Comments Off on Tax Talk 57: First Nations Transparency w/ Colin Craig
Nov202014
The First Nations Financial Transparency Act, a bill fought for by Canadian aboriginals and the CTF, has been in place for several months, and more than three-quarters of bands have now filed financial statements and politician pay. What have we learned? What needs to be improved? And will the FNFTA actually help public policy? CTF Prairie Director Colin Craig joins Tax Talk host Jordan Bateman to talk about the good, the bad, and the ugly of the FNFTA. Plus our usual features – the Comment of the Cast and our Waste of the Week!
Comments Off on Tax Talk 36: Reforming Canada’s Employment Insurance Program, w. guest Nick Bergamini
Nov282013
Earlier this month, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation issued a new report calling for changes to the Employment Insurance (EI) system that would allow Canadians to keep the money they and their employers pay in EI taxes in a personal unemployment account. Report author Nick Bergamini, the CTF’s Research Director, joins CTF B.C. Director and Tax Talk host Jordan Bateman to break down the current EI system, highlight some shocking regional inequities, and lay out the CTF’s idea to revamp it. To read the full EI report, click here. To sign our petition calling for changes, click here.
Plus our usual features – the Comment of the Cast (praising a politician who – gasp! – did something right!) and the Waste of the Week (an MLA who collects more in pension than he did in salary).
Comments Off on RoadKill Radio: Don Spratt Presents the “Value Voters Pledge” and “Principled Politician’s Pledge”
May282013
A RoadKill Radio "Warrior of the Week", pro-lifer Don Spratt launches his new pro-life campaign on RKR News: challenging Christians to sign a "Value Voter's Pledge": that they will never, ever vote for any politician who would allow even one pre-born baby to be killed; and challenging politicians to sign a "Principled Politician's Pledge": to always defend life—no matter what their party or leader says.
Month after month—and in some cases week after week—Rafe Mair’s malicious tirades against Kari Simpson were blasted across the airwaves, and trumpeted from the pages of newspapers and Internet blogs.
Let me read some examples—and show how false they were:
• May 8, 1997, Rafe said, “I received a letter from her accusing me of being in favour of throwing young boys’ bodies to the tender mercies of predatory males…” He repeated this accusation at least six times.
The Fact: Kari’s letter asked—rhetorically—“I trust that upon your read of this that you will understand that the agenda far and exceeds the fluff; but then again, maybe you believe 13-year-old boys enjoy giving their bodies to men in exchange for frivolity.” The question was accompanied by a reprint of an article in Xtra West alleging that the boys in the Maple Leaf Gardens scandal willingly exchanged sexual favours for hockey tickets.
Rafe is a writer; he knows the difference between a rhetorical question and an accusation. But he chose to ignore that distinction, and make a false accusation of his own.
• Dec. 8, 1997, Rafe stated that Kari’s “motivations seem to come from the Reverend Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority.”
The fact: Kari informed Rafe that, although she had heard Falwell’s name, she’d never heard him speak, nor read anything he wrote. Yet Rafe continued to link Kari’s name to Falwell’s.
• Dec. 11, 1997, Rafe said, “I have no idea whether or not she is anti-semitic; I don’t think she is, though; and I’ve never said she is, and I have no reason to say that she is. But, you know, there is an old saying which has resonance: ‘You look like a crow, call like a crow and nest with crows, chances are you’re a crow.’ I have no doubt that if Jerry Falwell, an admitted gay-basher and a demonstrable anti-semite, were to come to this area, that the people who support Kari Simpson’s stand on homosexuality would flock to hear him…”
The facts: Kari is provably NOT an anti-semite. But by alleging that Falwell is an anti-semite and anti-gay, and falsely linking Kari’s name to his, Rafe uses “guilt by association”—an association that never existed—to vilify her reputation.
At the very least, that’s yellow journalism; at the worst, it’s malicious defamation, and promoting hatred and contempt. Defamation is either an actionable civil offence, or a crime, or both—unless the legal brotherhood protects you.
Kari told Rafe—in the same letter that he mis-quotes as an accusation of pedophile sympathies, so we know he read it—that “I am no moral Puritan, but I am informed; my involvement in this difficult issue results from a concern based in fact, not ignorance nor bigotry.” Yet Rafe declared “this is a religious war, not educational.”
