Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- John Moore questions the much-hyped assertions of a permanent Republican Conservative majority by pointing out that Canadian values haven't changed at all even as the Harper Cons have tried to use public money to change the channel. And Justin Ling sees the Cons as a product of elections being seen as periodic job interviews rather than tests of underlying principles.

- Frances Russell critiques the Cons' hierarchy of human rights - with protection of (some people who practice some) religions taking precedence over such trifles as life and liberty.

- Thomas Walkom is right to note that the main formal issue surrounding Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin is their lack of a permanent residence in the province they're supposed to be representing. But the more important question is whether there's any useful purpose to having a patronage-based Senate in the first place - and Tim Harper recognizes that Duffy, Wallin and Patrick Brazeau are just the latest cases in point as to why the answer is an emphatic "no".

- Finally, The Regina Mom points to the sudden decision to close Regina's historic Connaught school as another sad example of an alarming trend toward non-consultation - while offering a petition in response.

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Dan Gardner rightly notes that we should be encouraging more public advocacy from charities and other groups with useful input to offer into policy debates - not shutting it down as the Cons are doing:

“Many charities have acquired a wealth of knowledge about how government policies affect people’s lives. Charities are well-placed to study, assess, and comment on those government policies. ... It is therefore essential that charities continue to offer their direct knowledge of social issues to public policy debates.”

That’s the government talking. More specifically, that’s the government’s principle policy statement on the involvement of charities in political activities. It came into effect in 2003. It’s still in force.

And who could disagree? We’re not talking about partisan politics, which charities aren’t permitted to get involved in. Here, “political activity” means debates about whether some law or policy should be changed in some way (or retained, if change is being discussed). Charities develop specialized knowledge about the fields they work in and if they get involved they add an informed perspective. Whether I or anyone else agrees with their views, or whether the government ultimately acts on them, does not matter. They enrich the discussion. And that can make public policy better.
...

(L)leading Conservatives are now using incredibly bellicose language to attack charities involved in what they consider to be inappropriate political activity. Senator Eaton has even suggested that churches — a big part of the charitable sector — have no business getting involved in political activity at all. “I don’t think churches should take political stands,” Senator Eaton said in a recent interview. “I think they should be more about helping people and giving people succour.” 

Of course Eaton’s statement is gibberish, since politics can be an effective way to help people. But this isn’t about logic. It’s about sending a message. And the Senator’s message to charities couldn’t be clearer: Shut up and stay away from politics.

You can bet charities are hearing that loud and clear.

- Erika Shaker exposes a few of the myths behind the reactionary response to Quebec's tuition and civil liberties protests.

- Paul Dechene points out that a list of Canada's most endangered heritage sites includes Regina's Connaught School.

- No, I don't expect that many respondents were actually hugely familiar with the Cons' move to close the Lake of the Woods Experimental Lakes Area until Forum polled about it. But it still seems noteworthy how many of those polled recognized the problem once they were informed about it.

- Finally, shorter Preston Manning, speaking strictly as a neutral and nonpartisan citizen with no interest whatsoever in shilling for the Cons or the tar sands:

WAAAAH! No fair pricing carbon to take into account the costs of pollution unless we also charge more for hydro! And the sun! And the wind! And energy conservation! And...

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Marc Lee charts the share of financial assets held by Canadians of different income levels. And it shouldn't come as much surprise that one of the main aims of the right has been to attack pensions, which are by far the most evenly-distributed asset type.

- Again, it shouldn't be strictly an either-or calculation. But Frank Viviano offers a reminder that the Occupy movement is will miss perhaps the most important opportunity for change if it doesn't translate into influence at the ballot box as well as in the streets.

- David Anderson's racist attack on the Canadian Wheat Board has been largely covered elsewhere. But let's note that Anderson isn't just a backbench MP: instead, long after having posted such an offensive video relating directly to the Wheat Board, he was appointed by Stephen Harper as parliamentary secretary responsible for it - meaning that every day he stays in the role signals Harper's approval for Anderson's slur.

- Finally, we shouldn't be surprised that the Cons politicized this year's Canada Day celebration by slashing any reference to the CBC and reducing any mention of parks. Instead, we should enjoy the holiday not yet being changed to Harper Day while we still can.

Monday Morning Links

This and that for your long weekend reading.

- I'm not ordinarily a huge fan of spending much time in the present focusing on the past. But Dan Gardner's suggested label for today's holiday looks to be well worth adopting - if nothing else as a reminder that even prior to Confederation, Canada's history includes a place at the forefront of the development of human rights.

- Kudos to the Hill Times' Chris Plecash and Darcy McDonnell for staking out the Cons' hidden cabinet meetings last week and reporting on the secrecy surrounding them. And if they and others keep up the effort, it may well be possible to force the Harper government to be at least slightly less secretive.

- Ian Welsh lists some of the lessons from the U.S.' trumped-up debt ceiling crisis and subsequent capitulation by the Democrats.

- Meanwhile, Paul Krugman nicely sums up exactly what figures to happen as a result of the deal. And as usual, he's criticized as being "completely unhinged" in the absence of any plausible basis to suggest that he's wrong.

- Finally, Erin catches right-wing mouthpiece Jason Clemens talking out of both sides of his mouth in describing the fiscal policy of the Harper Cons - as the same commentator who regularly bashes the Cons for having in fact expanded the size of government is trying to paint nonexistent cuts (rather than less reckless financial regulations) as the basic difference between Canada and the U.S. for consumption south of the border.

Another damaging exhibit

Shorter Bev Oda on why Canadians shouldn't care if museums across the country have had their already-meager funding cut even further:
We've built a couple of shiny monuments to Canada's New Government; what more history could we need?

(Edit: added label.)