Between 2007 and 2010, the Saskatchewan Ministry of Corrections and Public Safety spent the princely sum of $1,616.97 (or less than $404.25 per year) to buy some video games for the recreational use of young offenders in custody.
It's not like the young offenders were sitting around playing video games 24/7, mind. Use of the games was a privilege earned through good behaviour and attention to educational / vocational programs. And the video games were screened for appropriate content.
Of course, the fact that imprisoned young offenders might actually have any leisure time at all offends the hard right "lock 'em up and throw away the key" crowd, whose insight into corrections policy is consistently and mind-numbingly counterproductive. The fact that these kids (and whatever they've done, they are still kids) might be allowed to play the odd video game was just too much.
So the regional pooh-bah of a hard right pressure group, Colin Craig of the so-called Canadian Taxpayers Federation, made a phone call to the Government of Saskatchewan. By the end of the afternoon, government policy had been changed and public funds will no longer be used to buy video games for youth correctional facilities.
Whether or not giving limited use of video games as a removable privilege is or is not good corrections policy is, perhaps, a legitimate discussion point. So far, for what it's worth, the only person with any actual expertise on the subject has defended the purchase of the games.
But here's the bigger issue for me.
Who the heck voted for Colin Craig?
And why does the Saskatchewan Government take orders from some far right activist in another province?
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, despite its grandiose sounding name, is not a federation of Canadian taxpayers. It is a far right pressure group with secretive funding and no public or member accountability. Anyone can join the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, but unlike a real public group, its policies are set and its leadership are chosen by a small, self-selecting and self-perpetuating elite. You and I can join the CTF, but we can't have any say in who runs it or how, or in what policy positions it may take.
In otherwords, it is a Potemkin Village for the far right, much like the American Tea Party but with less showmanship and better dress sense.
In case you have no idea what the real Premier of Saskatchewan looks like, here's a picture:
His CTF bio indicates that he is from Winnipeg and attended the University of Manitoba. He's worked as a political operative in the offices of Conservative ministers in Manitoba and Ontario. There is no evidence he has ever lived in Saskatchewan. (There's actually no evidence he has ever been to Saskatchewan, for that matter, but I would expect he's been here for the odd meeting with his minions at the Saskatchewan Legislature.) Circumstantial evidence suggests he cheers for the Winnipeg Blue Bombers.
And nobody in Saskatchewan has voted to have him to decide government policy.
I'm a week late in posting any reflection on what has been the biggest news story in Canada over the past seven days. For my non-Canadian readers, last Monday morning we learned of the death of the Honourable Jack Layton, Leader of the Official Opposition, Member of Parliament for Toronto Danforth and Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada.
In the Canadian system (like other Commonwealth countries but unlike the United States), the Leader of the Opposition is effectively the Prime Minister in waiting. Indeed, in Westminster style democracies, the Leader of the Opposition and his/her leading Parliamentary colleagues are referred to as the Shadow Cabinet.
Jack had just led the New Democratic Party to a major electoral breakthrough when Canadians went to the polls less than four months ago. For the first time, his party (my party) would be the second largest party in our federal Parliament - and hence the presumptive government in waiting.
The New Democrats - like the UK Labour Party, the Spanish Socialists or the German Social Democrats - are part of the Socialist International. For my American readers, this means there really is no party quite like this one in your electoral experience.
In Canada, the Leader of the Opposition has an official residence called Stornoway. It's actually nicer than the Prime Minister's digs at 24 Sussex Drive. Jack and his wife (and fellow MP), Olivia Chow, moved into Stornoway several weeks after the election. In the end, Jack spent only one night there.
In July, he announced that he was temporarily stepping down from his leadership responsibilities, having been diagnosed with cancer. He declared he'd be back for the fall session next month. But the honest observer had to wonder. Unlike his previous bout with prostate cancer, this new cancer had left Jack looking thin and pale. I actually heard the announcement before I saw the footage, and what struck me more than anything was his voice. The strong voice of the passionate leader had been replaced by the voice of a very old man, even though Jack was only a decade older than me.
