The other study is directly from the Fraser Institute, which the Vancouver Sun decides to inform us is “one of the country’s leading think-tanks,” and tells us first that the Economic Action Plan had very little to do with the start of the economic recovery, and second that private investment and exports did it all.

While I love slamming the HarperCons and the Economic InAction Plan, I’m hesitant to endorse this study. Where is the peer-review process within this bastion of neo-conservative libertarianism? And Vancouver Sun, if Canwest will print an anti-intellectual cop along with a story about a drug study, where is the government or anyone else arguing against The Fraser Institute?

My view, which ought to have as much weight as any random institute since neither are being reviewed by real economists, is that our “recovery” has failed to restore the number of jobs the country had prior to the crash, and that very little of that stimulus money actually made it to projects.

But I will grant the Economic Action Plan one thing, it gave sign makers and ad agencies a lot to do to continually tell us how much of our money was being thrown back at us.

Short-sighted and dogmatic

Stephen Harper is taking his fundamentalist ideology to a new level by cutting any support for family planning initiatives from the June G8 meeting. The reasoning is flawed, short-sighted and stupid:

Birth control doesn’t fit with saving lives.

On the surface this statement almost makes sense. But when you consider the indirect costs, health risks, and difficulties associated with birth and young children, especially in impoverished areas, you can probably see the need for some initiative.

Even George W. Bush supported birth control projects, albeit he preferred the flawed natural planning method and abstinence and banned money to organizations that provided any services surrounding abortions.

Harper claimed a few months ago that he cared about the women and children of the third world. He’s either a liar or has a really twisted vision of helping.

(h/t Melany)

Ontario NDP ignores will of people

So people will continue to ignore the ONDP.

Specifically this time, ONDP leader Andrea Horwath is refusing to debate the merits of amalgamating the Ontario Catholic School Board into the public, secular system.

For some reason it seems that these supposedly ‘controversial’ ideas are really only controversial to the politicians, of all parties, who are unwilling to implement them.

A 2007 poll found 58% of Ontarians support amalgamating the two school boards while only 29% opposed. Another poll in 2009 found that 51% of Canadians oppose funding Christian schools, with the numbers jumping to 75% opposed for other religions (like Hinduism or Islam).

Canadians want religion to stay at home, and to not be forced to pay to indoctrinate other people’s kids.

And why should they? The United Nations declared in 1999 that the existence of Ontario Catholic schools was discriminatory. Funding just one faith or a secular option is discriminatory, as John Tory pointed out.

Unfortunately, the Conservative thought the better option was to give everyone publicly funded religious schools. People did some quick math and realized how quickly the province would go bankrupt and opted instead to stick with the status quo, since no party was willing to take on the Catholic Church.

And as a final note, despite the constitutional arguments that favour keeping Catholic school boards running, Newfoundland (1997) and Quebec (1997) opted out in the recent past by a quick deal with Ottawa. It’s time for the rest of Canada that still funds Catholic schools (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario) or other faiths (Alberta, BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba) to stop segregating our children.

Now if only there were some actually political will to do what the majority supports.

(h/t Skinny Dipper)

Pat Martin about-face

This is unfortunate news.

Last month, Manitoba NDP MP Pat Martin blasted plans to spend $3 million of federal money on a Youth for Christ youth centre in his riding. His statements then were:

“I have no objection to faith-based organizations providing services. Sally Ann (the Salvation Army) and others have been doing a great job for years. But these people are evangelical fundamentalists," Martin said of Youth For Christ. "Offering much-needed sports opportunities is just their way of luring in young prospects."

He went on to quip: "Would the federal government be so willing to give them $3 million if they were called Youth for Allah?"

But now, with Winnipeg city council voting in favour of the project, Martin is pledging his support.

While I think this move came from a desire to see any sort of facility built for youth in his riding, it’s disappointing it has to come from a group that actively proselytizes and recruits youths for “faith journeys.”

Mayor Sam Katz had even more concerning comments:

"A lot of citizens do not believe we should be funding any faith-based organizations. Little do they realize, it happens every day," said Katz, who called Martin’s statements about Youth for Christ "unfortunate."

So a lot of people aren’t being listened to by our elected officials.

Democracy fail.

My only final question, why doesn’t Conservative MP Vic Toews use the word Conservative anywhere on his website? Ashamed much?

Published in The Peak

Recent levels of conservative articles in SFU’s student newspaper The Peak prompted me to submit an article which got published today. While this isn’t my best writing (a few awkward sentences survived the editor), I am planning to write a bit more frequently for the weekly paper, so hopefully it improves.

It’s also worth noting that my story was one of the highlights listed on the front page.

