And that was before the Harper government declared war on the entire environmental movement. I'm certain those who check out the list will be shocked by both the number and quality of those cut off.
These too ranged from the well-known and national (Canadian Arab Federation, Canadian Council on Social Development, Climate Action Network) to the community-based (South Asian Women's Centre, Sierra Club of British Columbia, Alternatives of Quebec, Brampton Neighborhood Services, Alberta Network of Immigrant Women, and so many more). The second category, "Community organizations, NGOs and research bodies reported to have been cut or defunded," was much longer, numbering about 75 groups. One consisted of "organizations and watchdogs whose staff have been fired, forced out, publicly maligned or who have resigned in protest." This grouping then comprised a dozen listings, some well-known (the forcing out of Veterans Ombudsman Pat Stogran, the maligning of foreign affairs whistleblower Richard Colvin), others less so and already sadly forgotten. In a list compiled before the 2011 election, intrepid researchers Judith Szabo and Pearl Eliadis came up with what they called " Harper's Chopping Block." They organized it into two categories.
#Tyranny of the majority free
But these were just the ones that made some news.Ĭoncerned Canadians have tried to assess the magnitude of the government's attack on dissenters and Voices–Voix, a coalition of organizations and individuals "united in defence of democracy, free speech and transparency in Canada" has tried to publicize it. Many will recall such high profile cases as Kairos, the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, Match International, Pride Toronto and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, all of which either had their government funding peremptorily ended or, like Rights and Democracy, were destabilized and then terminated. Harper obviously cares most passionately about – scoffing at global warming, Israel, the mining and energy industries, women who weren't too pushy – you were chopped liver. What's not new is that he in fact started changing the rules right after his first minority victory in 2006. What was new in Europe was that the Prime Minister articulated his position so explicitly. Harper really doesn't appreciate people who disagree with him and he'll be damned if he'll help them spread their unwelcome views. But every government since accepted that such enrichment of a pluralist democracy trumped their irritation at being attacked by groups they were funding (with public money, of course). It meant back then the emergence of what we call non-governmental organizations – NGOs – curious new creatures, often progressive in outlook, that were independent of government, often critical of government, yet dependent on it for much of their funding.
Since the concept of government funding of civil society first emerged in the 1960s, both Liberal and (Progressive) Conservative governments have swallowed their ambivalence and accepted this remarkable enhancement of Canadian democracy. Its significance is that no other prime minister in the past half-century has dared to articulate the same principle. This is an important statement, no doubt about it, but it's hardly a revelation. (Stephen Harper loves sharing government info with Canadians when he's not actually in Canada.)Īsked about his environmental critics getting government funding, he replied, more generally: "If it's the case that we're spending on organizations that are doing things contrary to government policy, I think that is an inappropriate use of taxpayers money and we'll look to eliminate it."
#Tyranny of the majority how to
There was our Prime Minister in France last week, thoughtfully instructing an attentive new socialist president exactly how to run his country, when he decided to underline some well-known views on how he likes Canada to operate.
0 kommentar(er)