The morning Jack died, his family released a letter he had written in the previous few days. A multi-layered epistle to the people of Canada, it held out a hope for a new style of politics that is pure Jack Layton:
My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.
Apart from a few crackpots on the hard right, the country has been in mourning. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a decent pianist regretted never having had that oft-discussed jam session with Jack, a decent guitarist. Tens of thousands paid their respects in Ottawa and Toronto and on the route between - including where it passed out of its way into Quebec.
The state funeral tomorrow, officiated by Brent Hawkes of the Metropolitan Community Church, will include a blessing from the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, a eulogy by former UN Ambassador Stephen Lewis and music by former Parachute Club lead singer Lorraine Segato and former Barenaked Lady Stephen Page.
I worked on Jack's first campaign for city council in Toronto - where the media kept declaring his opponent elected, even though Jack was in the lead throughout, only changing their tune once all the polls were reported. I supported Jack's transformation of the federal party's culture from one which saw defeat as noble and electoral success as morally suspect to one which understood that moral victories are neither. But my best memory of Jack is one time last year when we spent time after a public event comparing Blackberry pictures of our grandchildren.
Almost lost in the Layton coverage was news of the death of former NDP MP Simon De Jong. Simon had been an influential mentor in my early days in and around politics. In addition to things political, he taught me how to use chopsticks, as well as some other thing involving cigarette papers.
Simon spent the first three years of his life in a Japanese concentration camp, his father being a Dutch colonial official in Indonesia. Simon once confided to me that he weighed less when he left the camp at age three than when he entered the camp as an infant. It is almost certain that, had the war lasted just a few weeks longer, Simon would have died of malnutrition. Ironically, he was an anti-nuclear activist whose life was probably saved by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Only twice did I ever heard him make public reference to his experience of the camps: once in his convention speech when he ran for the party leadership in 1989 (at the insistence of his campaign manager) and once when speaking to a military parade marking the 50th anniversary of the end of the war.
Simon also has the distinction of having won re-election in Regina Qu'Appelle in 1993 despite having lost every poll. He lost all the urban polls to the Liberals and all the rural polls to the Reform Party - but finishing second in every poll gave him enough votes to win.
Following a video tribute to Jack from This Hour has 22 Minutes (a satirical comedy show roughly comparable to The Daily Show) I'll close with another excerpt from Jack's letter. I ask that you remember these public servants - these friends of mine - and their families in your prayers in the coming days.
Canada is a great country, one of the hopes of the world. We can be a better one – a country of greater equality, justice, and opportunity. We can build a prosperous economy and a society that shares its benefits more fairly. We can look after our seniors. We can offer better futures for our children. We can do our part to save the world’s environment. We can restore our good name in the world. We can do all of these things because we finally have a party system at the national level where there are real choices; where your vote matters; where working for change can actually bring about change. In the months and years to come, New Democrats will put a compelling new alternative to you. My colleagues in our party are an impressive, committed team. Give them a careful hearing; consider the alternatives; and consider that we can be a better, fairer, more equal country by working together.
Last week, Anders Behring Breivik set off an explosion in downtown Oslo near the offices of the governing Norwegian Labour Party. He then went to nearby Utøya Island, where he opened fire on participants in a Norwegian Labour Party youth event using automatic weapons. In all, he ruthlessly murdered 76 people. One of the few pieces of good news in all of this is that the death toll is about 15 fewer than originally believed. The dead include the step-brother of Norway's Crown Princess and, according to reports, the children of several senior Labour Party figures.
It was interesting, as the story developed, to see the rush to judgement by the mainstream corporate media, who proclaimed it an al Qaeda attack based on nothing but speculation. Of course, Ander Behring Breivik isn't an Islamic terrorist. In fact, it appears he hates Muslims almost as much as he hates Norwegian children who don't share his odious political views.
Let's be really clear about this. A rightwing extremist orchestrated a series of violent attacks on people based on their political views.
What was even more interesting was to watch the corporate media reaction when it turned out their preferred narrative wasn't operative. Almost immediately, the perpetrator was no longer a "terrorist," but rather a "gunman" or an "assailant." I say "almost immediately" because Faux News continued to say it was al Quaeda for several hours after Norwegian police had indicated otherwise.