• Feb. 8, 1988, Rafe made reference to “Kari Simpson’s fundamentalists…”
The facts: What does Rafe mean by “fundamentalist”? Who knows? He simply uses the word as a pejorative. It actually refers to an intellectual defence of Biblical Christianity mounted by a group of scholars at Princeton University before the First World War. No one has ever demonstrated a link between Kari Simpson and fundamentalism—but that didn’t seem to matter to Rafe, when an easy slur was close at hand.
• Oct. 24, 1999, Rafe wrote (online): “What the likes of Kari Simpson—whose mind is so narrow it’s as invisible as electricity—want us to believe is that the words ‘homosexual’ and pedophile are synonymous…”
The fact: This is simply an outright lie: Kari has never equated homosexuality and pedophilia. Never. And Rafe has never been able to produce any defence of this accusation. And he never will be able to, because it’s untrue.
• Oct. 25, 1999, Rafe Mair opened his program by saying, “I really hate to give Kari Simpson any more publicity—something she soaks up like a blotter—but she’s become such a menace, I really think something must be said…”
After listing a number of civil rights successes Kari brought to Rafe’s radio program, Rafe said, “I listened to the tape of the parents’ meeting… where Kari harangues the crowd.”
Not “spoke to”, but “harangued”. Note how Rafe puts a spin on every sentence, by the language he chooses. He continued: “… in my minds eye I could see Governor Wallace of Alabama, standing on the steps of a school-house, shouting to the crowds that ‘no nigras’ would get into Alabama schools as long as he was governor.”
The facts: Assuredly, there is no need for me to point out the non-sequitur and the fallacy of trying to hang George Wallace’s racism on Kari Simpson; but for those who do not know her, let me assert that Kari—who grew up and went to school in a predominantly Black neighbourhood in California, and earned her fellow-students’ respect—does not have a racist bone in her body!
I’ve only cited six of more than 40 hate-inducing editorials Rafe Mair broadcast or wrote about Kari Simpson. I’m sure that by now, you get the degree of vicious intent. The important point is that those entrusted with the “bully pulpit” of the media have an ethical obligation not to abuse that power in a calculated campaign to manufacture a false reputation for anyone whose political influence they fear; and still less to pander to the economic powerhouse of the ‘gay’ lobby.
Repeatedly, Kari Simpson wrote him letters that proclaimed: “You’re wrong, Rafe!”—and provided him and his employers with evidence.
At one time, Rafe Mair’s producer had scheduled a debate between later became an NDP MLA, objected (according to Rafe’s producer, quoted in a court transcript):
“That would be like debating a white supremacist.”
He refused to debate Kari. So Rafe cancelled Kari, allowing Stevenson to go on the air unchallenged.
It was uncharacteristic of Rafe Mair, the award-winning broadcaster, to cow to the dishonest whim of a politician. But he did.
Yet Rafe and Kari certainly discussed the issue in detail: March 24, 1997, Kari was guest on a program which Rafe devoted entirely to discussion of the promotion of pro-homosexual education in the public schools. The NDP had just passed a resolution at its convention, calling for — quote — “the necessary curricular changes to promote the education of issues surrounding lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth.” Unquote.
That sentence is worth careful parsing. Notice that it does not call for comprehensive education of our children about homosexuality—that is, education that would not only argue for the human rights of GLBT persons, but would also inform students of the dire health and financial consequences of homosexual behaviour.
So what was the outcome of all Kari’s information and her corrections of misinformation? Come back next week.
Buckshot – Every dollar spent on government “studies.”
Homosceptic – Being sceptical about the key presuppositions of the gay rights movement, such as the beliefs that:
Homosexuality is genetically determined
Homosexual orientation is always fixed
Sexual orientation is a biological characteristic like race, sex or skin colour
Feelings of same sex attraction should be welcomed and acted upon
Offering help to those who wish to resist or eradicate these feelings is always wrong
(Courtesy of Peter Saunders)
Online Voting – Paperless apathy.
Political Correctness – A naive, destructive effort to remove all distinguishing characteristics between the world’s rich cultures, to remove all incentives to excel, and to remove all sense of personal accomplishment, pride, and self-worth.
Tree Huggers – Splinter faction of the ecology movement.
Unregistered Voter – Any person who does not have the legal right to not vote in an election.
Weiner – Any politician who thinks the public would vote for a man stupid enough to email pictures of his private parts to strange women.
Does anyone other than a dwindling minority of Procrustean traditionalists recognize evil anymore—personal evil, that is? Oh, sure, there’s plenty of the geopolitical variety to go around these days, especially in North Africa. And there’s more than enough being identified on the national stage by perpetually outraged critics within this country too, most notably by those on the political left, who eagerly attach the E word to everything from corporate profits and free trade to the oil sands and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s piano playing.
But we rarely hear about individual Canadians doing “bad” things, exhibiting sinister behavior, acting wickedly, or carrying on immorally, let alone sinning.
Instead, there’s always some sort of exculpating explanation for bad behaviour. Shoplifters suffer from kleptomania; corrupt officials have succumbed to stress or have manifested a previously undiagnosed psychiatric disorder; prostitutes are victims of the patriarchy, poverty or both; juvenile delinquents are the recipients of inadequate parenting; inner-city gangsters are victims of racial discrimination; and thieves are impoverished or addicted, and, if the latter, are surely not responsible for the burden of the illness under which they are labouring. You get the picture.
Look at the website promoting the recent Pink Shirt Day/anti-bullying campaign—a cause that should easily give rise to descriptions of bullies acting wickedly, etc.—and you’ll see therapeutic twaddle aplenty along with much vigorous exhortation to get to the root of the problem, etc., but nothing about the plain and simple fact bullies are acting immorally.
Which brings me to Exhibit A, otherwise known as the spark that gave life to this particular column. You might have heard of a horrible hit-and-run accident in Coquitlam, B.C., two weeks ago which left two young women dead. In covering the aftermath of the crash, which included the laying of several charges against a suspect, including two counts of impaired driving causing death, a local newspaper turned to a clinical psychologist from Simon Fraser University for some “insight” into “what might lead someone to flee the scene” of a serious accident without giving help.
Dr. Joti Samra is quoted thusly: “Assuming that it’s a true accident, the reality is… even from the perspective of the person that caused the accident, it can be quite traumatic and cause an acute stress reaction.” Got that? Acute stress reaction.
The good doctor goes on to explain that the brain could be flooded with information and emotion that would cause a person to act unusually. “The fight or flight response is something we’re exposed to when we are faced with extreme traumatic events,” Dr. Samra concludes. “Our body kind of goes into a shock, it doesn’t know what to do.”
Notice the focus on the culprit’s body and not his mind? I suppose it’s true that this human-as-hormonal-machine answer is what you’d expect from a clinical psychologist, whose business, of course, is to produce exactly this sort of pseudo-scientific analysis. But there’s no excuse for the news media to limit their probing into human behaviour to “experts” such as Dr. Samra. Why not someone with some grasp of the profundity of human existence, someone like a novelist, a moral philosopher or a religious leader– someone who recognizes we’re more than just pre-programmed biological machines?
To my mind, it would be a welcome relief—and far more enlightening—to hear some real insights into moral character, the dark origins of personal cowardice, or the nature of evil in circumstances such as these. And so, for example, when asked why a driver might flee the scene of an accident in which he had struck two innocent people, a priest might comment that such a person had become alienated from God, had too easily succumbed to temptation, and had become a sinner in need of redemption.
This would be really useful information as far as I’m concerned, and might also help many readers reflect more deeply on their responsibility—indeed, their duty—to act in a moral fashion.
But, of course, in this secular, humanistic era of ours, we see very little serious discussion about evil in the public square. Perversely, one is more likely to find scintillatingly descriptive words, purring about the concept of evil, in advertisements attempting to induce a consumer to indulge in some sort of deliciously sinful wickedness for an affordable price. Moral inversion to sell chocolate pudding.
A recent full-page newspaper advertisement for Volvo is a perfect example of this lamentable trend. Emblazoned above an image of a shiny red S60 model, the ad copy informs us, “There’s more to life than a Volvo. Like raising a little hell with 300 horses, spanking corners with your all-new sport-tuned chassis. And feeling a little dangerous in a car tricked out with safety technology. That’s why you drive the all-new naughty Volvo S60.” (Emphasis added.)
A 16th-Century proverb holds, “Evil doers are evil dreaders.” Today, however, evil doers are either the next patient for the couch or a target market.