Terror, war and propaganda



Before the Beginning

I don't know what the word terror means to you, but for me it's that feeling of being tossed about in an airplane in extreme turbulence. It's fear-with-a-deadline, it's a state half physical, half psychological, half spiritual and if that adds up to three halves, so be it; 150% of possible alertness sounds about right.  

            The word is bandied about a lot these days and anyone trained in the nuances of language has to be shaking his head in amazement when politicians quibble for days over the question of, for instance, whether or not a deranged man galloping through the capital with a stupid hunting rifle is a terrorist or not.

            Of course, agreeing on what's meant by particular words matters in law where drunk has quite arbitrarily been decided to mean +.08 blood alcohol level. But in the public square, words are not precise points, they're clouds, and when Stephen Harper declares that ISIS has declared war on Canada, he's deliberately releasing the fox into the hen house. The war cloud is big and dark in people's minds and surely we haven't forgotten how George Bush used the war word to prepare the public to accept his astronomically stupid invasion of Iraq.

            Terror, war easily become blunt but effective instruments of partisan propaganda. If we're at war, then all the tools of the wartime propagandist can be deployed: patriotism, loyalty, sacrifice, war-measures actions, curtailing of civil liberties in a dangerous time, etc. Most of all, any criticism of government can be branded as disloyal, unpatriotic, even subversive. Listen to government rhetoric; it's happening right now.

            How would our responses be different if our government characterized Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS as what they really are, criminal gangs in need of arrest and detention? I remember wincing when the war on terror phrase was introduced into political currency, handing over to Al Qaeda criminals a legitimacy they didn't deserve. We respond differently to crime policing than we do to war.

            Words, words, words.

            Terrorism does have a definition, of course. It's a strategy of inciting fear in order to gain an advantage in conflict. A definition, incidentally, that would fit many a parent, many a teacher. And quite coincidentally, Harper's declaration that "The Jihadists have declared war on us" rather neatly fits that definition as well, given that elections are about as conflict-ridden as we get here in Canada.

            Wartime governments invariably gain election advantages. If our government can't render us jubilant over the economy, by jove, they can always terrorize us into voting for them. What with the economy tanking and an election barely 9 months away, a new strategy is not a surprise. The old adage that "you can't fool all of the people all of the time" just isn't that reassuring, at least not to me; in Canada you literally need only fool a third of the people most of the time to be politically successful.

            I wonder if embarrassment is driving John Baird's resignation.

 

  

On restricted-focus government

One household in Canada

All the little economies

A recent poll determined that Canadians place higher priority on the economy than on crime. I don’t have access to the question asked by the poll, so it's difficult to decide whether or not it was a reasonable reflection of what the average Canadian is thinking.

 One thing I do know, though, is that asking anyone to rank items in a list like this is a of little value, the result obscuring more than it illuminates. The choice of items for the list, for instance, is in itself a manipulative enterprise in that it must—by its nature—exclude or choose items on it. Furthermore, the implication in this case is that the economy and crime are similar categories between which a choice can be made, or a choice that's already been made can be justified.

            The current government has decided that its focus on the economy is justified both by the results of the election and such polls, as well as by the economic instability around us. They have a point; economies must be tended thoughtfully and must distribute goods and services equitably and efficiently. Ranking this need as the Harper government has done, though, is dishonest. The economy is not separate from crime, or health, or highways, or education, or environment. Seems to me, a portion of our population has been lulled into the thinking that all must serve the economy, including environmental considerations.

            We know intuitively that building a house on a crumbly foundation is foolish, but in the world of politics in Canada today, are we still agreed on what is house and what is foundation? Surely if environment and economy were listed in a poll, most people would choose environment as fundamental, a foundation on which the economy is built. And yet, our government speeds up environmental hearings, pushes the polluting oil sands as if there were no problem there, all as if the economy were foundation and the environment must be built on top of it.

            Imagine a household run like our current government runs the country. “I'm sorry, children, but the most important thing around here is getting as much money as possible into this house, so food, clothing, music, education, recreation (being of less importance than finances by the latest poll) are on the back burner until further notice. And by the way, you've been slacking off so now you're all either getting paper routes, or your allowances will be cut!" (Think EI changes)

            If this metaphor seems out of place to anyone, just a reminder that the word, economy, derives from Greek words for household management and steward.         