Now, the Oxford English Dictionary defines "terrorism" as:
the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
"Terrorist" is defined as:
a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.
So, by any sort of logical standard, last week's acts of mass murder constituted terrorism and Anders Behring Breivik is a terrorist, even if he isn't an Arab and a Muslim.
Next came that rather curious sight of assorted rightwing blowhards trying to pretend that the toxic rhetoric they spew had nothing to do with what happened in Oslo. Of course, these are the same rightwing blowhards who call for legal sanctions against any Arab or Muslim who has ever said anything that might even tangentially be tied to Islamic terrorism. The sauce, it seems, is only for the goose.
Then there was the curious "it was really the Muslims' fault anyway" meme, which blamed the attack on the mere existence of Arab and Muslim immigrants in Norway - even though the rates of Arab and Muslim immigration to Norway are among the lowest in Europe.
Finally came the most disgusting aspect of all. Two of the most odious and most disgusting of all the rightwing blowhards, Glenn Beck and Michael Coren, actually launched online narratives to justify the murder of dozens of children.
No, seriously.
I'm not going to link you. This blog has a firm policy of not linking to hatemongering and extremist filth.
With the bodies of dozens of dead children barely cold, Michael Coren was accusing the dead of anti-semitism because (apparently) the youth camp had held a discussion session where Israel's policy towards Palestinians was criticized. In the hate-addled dystopia of the North American far right, no one is ever allowed to criticize any Israeli policy. And now, it seems, if you do, you deserve to die.
It seems, however, that the wingnut right were having a contest to see who could be the most disgusting. And the winner is the hatemonger's hatemonger Glenn Beck who went all Godwin and compared the youth wing of Norway's social democratic governing party to - you guessed it - the Hitler Youth. The little bastards deserved to die because they were Nazis, don't you see.
Terrorism is terrorism, no matter the terrorist.
And the friends of terrorism - including Glenn Beck and Michael Coren - are every bit as odious as the terrorist who plants the bomb and pulls the trigger.
Despite the nearly complete failure of the corporate media, and despite the revolting behaviour of the usual suspects of the extreme right, there have been moments of grace in all this. I leave you with the words of Norwegian Labour Party Leader and Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg:
“We are still horrified over what happened. But we will never give up our values. Our answer is more democracy, more openness and more humanity but never naivety.”
Yes, we love with fond devotion, This our land that looms. Rugged, storm-scarred o'er the ocean, With her thousand homes. Love her, in our love recalling, Those who gave us birth. And old tales which night, in falling, Brings as dreams to earth.
This country Harald united with his army of heroes, this country Håkon protected whilst Øyvind sung; upon the country Olav painted with his blood the cross, from its heights Sverre spoke up against Rome.
Farmers their axes sharpened wherever an army advanced, Tordenskiold along the coastline thundered so that we could see it back home. Even women stood up and fought as if they were men; others could only cry but that soon would end!
Sure, we were not many but we were enough, when we were tested sometimes, and it was at stake; we would rather burn our land than to declare defeat; just remember what happened down at Fredrikshald!
Hard times we have coped with, were at last disowned; but in the worst distress, blue-eyed freedom was to us born. It gave (us) father's strength to carry famine and war, it gave death itself its honour - and it gave reconciliation.
The enemy threw away his weapon, up the visor went, we, in wonder, to him hastened, because he was our brother. Driven forth to a stand by shame we went to the south; now we three brothers stand united, and shall stand like that!
Norseman in house and cabin, thank your great God! The country he wanted to protect, although things looked dark. All the fights fathers have fought, and the mothers have wept, the Lord has quietly moved so we won our rights.
Yes, we love this country as it rises forth, rugged, weathered, above the sea, with those thousand homes. And as the fathers' struggle has raised it from need to victory, even we, when it is demanded, for its peace will encamp (for defence).
There have been a few developments in the campaign to defeat the so-called Anglican Covenant.
