Oct. 30, 2006: The shoe is on the other foot now

Note: This is relatively lengthy and includes:

* commentary in a reference to the Aga Khan interview this weekend on CBC's "Mansbridge One on One" (Scroll to: "Pluralism, the Aga Khan and the Aga Khan Global Centre for Pluralism" ),

* reporting on a Liberal vs a Conservative political strategist brought to Canada to advise,

* some background along with comments on code words and terms, even mention of a society, the Civitas Society, intended to evoke positive or negative images and emotions, words having positive or negative connotations used in political news reporting, and more. There are screen captures of a search ... done on Oct. 29, 06 ... a rather intriguing result. Search: "Civitas Society" and "What would be the $$$ cost ... "



The shoe is on the other foot now

Will the following information is parsed in detail by mainstream media? ... Will this receive as much attention as "doggygate"?


The Liberals and their media pals criticized the Conservatives for bringing Republican consultants to Canada- but the Liberals' bringing a Democratic consultant to Canada is quite all right in the eyes of the Liberals and their media pals.


Carville tells Liberals to put interests of people over interests of power, by Keith Leslie

cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/10/28/2155802-cp.html

TORONTO (CP) - The man [from the US] who ran Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign and gave political advice to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former South African president Nelson Mandela is lending his expertise to Ontario's Liberals.

James Carville, the man known as the Ragin' Cajun, spoke to 1,200 Ontario Liberals at their annual general meeting in Toronto Saturday, the last such gathering before the party tries for re-election next October. [....]

The Liberals said Carville's contract stipulated that his price for his Toronto appearance not be disclosed, but one estimate had the party paying $50,000 for the speech and an autograph signing session for party members. [....]

Background and a closer look at a Liberal news release

May 9, 2006: Republican Pollster Coaching Conservative Party

www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?type=news&id=11597

Liberal MP Mark Holland took Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative government to task yesterday over recent meetings with U.S. Republican pollster Frank Luntz at a conference organized by a radical right wing group.

“Since the Prime Minister muzzles his MPs and hides from the press, is the Civitas Society where we need to look to uncover the truth about this government’s real agenda?” Holland asked in the House of Commons Monday. [....]

Harper muzzles (negative connotations of dictatorial power) but Jean Chretien kept a tight reign on ( leadership word with positive connotations)

Mr. Luntz, a republican strategist who helped draft Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America, spoke in Ottawa at the 10th Annual Conference of the Civitas Society, a radical right-wing group closely linked to the Reform/Alliance wing of the Conservative Party of Canada.

Note the use of "radical" and "right-wing" and Reform/Alliance, already unfairly demonized in the past by the MSM, then demonized again in current references BY the MSM. Does it remind you of that penchant for politicians or government(s) becoming involved with a company ... then awarding that company an award / award of excellence ... some time later? Think hard.

Why is Civitas called radical? Is it radical, in fact? Isn't that editorializing? See screen captures below. ***

Mr. Harper had a private meeting and posed for pictures with Luntz. Mr. Harper’s Chief of Staff Ian Brodie, President of the Treasury Board John Baird, and key advisor and former national campaign chair Tom Flanagan were also in attendance.

private - Use that word -- create the impression that it is "hidden from the electorate - secret" Mention of Tom Flanagan is used, in my opinion, as a code word for negative images of an eminence grise , far right, Calgary School, maybe even Straussian

Mr. Luntz has made a career of polarizing electorates in the name of short-term political benefit. Mr. Luntz outlined a plan for the Conservative Party that focuses on code wording and imagery, urging Conservatives to focus on specific differences in wording between the two parties instead of the large policy challenges confronting Canada in the 21st Century.

Would these be polarizing? Would these create short-term gain but long-term pain? Let's look at a few Liberal code words or terms intended to focus the electorate on the party differences--words used in talking of Liberal plans and promises?

initiatives - for taking taxpayers' money and spending it on their friends, supporters (moneyed ones - think:

grants / forgiveable loans (e.g.Technology Partnerships Canada / TPC , ACOA / AIF) - taxpayer money given out and not paid back

assymmetrical federalism - one province favoured over another -- Equity / Equal--except when it's not / Equalization - unequal payouts to provinces -- When are the provinces ever treated equally / in balance? e.g. NEP? Quebec's demands for spreading Alberta wealth to the east but minority language, largely emanating from Quebec, is by law, being promoted and spread across the country -- Quebec power development in James Bay promoted an inequity in that contract with Newfoundland, whose interests were given away. (Remember Liberal Joey Smallwood in that, if I remember correctly?) Now, Newfoundland - Labrador wants to gain something back through the Atlantic Accord -- re: oil revenues and taxation

grants for initiatives (for some companies, not others) -- Bombardier/Air Canada which used to be Quebec's Canadair (I believe) but the taxpayer money has not been as readily available for other companies which have been allowed to fail

notwithstanding clause use - not okay to retain the traditional definition of marriage -- okay to protect French language in Quebec and throughout Canada / not okay if used in the English speaking / anglophone provinces to protect the English / anglophone right to work in their own language for their own government, unless they speak French

protecting jobs - more trade or free trade (between provinces), labour mobility -- unions control / prevent some labour movement from outside Quebec into the province / but workers from Quebec may come into other provinces to work

protecting jobs -- In protecting the dairy industry and products in PQ but the rest of Canada (TROC) pays more than they might for dairy products -- protect the bicycle industry (2 companies in PQ) against competition from Chinese bikes

protecting jobs -- marketing boards which help some farmers in the West and Quebec's dairy industry - but these boards control all Western farmers' ability to sell their wheat -- whether they want to belong or not -- Who are appointed to run these boards? Which farmers are helped? Yet the rest must belong ... even if they could do better on their own. Coercive

short term -- What could be more short term than creating an agency and its bureaucracy (e.g. ACOA / AIF) to dispense grants to failing industries that cannot compete but get taxpayer money ... until they fail, after having supplanted a business that had been doing all right but couldn't compete with a government / taxpayer funded competitor. Meanwhile, another Liberally connected friend has made money.

Canada’s favorite sport was also a key element of Mr. Luntz’s strategy. “If there is some way to link hockey to what you all do, I would try to do it,” he said in his speech.

Remember photos of Jean Chretien at hockey games / the "charity" golf and networking tournaments - Golf is considered a gentleman's game, a game of honour where you'll freely admit inadvertently moving a ball, because it is the right / gentlemanly thing to do, even if no-one else saw it. Then think Gomery / Chretien and his golf balls. Did golf honour rub off on him?

Sometimes, it backfires -- if you remember the hockey stick graph on climate? It turns out to be misleading, I believe.

Treasury Board President John Baird also gave a speech at the Civitas Society event entitled, “The Way Forward for Conservatives.”

See Civitas Society below, entitled "What would be the $$$ cost ... "

Link the word "conservative" and the party "Conservative" to Christian (right wing -- negative -- is intended to remind voters of extremists / fundamentalist Christian) beliefs / Link Liberals to the word "progressive" -- i.e. no belief or ephemeral belief -- is supposedly values neutral / i.e. out of deconstructionist theory -- i.e. The individual creates his (and her) own understanding of the world, his belief or values based on his own perceptions, hence there is no objective truth. Nothing is sacred. There is no right-wrong, good-evil -- so leftists and Liberals present abortion-killing human beings--and call it a woman's right to choose ... to kill her foetus, not child. Late term abortion is actually, as I recall the description, making a hole in the skull, sucking the brains out to crush the skull, snipping limbs off to remove the foetus ... to kill a human being who is not called a human being until it emerges from the mother.

Code words: right to choose , right to die , no-one is illegal ... and the like

Photo: If you are squeamish or easily upset, DO NOT LOOK AT THIS


Related: Current news re: Michael J Fox and stem cell research -- Search: Amendment 2 ... stem cell research


Would leftist / Liberal terms be the same as linking:

kinder gentler society to Liberal government -- while linking harsh, right wing, hard right, anti-immigrant to Conservatives?

diverse, multicultural society to NDP and Liberal pro-immigration / increased immigration policies, omitting mention of groups like No One is Illegal. To achieve that number of new leftist voters, they don't consider the consequences. For example: The previous Liberal government underfunded security services and stacked immigration panels with "stakeholders". Result: Adequate security checks could not be done and "stakeholders" (members of the immigrant groups) determined who could enter Canada. Result: entry of crooks, terrorists, triad members and others who destabilize society -- Result: Canadians' increased insecurity--even growing instability

Are we to assume that Mr. Baird’s way forward involves the same practices that Mr. Luntz advocates for his Republican clients?

First the MSM tar the US President and Republicans. Then they link Republicans and their methods to Canadian Conservatives -- Note bold and/or words with negative connotations -- after the MSM had created the negativity without any balancing positive reports on anything done by the US President and the Republican government.

Many Liberals across the country have expressed deep concern over the heavy-handed approach the current Prime Minister has taken to governing and how similar this approach has been to that of the Republican Party in the United States.

Then the MSM link Conservatives to US Republicans/George Bush and ensure the media stays on message. That's why the MSM say nothing positive about them -- think scary Christians for whom homosexuality is a sin. MSM don't mention that the practices also result in related increased health problems (directly related AIDS , indirectly related via drugs and bisexuality)

If the Prime Minister’s actions are being guided by strategists such as Mr. Luntz, the reason for these similarities is becoming abundantly clear.

Civitas Society

What would be the $$$ cost ... for a Google search that shows negative results first? Propaganda value? Priceless!




On Saturday, Oct. 29, 06, I searched "Civitas Society". Later, I searched "Civitas Society Canada". I tried both browsers. What follow are some results. I had to go to a second page to find what I wanted. Why?






Oct. 29, 06: Search "Manning Centre"



Oct. 29, 06: Search "Civitas Society Canada"





Civitas Society ... the reality

Civil Society (www.civitassociety.ca) -- a quote (below) from a letter by its president (FROM THE DESK OF LORNE GUNTER, CIVITAS PRESIDENT 13 March 2006). Note: the president is not Preston Manning, though the same MSM that demonized him, NOW USES that demonization to demonize any organization or think tank which pursues a range of viewpoints ... even conservative thought.

Note: One of the speakers is one member of a panel on euthanasia who happens to be representing a non-Christian perspective, the right to die. Would that not signify a willingness to listen, to discuss other positions on troubling issues, particularly contentious social issues? Actually, open, not closed to differing points of view ... Is that not the opposite of the way it is described leftist/Liberal/MSM references and reports?

[....] The 2006 program will be exciting. Eugene Meehan, one of Canada's foremost legal experts on the Supreme Court, will join other panelists for a discussion of the role of courts in a democracy. Dr. Herbert Hendin of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, a representative of the Right to Die Society of Canada and others will exchange views on the campaign to liberalize euthanasia. Joel Sokolsky of the Royal Military College, Ben Perrin of the Institute of Comparative Law at McGill and others will cover the morality of war. And there will be exciting sessions, too, on a new formula for federalism, electoral reform and the future of our cities. [....]

Pluralism, the Aga Khan and the Aga Khan Global Centre for Pluralism

Pluralism /diversity / multiculturalism - Using these leftist/Liberal terms are code words often for more immigration of people who hate our Western way of life, but who vote for the political party which facilitated their entry to Canada, usually the Liberal Party. This weekend, I listened to Mansbridge One on One, Mansbridge's interview with the Aga Khan about his new Centre for Pluralism / Peace Centre in Ottawa, the one to which Paul Martin gave $30-million taxpayer dollars. How benign, how cultured, how reasonable the Aga Khan appears ... and some of what he says makes sense, until you think about it some more ... Then, in answer to a question about who/what leaders could achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East, the Aga Khan recommended and gave high praise to the United Nations / UN ..... and particularly to Kofi Annan and his network ..... Think about that. Is the Centre for Pluralism simply another manifestation of what has been a growing presence in Canada of the UN talk shop? Could a new, improved UN, (perhaps the L10 or is it L20?) be poised to leave the US to make its home in Canada? Is is the Aga Khan's Global Centre for Pluralism really so benign, after all? If you have not been reading about the duplicitous, corrupt UN, it is time to start.



Plural honours from the Aga Khan, John Ibbitson, 25/10/06 Page A4

www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/
LAC.20061025.IBBITSON25/TPStory/?query=ibbitson

This afternoon, in the Centre Block of Parliament, Stephen Harper and the Aga Khan will announce the foundation of a new Global Centre for Pluralism, an institute dedicated to disseminating the values of multiculturalism around the world. [....]

Does pluralism mean a Canadian government's not taking a stand on right and wrong, that Canadians are to be tolerant unto blind, that Islam is peace, while the peaceful ones remain intolerant ? Meanwhile, the Centre for Global Pluralism will be handing out "talking points" for press releases and holding discussions to prove that Muslims are really peaceful. ... Meanwhile the usual terrorist acts take place. When are the peaceful Muslims going to rout out the violent from their ranks, to disavow any connection to their madness, to disown the ones who terrorize under the banner of Islam--to publicly disown them? Instead, the silence in this regard is deafening, with a few exceptions. When Islam really appears to be about peace, then, the Centre might have some credibility for Canadians.



PM: It's in Canada's best interests to support Israel, Chris Wattie, CanWest News Service; National Post, October 19, 2006

TORONTO -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper mounted a vigorous defence on Wednesday of his government's Middle East policy, saying support for Israel is "fundamental to what this nation has always stood for."

Speaking to a B'nai Brith dinner in Toronto, Harper made no apologies for his government siding with the Jewish state during this summer's fighting between Israeli troops and Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.

"When it comes to dealing with a war between Israel and a terrorist organization, this country and this government cannot and will never be neutral," Harper said in a speech that drew several standing ovations from the more than 1,000 members of the Jewish human rights group. "This position is rooted in what we have long stood for as a country."

The prime minister said he was not deterred by criticism from the opposition parties, who this summer called the Conservative government's unqualified support for Israel a repudiation of Canada's traditional role in the Middle East.

"That is simply not accurate," he said. "Rather than charting a new (policy) course, we are restoring Canada to its traditional and true role: Principled leadership in world affairs ... a Canada that knows where it stands." [....]

It is so much more difficult to go against the flow and to do what is right than to mouth half-truths or lies ... It is so much easier to say one thing while doing another ... to gain perhaps economic or a power position advantage ... or to gain votes. Prime Minister Harper took a principled stand.


(I have had great difficulty posting the screen captures so I searched again and ... well, try for yourself. Note any change?)