A restricted-focus government is no proper householder at all.

Pipeline, Anyone??

 

Historical CNR Caboose.  

Far be it from me to say the two are the same . . . but:

Tuesday’s news highlighted:

1) President Assad’s defiant speech to the Syrian people and the world, and

2) the Canadian government’s statements regarding the mass of people registered to intervene at the opening of hearings on the Northern Gateway Pipeline from Bruderheim, Alberta to Kitimat, BC.

Not the same, of course, but both news items bear one eerie similarity. In both cases, the entities in power applied the ad hominem argument to their opponents, a tactic that has been historically typical of tyrannies but hardly becomes the leadership of a democracy.

               It’s always a temptation in a debate—especially when truth is not firmly on your side—to bolster your chances by denigrating the opposition. President Assad and the Harper government both fell prey to this temptation yesterday and labelled their oppositions as:

a) being a uniform pack of agitators, and

b) supported by foreign interests.

The first assertion is an attempt to make the opposition appear to be an ignorant and/or malevolent mob, the latter an appeal to the nationalist sentiment in the population.

Neither addresses the merits or demerits of the argument.

Perhaps both Harper and Assad can be forgiven; the temptation to label and homogenize our opponents is deeply embedded in all of us. We practice it in our education systems, in our churches, in our municipal and provincial politics (especially at election time), even in our families. It is, after all, far simpler than the hard work of open, honest negotiation and reasoned debate. It raises its ugly head in families, for instance, when an exasperated father tells his son, “You’re nothing but a little thief,” when the son borrows a tool without asking and leaves it out in the rain. It shows itself in churches when people are grouped and labelled on the basis of differing interpretations of the faith. It’s implicit in party politics and the labels that attach to proponents of one viewpoint or the other.

“An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy.” (Wikipedia)

The government of Canada is convinced that the economic benefit to the country of being able to ship volumes of oil-sands oil to the Orient outweighs the danger of accidents and the compromising of the natural world that accompanies any project of this magnitude. The Aboriginal nations along its route see the pipeline as yet another infringement on their territories and their traditional way of life, besides being environmentally very risky.

These are major considerations. They need to be weighed soberly and respectfully.

Our government’s ad hominem intrusion into the atmosphere of the hearings before they even get started is inconsistent with the ideals of democracy.

Assad’s, on the other hand, is simply an affront to all that is reasoned, noble and generous in the human spirit.

Image, Substance

Still life 04

Republican presidential-hopeful Mike Huckabee seems to have discovered what our Prime Minister could have told him a long time ago: in a large whack of the North American population at this time, substance is of little consequence; it’s image that sticks. Although knowing that none of these things are true, he has stated and/or implied that President Obama was born and raised in Kenya by his father and grandfather (he was born in the USA and spent most of his growing-up years in Indonesia), that he is Muslim (he has been a member of Christian churches all his life), that he is anti-West and anti-American (as proven by the fact that he had a bust of Churchill moved in the White House and replaced with one of Abe Lincoln – go figure!). (Check out an interview with Huckabee on You Tube, or see http://www.canada.com/entertainment/movie-guide/Huckabee+embracing+Obama+myths+eyes+Republican+candidacy/4385905/story.html )

 And image is everything in Conservative Party advertising these days: besmirch Michael Ignatieff’s character and fill people’s minds with images of Stephen Harper interacting with his family, silhouetted against the flag, playing the piano. The Conservative Party of Canada apparently believes that if they can throw enough mud at the opposition while portraying their leader in the best, most patriotic light, enough Canadians may buy into the propaganda to win them another election.

They may be right. Surveys show that Canadian young people (15-25) are not politically knowledgeable, and when many people don’t have the information or understanding needed to be active citizens in a democracy, image building (and besmirching) may be the road to victory after all:

“Young Canadians’ political knowledge is low – only slightly higher than the level of their American counterparts and, therefore, low compared with Europe. This suggests that European nations are better at disseminating the information and skills needed to turn its young people into participating citizens, and raises the question of whether Canadians should look there, rather than to the United States, in seeking to address the issue. (See http://www.irpp.org/newsroom/archive/2007/1115sume.pdf)”  

Do Canadians understand the significance to democracy of Bev Oda’s lying to parliament and Harper’s shrugging it off? Of the proroguing of parliament to avoid a critical test? Of the function of election spending rules and the far-reaching significance when leadership “bends the rules” they themselves have set? Of the repeated stonewalling on the dissemination of information vital to Canadians on something as serious as our war against the Taliban in Afghanistan?

