Vision of Canada: A Blog About Canada's Place In the World

Buy southern Albertan books for Christmas

2011-12-18T14:20:00.000-07:00

Buy southern Albertan books for Christmas

CBC.ca | The Current | Coming Up

2011-11-12T12:06:00.000-07:00

Leilani Muir is the human face of the history I discuss in Eugenics and the Firewall. Please Listen and consider what not treating the poor, the sick, the foster child, the mentally and physicially disabled as valuable does to a society. And continues to do in Alberta where we have never really said sorry to the victims. Paying out $$$ is not really being sorry.CBC.ca | The Current | Coming Up

Remembrance Day Primer

2011-11-11T18:22:00.001-07:00

As Canada's Remembrance Day 2011 stretches into evening, you may want to read "In Flanders Fields", posted here on Veterans Affairs Canada's site. Those wondering why Canadians (and the British) wear poppies to honour their war dead will enjoy this explanation from the Royal Canadian Legion. You can find the Official Photos from the Ceremony at the National War Memorial in Ottawa, along with the Governor General's Message on the Governor General of Canada's Website. The Remembrance extends outside the nation's capital with hundreds of Rembrance ceremonies in small towns, villages and large cities, on November 11 each year. Millions of Canadians Observe two minutes of silence is kept at the 11th hour, of the 11th day each year.

My Upcoming History Talk with Alberta History Buffs

2011-10-23T21:24:00.002-06:00

This and more at the Galt Museum in Lethbridge this fall:

DEC 07 Coal, Culture and Confederation with Jane Harris-Zsovan.
Three generations of Galt men –John, Sir Alexander and Elliott
– shared a poetic vision for a united and vibrant Canada.
Lethbridge, the only Canadian city co-founded by a
Father of Confederation,
is a living example of the Galts’ Canadian dream.

Listening (for a change) to the Opposite View

2011-10-20T12:21:00.003-06:00

Last Wednesday, I attended a well-organized public philosophy lecture at the University of Lethbridge Author Gary Bauslaugh discussed the findings in his book, Robert Latimer: A Story of Justice and Mercy.

Given that I'm an Anglican who opposes euthanasia, and Mr. Bauslaugh, is a humanist who believes mercy-killing is a compassionate choice, it's not surprising we disagree on whether Robert Latimer acted properly in killing his daughter, Tracy.

I admit, I was annoyed when I left the lecture, feeling that Gary had dismissed opposing views, including my book Eugenics and the Firewall:Canada's Nasty Little Secret. Foolishly, I blew off a bit of steam in a private email outlining my perspective. Somehow, my email got posted online on a US website No excuses, I should know better than to write chatty, bitchy emails to friends who are journalists.

(I will add that the author of the post in question risks her own paycheque supporting my work, which challenges the political views of many of her readers. She does this because she believes Alberta's eugenics scandal should not be hidden to protect any political or religious view. Without Denyse, my book would never have been finished because I was convinced Alberta publishers wouldn't touch the subject and out of province royalty publishers wouldn't read a manuscript from Jane in Lethbridge, Alberta.)

Gary read the post. Off course he was upset, but to his credit, he emailed me directly with his concerns. (I appreciate that.) I am pleased to say this unfortunate situation started a dialogue between Gary Bauslaugh and me, that I think is quite productive. And, as a fellow writer, I will defend Gary's right to express his views even when they are the opposite of mine. That's the Canadian way!

So, here's what Gary had to say about his position:

Gary on Religious and Disabled Groups Impacting Public Policy:

"It is not that such groups ought not to have a voice, it is that voice should be kept in perspective by politicians and judges who may be influenced by the volume, rather than the quality, of comments they get on controversial issues. What I actually said was that there is a "need to ensure that certain advocacy groups, with particular axes to grind, and religious groups who abide by particular and arbitrary readings of religious scriptures, do not unduly affect public policy."

My point was that it is unfortunate if vocal minorities have undue influence on public policy, and that the solution to this was that other groups, representing the majority of opinion in Canada, need to speak up more, not that the minorities are to be somehow suppressed. My example related on the one hand to the Latimer SCC hearing, in which 11 groups hostile to Latimer spoke up, while only one spoke in his favour, while in fact about 75% of all Canadians are supportive of him. I related this as well to the evident difficulty of getting more rational policy developed on end-of-life issues, where similarly disproportionately negative, ideological and religious lobbying occurs whenever the issue comes up. I don't want to stop this lobbying, but to counterbalance it by hearing more from representatives of alternative views.

Gary took the time to add more explanation when I pressed him on the issue of allowing interest groups to intervene in court proceedings:

"I guess I have still not made my position clear. I am not objecting to having interveners of any sort, in fact I strongly support the right to participate in our democracy in that way. My comments are directed to getting more groups to respond to issues in that way, not fewer. My concern is that particularly vocal ones steal the stage, and more moderate and reasonable ones, often representing a large majority as in the Latimer case just don't bother. This creates a distorted picture of reality for legislators and the judiciary. The solution is not to try limit interveners but to encourage more liberal groups to provide a more realistic balance of views and to step in and argue for what they believe,"

Gary acknowledges that the audience may have interpreted his comments differently:

"That is what I was arguing for, although as Trudy pointed out in the session, my comments were open to misinterpretation. I have always stoutly defended the idea of pluralism, and freedom of expression, and strongly and frequently endorsed that position in the magazine I edited. This is a position I hold so strongly that I was probably not careful enough, for an audience that did not know me, in expressing my view on interveners in a way that could have been taken in a way not intended."

On Latimer's Conviction:
"The case is a simple straightforward one: he deliberately ended the life of his daughter, something that is classified as murder in our Criminal Code. This is a case that for which the only real defence was to urge the jury to refuse to convict in spite of his evident guilt, which is why I talked about the issue and problem of jury nullification in Canada. (Note: I was pleased to see that Gary welcomes those supportive and opposed to Latimer's stance to his site.)

Gary does not feel he treated all the Crown Prosecutors with disdain.
"I did so with the prosecutor in the first trial, but so did the Supreme Court of Canada when it ordered a retrial of Latimer based on that Prosecutor's behaviour. I said nothing negative about the second prosecutor, Neufeld, who for the most part behaved in a dignified and reasonable manner. I even quoted his positive comment about Latimer's act being a compassionate one."

On Parole Boards:
You were right about my concern about Parole Boards, but I thought that the readings made a persuasive case for such concern.

On the Audience:
You were right as well to criticize me for getting annoyed with certain questions, including yours. It was not, though, that they were "hard" questions; rather they represented a world view that I find very difficult to swallow, though I certainly should do so with more grace. (Being a writer, I understand this was his first stop on his tour. Nobody does the first stop perfectly. Overall, the event went very well. The readings, performed by Gary's wife, Gwyneth Evans,were excellent, too.)

On the dangers to the vulnerable:
Your views linking eugenics with euthanasia is one I have heard before, and makes the basic error of equating state-run eugenics policies, which drastically interfere with personal freedom, with proposed new laws on euthanasia, which embrace and enhance personal freedom.

I do think there are ways of protecting the vulnerable and still permit assisted suicide and euthanasia. Various people have proposed such laws, including one by bioethicist Eike Kluge that appears on my web site ethics-euthanasia.ca

(While I don't trust the Public Guardian, families, cash strapped governmens or health systems to protect the rights of the vulnerable or ensure `consent; Gary believes these are issues that can be overcome. I appreciate his willingness to acknowledge that his could become an issue, especially in light of events in which seemingly civilized people violated the civil rights of the vulnerable: Canada and Australia's residential school history (the post-confederation government run schools on the prairies, modelled on proposals of US eugenicists, by the way), the Sexual Sterilization disaster in Alberta, Apartheid in South Afria, Hitler's euthanasia law.)

Gary's New Area of Research:
"You might be interested to know that one of my next projects is to work on something about a different group of vulnerable people - those in prison. I was stunned by how unfairly and harshly the Parole Board treated Latimer. I wonder how often that sort of thing goes on, and hope to do some more investigation of it, and of other ways prisoners may be mistreated. It seems like once they are convicted of a crime they lose rights even to basic fairness, largely because no one cares about them anymore.
(Now here's an area where I think Gary is 100% right!)

The Take Away:
Gary (a humanist) and I (a fairly conservative Anglican raised by evangelical parents in Manning country) found an important point of agreement by discussing our differences. I think that is a hopeful sign.

I've been watching Canadian public debate over the past few years: the abortion debate, the ID/Evolution debate, athiest versus evangelical, left versus right, unions versus management, environmentalist versus oil worker. It seems to me traditionally respectful Canadians have been convinced that listening to (even acknowledging your opponent is a valuable human being) is wimpy. Instead, speakers on church pulpits, university podiums and even Parliament take an aggressive attitude borrowed from the United States.(It doesn't appear to work down there, either.) We talk at other rather than to each other. We shout, demonizing our opponents, and make zero progress solving our problems.

We blog to people who think like us and boost our egos. We buy books by authors who back up our own view of the world. We watch the television network that suits our political view. And, often, we demonize those on the other side of the political, ideological, religious, or social spectrum. We feel good, but we learn nothing.

The luxury (and poverty) of 21st century living (and the internet) lets us build intellectual walls disregarding and dehumanizing neighbours who do not share our world view. The result, an increasingly toxic dialogue in politics, science, and the arts.

What we do disagree about should be discussed openly and respectfully. If we do that, we'll likely find points of agreement to move society forward. For example, I was really pleased to learn that Gary Bauslaugh is investigating the parole system in Canada.

I have no doubt that Gary will produce a book on the justice system Canadians need to read. And I hope Gary keeps us posted about his new project! (I hope humanists will consider what I have to say in Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada's Nasty Little Secret. Those who oppose Gary's view on euthanasia would also do well to at least check Robert Latimer: A Story of Justice and Mercy out of their local library.)

As for me, I'm mulling a personal memoir of the year I spent without a home. A year in which I saw first hand the injustices in employment, social benefits, hidden taxes, denial of civil rights, health care, and housing faced by the poor in oil rich Alberta.

How does My Year Rising Above the Bar, A Memoir of Semi-Homelessness in Alberta, sound for a book title? And should I put more opposing views up on this blog from time to time? What do you think?

events and readings

2011-08-29T14:04:00.009-06:00

I tweeted this earlier:

Author Encounter, Crossings Library, Tuesday night; Jane Harris-Zsovan, Blaine Greenwood, Richard Stevenson, and Ken Sears.

It’s all part of the only Word on the Street to take place in Alberta, 25 September.

Here is Lethbridge’s Word on the Street Blog. (I’m also participating in that event.)

Arts Days, including Art Walk and Arts Fest, are the following week. I’m also doing a reading there, but haven’t got all the details, yet.

Come one; come all to the only city in Canada, co-founded by Father of Confederation, who just happens to be the son of the Scottish poet who founded Guelph and wrote my favourite poem, "Canadian Reflections." We love talking books down here!

Ideology, Goose-stepping and Republicanism in Canada

2011-08-17T09:12:00.014-06:00

Here's the Governor General's statement welcoming the the restoration of the historic names for the Canadian Armed Forces. As he points out, the names Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Canadian Navy, & Canadian Armyalways remained on the books but the Pearson government, and subsequent governments, in an undemocratic bout of social engineering, forbade names to be used. Defence Minister Mackay was right in correcting this error.

The notion that you 'forbid' royal symbols, British Heritage, international ties, & history in order to create your own unhistorical Canadian culture was always undemocratic. The idea that you refuse to allow young Canadians knowledge of their constitutional heritage in order to convince them that your revolution has already taken place and indoctrinate them with the idea that the country is 'progressing' toward your own vision is nothing more than deceit. This is how much of the political and educational class in Canada have behaved over the last 50 years. They are now out of power because Canadians got sick of them.

Supression and manipulation are not democracy. Calling traditionalists and veterans fighting to have our history restored is the height of arrogance. Suggesting we cater to separatists and using ordinary Quebecois as an excuse for your own need to enforce your ideological vision on Canadians who disagree with you is divisive and reprehensible.

These activists are far more ideological than Prime Minister Harper or Preston Manning ever were. (Anyone who knows me, knows I didn't like the Alliance vision and I still have my doubts about about whether Alberta populism is really seeking democracy. But, I see the ideologues who got hold of and destroyed the Liberal Party of Canada as every bit as dogmatic as the dictatorial William Aberhart ever was.

The reaction of Pearsonian (don't blame Trudeau for this) activists suggests that they still believe they the only 'vision for Canada:' Those who feel left out of the goose-stepping ideological vision of the Pearsonians are called regressive or just plain stupid.

Tom Freda was actually right when he said that Canadians are used to having their royal symbols removed. Yes, Mr. Freda, they are.

They are used to governments obliterating their history to cater to a minority of social engineers who think they know better what Canada should be and who denounce traditionalists as stupid and colonial. Interesting Mr. Freda's own republican organization is the ultimate colonial relic, being a part of Common Cause a republican group headquartered just outside London,UK.

These activists, especially Professor Jack Granastein, know full well that the Canadian Crown is separate from the British Crown. They know that what sets the British definition of citizenship apart from many other national definitions, is that it goes beyond ethnicity to encompass a system of Parliamentary Democracy that seeks to treat (although we've had some failures here) all citizens equally before the law. (As opposed to insisting on uniformity of all citizens.)

Many of these activists actually think it is progressive to slam against 'British Canada' in a way that would never be acceptable if they attacked French, Aboriginal, Chinese, Black, or even Swedish or German Canada. And rightly so.

The Canadian Crown is not 'colonialist' at all. It has not been so since the 1931 Statute of Westminster and the

1982 Canada Act

reaffirms the independence of the Canadian Crown.

Canada's Crown helps protect the rights of all Canadians from social engineers who would recreate our nation in their own image. God Save The Queen! God Save Canada from the ideologues.

Shaw TV interview about books, literacy and Word on the Street

2011-08-12T21:18:00.003-06:00

Click on the Word on the Street icon on Shaw TV's website to watch Dan Clovis, Shaw TV Lethbridge, interview Colette Acheson, Project Manager Word on the Street Lethbridge, and me about writing, books, and what's in store at Word on the Street 25 September,11am to 5pm, at the Lethbridge Public Library and on the adjoining streets.

(There's also a good screen shot of my books, Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada's Nasty Little Secret and Stars Appearing: The Galts' Vision of Canada, included in this footage.But stay away from the Chinese website on the Stars Appearing link. That book is still available through Volumes Direct.

Eugenics & the Firewall is published by J. Gordon Shillingford Publishing, Inc., represented by the Literary Press Group of Canada, and distributed through U of T press. It's available online, in university bookstores, independent bookstores,and through chains such as Chapters. McNally Robinson, Audreys, Pages, Amazon.ca, Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, & Booktopia also sell Eugenics & the Firewall.)

2011-08-07T18:05:00.002-06:00

Lethbridge’s Word on the Street Festival is creating a lot of buzz in Alberta’s fourth largest city. CKXU.FM, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Lethbridge Public Library all help to get the word out. Flash mobs are popping up in unexpected places and authors, musicians, publishers, and booksellers are lining up to get involved.

I’m pleased to say that my bio is up on the Word on the Street Lethbridge site. And I’m excited to be joining so many great authors at Lethbridge’s WOTS!

In the next few weeks, I’ll be blogging about some of the authors, musicians, and organizations I hope to meet at the festival. Cheers!

2011-07-26T12:39:00.002-06:00

If you’re interested, here’s my newly posted Writers’ Union of Canada web page. Very proud to be a member of the Writers’ Union of Canada, the Writers’ Guild of Alberta, and the Allied Arts Council of Lethbridge.

Word on the Street Lethbridge

2011-07-11T13:24:00.002-06:00

Here’s a heads up. It’s not on the WOTS website yet, but I will be one of the authors participating in Word on the Street in Lethbridge, Alberta 25 September 2011.

Word on the Street is a national celebration of reading and advocating literacy. It`s held in cities across Canada every September.Other Word on the Street Festivals will be held in Vancouver,B.C., Saskatoon,Sask., Kitchener, Ont., Toronto, Ont., and Halifax, Nova Scotia. Lethbridge is the only Word on the Street location in Alberta this year. Come on down!

Eugenics and the Firewall reading

2011-06-28T01:19:00.004-06:00

Wondering about my writing style. This is a practice reading of Eugenics and the Firewall. Still working on the presentation for upcoming events. Cheers, Jane Harris-Zsovan

Lifelong Learning not just for writers: Lethbridgeliving blog

2011-06-22T19:04:00.006-06:00

I have a new post, The Joy of Lifelong Learning, up on Lethbridgeliving.com. If you are interested in professional writing, I hope you will join my writing and publishing classes at Lethbridge College this fall. (Descriptions will be out in the Fall Continuing Education Calendar.) If that's not your cup of tea, or you live beyond commuting distance, I hope you also will find a learning adventure to dig in to. Soon.

It's good for you!

You can read all my Lethbridgeliving posts on life and art in Southern Alberta.

Mennonites and Prairie Anglicans subject of two new articles:

2011-05-25T12:42:00.002-06:00

I have two new history articles out: “Modern Mennonites: Building on one of Canada’s Founding Faiths” is out in the Christian Herald as is “125 At St. Augustines, in The Anglican Planet.

The Christian Herald is available in Southern Ontario. TAP is available throughout Canada and Online.

As these are independent Canadian publications, budgets can be tight. TAP, in particular, needs an influx of cash to keep paying its bills. But, I’m sure the publishers of both papers would be delighted if you subcribed!

Part III of my inteview: Don`t blame the Progressives. Everybody (except the disadvantaged loved eugenics!)

2011-05-24T12:55:00.001-06:00

Part Three of my interview with Denyse O'Leary is up. The people who blame eugenics on a progressive ideas and social programs are going to hate what I say here:

"It`s not our progressive heritage that made the eugenics scandal possible. It`s the dark side of populism. The self-righteous pack mentality, that allows the grassroots to demand that the rights of the socially, morally or economically defective be violated by the government. Or that turns its back when it sees these rights violated.That mindset made the Sexual Sterilization Act a political necessity under the UFA and the Social Credit administrations. It allowed it to exist for forty years. It also made racial segregation and forced sterilization of defectives and `criminals`thrive in the United States for decades. And it turned a blind eye when Hitler disbanded the German Parliament and began his holocaust of innocents.``

Ahh, well, the anti-progressive types who want to remake Alberta into Texas north didn`t like me much, anyway, before I said this. So, I won`t feel much of a loss. Oh and they will absolutely hate this:

``But apparently, we still aren`t supposed mention the fact that most churches and respectable businessmen and women endorsed forced sterilization for reasons as varied as morality to the costs of housing the mentality ill. Worse yet, some national columnists keep insisting that it was only the CCF and the atheists who supported eugenics in Canada. Rubbish.``

Key Quotes from my latest media interview on eugenics

2011-05-24T06:59:00.004-06:00

Denyse O'Leary took a big risk interviewing me for her blog. For one thing, many of her ID and faith based audiences won't like what I have to say about who supported eugenics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries: "Eugenics was widely accepted by the business, academic, medical and political establishment. Preachers – in evangelical and mainline churches – even preached it from the pulpit." Nor will their opponents: "You can believe something, insist it’s scientific and proven, and be totally wrong. Atheists and religious people are equally vulnerable to this error."

Many more won't like what I tell Denyse her about the political culture in Alberta: "Well, I think it’s the mindset that Albertans have – that we’re pretty much on the side of right. And we have this terrible poverty mentality hanging on from the pre-oil industry days. The big cars, big houses, and rampant materialism are just symptoms of the fact that we “never want to be the poor men and women of Confederation again.”

Still more of the province's political and business hacks will gag on what I say about the the province's failed attempt to use the notwithstanding clause in the Canada Act to prevent the victims of the Alberta Eugenics board from getting compensation in the 1990's:"God help anyone who threatens to take any of it away in a lawsuit. We certainly don`t want to look at the dark side of populism—the pack mentality that overrides the opinions and rights of your political opponents and of the weak."

Part Three will be posted soon. Stay tuned.

Exploring the Vision of Canada through Alberta's Universities, Colleges & Technical Schools

2011-04-04T11:54:00.006-06:00

My article, "Globalization Hits Home on Campuses Across Alberta", which includes this sidebar, "Long-Distance Dividends", is out in Alberta Venture's April 2011 Issue. Enjoy!

"New Light on Alberta's Dark Past" in Calgary Herald

2011-03-21T07:06:00.004-06:00

Eugenics and the Firewall was profiled by Eric Volmers in “New Light on Alberta’s Dark Past” in the Calgary Herald yesterday. This article also appeared in the Regina Leader Post online and Canada.com network.

My column: Christian Herald Prison Minstry Insert

2011-03-08T16:27:00.003-07:00

The March 2011 Christian Herald, distributed in Ontario’s GTA region, includes an insert which deals with solutions to Canadian prison issues, including restorative justice. My column “Transforming Canadian Prisons:Canadian Christian Heritage” highlights the work of three great Canadians who happened to be people of strong Christian faith –George Brown, John Diefenbaker, and Agnes McPhail –and puts the lie to the media and political myth that ‘the American style Christian Right’ or a tough on ‘crime agenda’ has anything to do with Evangelical (Protestant, Catholic or Anglican Canadian) doctrine in Canada. The visions of Father of Confederation, George Brown, Prime Minister Diefenbaker, and Canada’s first female Member of Parliament, Agnes McPhail, were anything but ‘tough on crime’ or ‘eye for an eye. ‘ Their goals were restoration and merciful justice.

In Honour of International Women's Day: Agnes McPhail

2011-03-08T12:30:00.003-07:00

In honour of International Women's Day, I'm posting my column from the March 2011 Christian Herald, circulated throughout the GTA in Ontario. It's part of the prison ministries insert, which I will post a link to shortly.

Transforming Canadian Prisons:
Canadian Christian Heritage

By Jane Harris Zsovan

“Her life might have been much easier. But this was the path she chose—the craggy
course.”
Eulogy for Agnes Macphail, Canadian Prison Reformer

According to the media and a lot of right wing activists; good Christians,
especially evangelicals, should want tougher sentences and harsher treatment
of ‘criminals.’ But history just doesn’t bearup with that perception.
Canadian prison reformers - including Father of Confederation George Brown,
Prime Minister John Diefenbaker and Canada’s first female Member of Parliament,
Agnes Macphail -- have often been motivated by their Christian faith.
John George Diefenbaker’s interest in the rights of prisoners and the accused
began when he was a defence lawyer. Convinced that innocent men were executed
and that the Crown won too many of its cases, the Evangelical Christian lawyer
became a staunch defender of presumption of innocence and protecting the
rights of the accused. His commitment to equity under the law led to the creation of
the Canadian Bill of Rights, and spurred his participation in the crusade to end of
capital punishment in Canada.
Diefenbaker followed the trail of 19th Century prison reformers including
Father of Confederation, George Brown. In 1848, Brown, a staunch Presbyterian,
was appointed Secretary to a Legislative Commission of Enquiry into prison conditions
at the Provincial Penitentiary at Kingston. His investigation found ample
evidence of cruelty and bad management and led to the firing of the prison warden.
Brown’s 1949 report condemned the “most frightful oppression – revolting inhumanity”
in the Kingston Penitentiary. His recommendations sound positively 21st
century: separating hardened criminals, first offenders, and juveniles; envisioning
rehabilitation and aftercare programs; and appointing of permanent, salaried prison
inspectors.
Nearly a century later, Agnes Macphail took up Brown’s crusade, turning his
recommendations into law. Elected Canada’s first female Member of Parliament in 1921, Macphail was a woman of faith. At 18, drawn to her Aunt’s and Uncle’s social conscience while she attended teacher’s college; she joined the joined their church, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. But she didn’t spend much time reading the Book of Mormon. Instead she spent hours reading and underlining passages in Old and the New Testaments. She was particularly fond of prophecies in the Book of Isaiah. Macphail eventually rejoined mainstream Christianity, attending
and teaching Sunday School at Don Mills United Church. She often prayed silently for guidance before votes in Parliament.
Macphail considered her political crusades for women’s rights, peace, religious
tolerance, farmer’s rights, social reform, and prisoner rights, to be a holy
mission against the corrupt and powerful interests she believed controlled mainstream
politics.
In 1929, she was appointed as Canada’s first woman delegate to the League
of Nations in Geneva. In 1932, became one of the founders of the Co-operative
Commonwealth Federation (CCF) by bringing the United Farmers of Ontario
into the party.
But it was her work – building on some of the recommendations George
Brown made nearly a century earlier – to end the suffering of prisoners and their
families that left the biggest mark on Canadian society. Like Brown she wanted
young offenders separated from hardened adult prisoners. She was horrified by
the fact that many prisoners were repeat offenders. She grieved at the plight of the
wives and children of inmates -- most of whom were left destitute while men were
imprisoned again and again. Just as Brown’s lobbying had led to the
1848 Commission of Enquiry, Macphail’s lobbying led the 1938 Royal Commission
that formed the basis of post World War II prison reform..
After losing her parliamentary seat in 1940, a family crisis prompted her to take
charge of raising her nieces and nephews.
She supported her new household by taking in boarders. During this period of
domestic responsibility, she remained on the executive of the Canadian Civil Liberties Union and the Canadian Association for Adult Education.
It was a short break from politics.
Representing the CCF, she became the first female Member of the Ontario Legislature
in 1943. Her riding was elected for York East. As an MPP, she fought to
improve provincial jails for women. