wibiya widget

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Aggressively totalitarian: maybe it's not just hyperbole

A recent post suggested that the phrase "aggressively totalitarian" could become this week's meme. At the time, I acknowledged that it might seem a bit over the top. (It might also have too many syllables for the average Harpobot, but that's another issue.)

Three links from fellow progressives lead me to think, however, that it's not just hyperbole.

From Dr. Dawg, we have this:


Background checks on all who wish to attend his rallies will be conducted by the RCMP. Anyone found to have opinions or connections other than true-blue Konservative will be barred or ejected.
The RCMP is currently headed by William Elliott, a Harper appointee. Hepersonally gave convicted felon Bruce Carson the top-level security clearance required to work in the Prime Minister’s Office.
Now (h/t reader Sir Francis, in the comments) he’s been asked by the man who appointed him to investigate the man he cleared.

From Boris at The Galloping Beaver, this

The Harper goons, with the support of the RCMP has created lists of political dissidents. Young voters now find themselves on lists and banned from Harper events for such crimes against the party as visiting Cancun on behalf of a well established mainstream environmental NGO. Lists, based on suspicion of  activity that runs counter to the ideology of the Conservative Party.
Lists mean files.
Files on Canadians.
This party of Harper can very likely now be said to have in conjunction with the RCMP, compiled files with details on the lives of Canadians it does not like without their knowledge. Are these records in possession of the RCMP? And if so, under what law or condition?
And from James Bow, this:


... there is a difference between protecting a politician from possible physical threats, and protecting a politician from ordinary Canadians who simply might not necessarily agree with the politician’s agenda and want to say so. This is, essentially, a criminalization of dissent. You’ve been seen photographed with opposition leader Michael Ignatieff, no rally for you! You’re a member of the Sierra Club, get off of our lawn! There is a chance — a microscopic chance — that you won’t be an obedient little lapdog who will stand up and cheer precisely when the prime minister tells you to stand up and cheer, so we don’t want to have to deal with your type.
Ever.
Remember, this is supposed to be a time when Stephen Harper and his Conservatives want to talk to Canadians. They want us to listen to them and convince us that we should trust them with our vote. The election campaign is possibly the only time the average politician has any real respect for the opinions of Canadians. But while Stephen Harper might want us to listen, he doesn’t want to engage in the two-way street and actually listen back when we talk to him. Indeed, anybody who might try is deemed worthy of only contempt.

Anyone else noticing the pattern? Do we need to spell it out? Again, I'm beginning to think the answer might be yes. Another focal point from which we can seize control of the narrative, even if the corporate media are slow on the uptake, or afraid of jeopardizing what little access they have.

Once again, dear friends, our task seems clear. Let's get to it.

(ETA: An interesting suggestion from Falsum. Thoughts?)




4 comments:

  1. Pattern? The RCMP was and remains a political agency of the Conservative Party. It was when they skewed the election for Harper over Martin. It is today. The big difference is that we now have a veteran Tory functionnaire sitting behind the Big Desk at "A Division. Sort of cuts out the middle man which is a huge savings to the taxpayer when he's ordered to investigate how he gave Carson a top level security clearance. I'm guessing he'll get to the investigation straight after the election only to report "NOTHING TO SEE HERE, MOVE ALONG."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Speaking of corporate media Lawrence Martin has some gonads at least.
    http://ipolitics.ca/2011/04/06/lawrence-martin-by-the-way-prime-minister-this-is-not-a-police-state/

    Now if only the pundits would start debating it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am frustrated over the fact that, as far as I know, no one in the mainstream media is talking about the impropriety of using the RCMP in this overtly partisan matter.

    While I agree with The Mound of Sound that our federal police force acted this way during the 2006 election when it announced an investigation that reminded everyone of the Liberal sponsorship scandal and thus helped to elect Harper over Martin, this most recent example really requires even greater media scrutiny, and yet nothing is happening.

    ReplyDelete
  4. People are blind. Thousands of questions arise. But do not consider not voting, not voting en masse.
    That's the only chance to regain usurped political power to civilians. It is the only way to remind them that if there is by vote. And that people do not want in their lives these ways that violate their dignity.If so vital and basic issues how are you people not united, the deposits will come in a cascade.The lack of unity in essentials, not only there but in very many states, is what enables this despotism "democratic. "

    PeterPank

    ReplyDelete

Share