This morning, the No Anglican Covenant Coalition formally released A Short Introduction to the Anglican Covenant. This one-page intro takes an unequivocal anti-Covenant position. But unlike the pro-Covenant propaganda from the Anglican Communion Office, the Coalition has made an effort to present the issues in a manner that is fair and not prejudicial. A Short Introduction is available in both letter sized and A4 formats.
It's actually quite disheartening to me that the Anglican Communion Office has refused to be an honest broker in the Covenant debate. Instead, Communion bureaucrats have become advocates for a proposal which would (although they won't admit it) centralize power in the Communion in their own hands.
A couple of weeks ago, the No Anglican Covenant Coalition also announced the appointment of two Episcopal Patrons. Retired Church of England Bishops John Saxbee (Lincoln) and Peter Selby (Worcester) are the first bishops who have been prepared to take an unequivocal anti-Covenant line. We are given to understand that there are several serving CofE bishops who are opposed to the Covenant, but to date, none of them are prepared to come out publicly.
I've noted previously and in other places that the bulk of the pro-Covenant argument of late has been based on three ethically, logically and factually dubious propositions:
Anyone opposed to the Covenant hasn't read it.
Anyone opposed to the Covenant is a fascist.
Anyone opposed to the Covenant is disloyal to Rowan Williams.
In a light-hearted response to this, Comprehensive Unity: The No Anglican Covenant Blog has issued a challenge for people to present credible arguments in favour of the Covenant. The winner will be given the opportunity to guestblog a post either for or against the Covenant as they see fit. It would be refreshing to see a pro-Covenant argument that isn't slanderous tripe, Godwinesque stupidity or emotional blackmail.
It's been nearly a month since last I blogged, but recent Anglican developments right here in Canada give me the perfect opportunity to get back in the proverbial saddle.
First, the excellent news that the Supreme Court of Canada has declined to hear an appeal from Anglican dissidents in British Columbia. The dissidents had purported to remove their parishes from the jurisdiction of the Anglican Church of Canada. In doing so, they continued to occupy the parish property. The courts at every level ruled against them, and with the Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the appeal unheard, their legal options have run their course. The Diocese of New Westminster responds here, and the dissidents here.
I'm struck by the dissidents' special pleading that the outcome "should be of great concern to all Christian denominations." It would seem to me that Christian denominations should be happy to know that the Canadian courts are not going to redefine a denomination's polity and ecclesiology. The dissidents had been demanding that the courts force the Anglican Church of Canada to replace its heirarchical ecclesiology with a congregational polity. The courts have, quite properly, declined to turn Anglicans into Baptists.
Second, we've had a series of documents produced by the Anglican Church of Canada dealing with the proposed Anglican Covenant. The Anglican Covenant Working Group has issued a study and consultation guide (.pdf) supported by a website. Unlike the biased and intellectually dishonest propaganda pieces from the Anglican Communion Office, the Canadian materials present a balanced view and allow for an open discussion of the proposed Covenant on its merits. Of course, if the Anglican Covenant was supportable on its merits, the ACO wouldn't have to be afraid of a balanced debate.
In addition, the Governance Working Group has produced its own legal analysis (.pdf)of the proposed Covenant, with an executive summary (.pdf). Virtually the entire analysis points out the various weaknesses of the proposed Covenant, including the multiple and overlapping roles and ill-defined authority of the Standing Committee, the deficiencies in procedural fairness and the virtual exclusion of lay people from any meaningful participation in any part of the process.
Canon Alan Perry of Montreal provides his usual excellent analysis of the study materials and the legal analysis. Much of the other online coverage I've seen has focussed on the balanced approach the Canadian church has taken - in stark contrast to the Orwellian approach of the ACO or the passive aggressive stitch-up currently underway in the Church of England. One commenter even suggested that the very balance of the Canadian materials was "devastating" to the Covenant.
When I was young, Red Rose Tea used to advertise their product by suggesting that this particular Canadian tea (a different blend than in the United States) was the envy of even the tea-loving English. Each ad ended with a variation on the tagline, "Only in Canada you say? Pity . . ."
It appears that the same is true for an honest analysis of the proposed Anglican Covenant.