My article, appearing on page four is reprinted here:

Conservatives are eroding Canadian values

Stephen Harper hates Canada, or at least he has indicated as much. He and his brand of Reform Party theo-cons have every intention of tearing down the institutions that make our country great.

The most recent evidence of this is Immigration Minister Jason Kenney’s personal interventions to remove references to homosexual rights from Canada’s latest immigration brochures. Rather than have new immigrants know that Canada was among the first countries in the world to extend the right of marriage to same-sex couples, the Conservatives would rather paint a picture of Canada as they want to see it. Similarly, the brochure also omits any reference to health care and feminism, and plays up our history of armed conflict while downplaying our role as world peacekeepers.

Yet these Conservatives’ pasts haunts them. In 2003, as a member of the neoconservative group, Civitas, Harper stated that to achieve the goal of a conservative social policy, the Conservatives must win over immigrants and make “incremental” movements to the right, knowing full well that an abrupt change of course toward their true goals would scare most Canadians.

So after six years as leader of a minority government, we have watched Harper make deep cuts to our federal income streams. Lowered income from the GST, as well as corporate and personal income taxes has put the country in a deficit, to which the only available answer for the neoconservative is an attack on the foundations of our modern Canadian society – the welfare state.

In a similar vein, to reform our society, we have witnessed massive cuts and legislation changes to cripple several decades of progress fought for by this nation’s feminists. Status of Women Canada is a shell of its former self, and, after the 2009 budget, it is now harder for women to achieve equal pay for equal work.

Even our democratic systems suffer as our prime minister is in contempt of the will of Parliament, and thereby the will of the majority of Canadians, who are demanding documents that will confirm the claims of whistleblower Richard Colvin or clear the names of our soldiers. Rather than provide these documents, Harper again dishonestly shut the door on democracy and hid behind claims that the opposition hates our troops. If Harper truly cared about our troops he would present the documents that clear their names of what must be wrongful accusations. At least, they must be wrongful as that is what the government keeps saying.

But we don’t have to look as far as Ottawa to see the anti-progressives at work. Mirroring tactics that were used by Ontario campus conservative groups to destroy their Public Interest Research Groups; campus conservatives here have taken up a crusade against SFPIRG under the banners of “democracy” and “accountability.” The argument is that SFPIRG needs improvement, and few would disagree, yet the claim that they are arbitrarily appointing people to their board is absurd. Have these conservatives attempted to join SFPIRG and reform the group from the inside?

As was pointed out, if there are too few candidates for the board, acclamations are granted to those few who step forward to actually do the work. Otherwise you have shit disturbers who lobby the SFSS and student body to destroy a group that they have the ability to opt-out of.

But it is too easy to write these actions off as a grand right-wing conspiracy. Rather, we have a minority subset of society that hates the institutions we have fought for in this country, and is working incrementally at various levels to take away many of the things we take for granted.

Most of my future articles will be on skepticism / atheism / Humanism, and I’m hoping to have something to submit most weeks (I may post here even if it ends up on the digital floor of the Peak).

Chance to change the anthem?

One of the most frequent questions when I was being interviewed about the convocation change at the University of Alberta was what I thought about the anthem and whether I wanted it changed. I mostly answered neutrally since I wanted to keep the focus on the topic at hand.

But now, after a prorogation no one ordered, and a throne speech that was bound to disappoint, Prime Minister Harper dropped this in my lap:

Our Government will also ask Parliament to examine the original gender-neutral English wording of the national anthem.

As Northern BC Dipper points out, that amounts to changing the line “True patriot love in all thy sons command” to potentially “true patriot love thou dost in us command” although I’ve also used the line (and heard others recommend) “in all of us command.”

It is worth noting that that same 1908 version that Harper seems to want to go to is also religiously neutral, that is secular.

With the Vancouver Olympics just ending with Canada’s record 14 official playings of the anthem (and how many countless spontaneous ones), I opted to change “God keep our land” to “We’ll keep our land.” Alternatively another “O Canada” was used in place of “God keep our land.”

The current version only came into being officially with the 1980 National Anthem Act, and with a government that’s willing to look at changes (albeit removing religious references is likely not on their radar), it may be the perfect time for Canadian secularists to act.

Harper at the Olympics

I think there’s a couple key things to think about while CTV shows Harper at every Olympic event they see him at:

This a good reminder that the NDP gave their free Olympic tickets back to VANOC because they didn’t believe they were entitled to something average Canadians were having a difficult time getting their hands on any. Meanwhile Harper and the Conservatives had no problem reaping the perks (even he donates our tax dollars back to the Olympics).
Seeing Harper at the Games should be a good reminder that he’s not at work right now.
In Harper’s interview with CTV he stated his support of Canadian athletes, but that support apparently doesn’t extend to include the Own The Podium program that most of our athletes have been crediting to our record setting medal count.