People who don’t “get this stuff” can probably be swayed by image advertising; can probably even be found in enough numbers to win another minority. Seems Huckabee has figured that out. Our political parties seem to have come to a similar conclusion.

For far too many Canadians—and probably even a greater percentage of Americans—substance is of little consequence; it’s image that sticks. Someone needs to tell Harper the obvious; if he wants a majority, he may need to walk around in hockey garb throughout the campaign! Hockey is, after all “our game.” It’s something we get.

  

Summit meetings, conspiracy theories and the public’s right to know.

Summit meetings, conspiracy theories and the public’s right to know.

On Tuesday, Aug. 21 2007, Stephen Harper, George W. Bush and Felipe Calderon of Mexico wrapped up a series of discussions at Montebello, Quebec. (CTV news carried the story at http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070821/summit_070821/20070821?hub=Politics) The meeting took place under the aegis of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), a trilateral dialogue initiative under which the three North American countries are supposedly finding ways to harmonize everything from border security to the piracy of intellectual property. In this round of talks, Harper and his guests claimed to reach an understanding on a number of matters including the strategy for preventing and/or responding to a viral pandemic, a joint defense against unsafe imports like Chinese toys and toothpaste, and an agreement to disagree on whether the water between Canada’s Arctic islands is international or is Canadian territory.

The summit concluded with a meeting with the North American Competitiveness Council to discuss ways to harmonize trade practices in order to enhance profitability and competitiveness for North American corporations.

Peter Julian, international trade critic for the NDP, is skeptical about the goals of the SPP, as is the Council of Canadians. Julian is quoted in the CTV story as saying: “The NDP was able to obtain a meeting summary—through a freedom of information request—from a meeting that was held last February with the SPP ministers. Very clearly that document refers to a very deep agenda, a very wide-ranging agenda. And it's an agenda that has, front and centre, the objectives of the North American Competitiveness Council—a group of about 30 un-appointed, unelected company CEOs, who are pushing forward the agendas of their companies.”

Here in Canada, we tend to be skeptical about the Americans’ intentions much of the time. We remember the softwood lumber debacle, the furor over the Canadian Wheat Board and other incidents that seem to show that the USA chooses to exercise “free trade” only as long as it favours them, and unilaterally imposes tariffs whenever Canada or Mexico appear to be gaining a greater slice of the North American market. George Bush conceded in a news conference after the summit that “The United States does not question Canada’s sovereignty of Arctic islands, and the United States supports Canadian investments used to exercise its sovereignty,” meanwhile maintaining that the Northwest Passage is international waters. What’s up with that? I suspect that future access to oil exploration and exploitation may lie at the bottom of that, but then I’m just a skeptical Canadian. (Canadian sovereignty over the islands serves to simplify that future for the USA by cutting out any intrusion from Denmark, Russia or any other claimants, making the exploitation of the North a monopoly of the North American triumvirate.)

The NDP is right in insisting that the discussions of the SPP must be open to the publics of the involved countries. They are also right in maintaining that having the North American Competitiveness Council as the only dialogue partner at such summit meetings is scary, and fosters skepticism.

Stephen Harper vigorously pooh-poohed the alarms raised by Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians and the NDP international trade critic. He led us to believe that the discussions with the North American Competitiveness Council were nothing more than an attempt to facilitate better movement of jelly beans, for instance, and George Bush iterated that criticism of the SPP was borne out of the imaginations of people who deal in conspiracy theories as their modus operandi.

My feeling is that Harper, Bush and Calderon are way too naïve to be throwing any criticism at their critics, certainly not of the sarcastic kind that Harper did at the news conference. The North American economy is being driven by corporate interests. I’m pretty sure, for instance, that the proposed massive arms deals with Saudi Arabia and Israel are much less about security than they are about the arms lobby’s pressing for government-sanctioned sales. And only the really naïve believe that oil companies had nothing to do with the decision to invade Iraq.

Conspiracy theories? Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t prove that no one is following me.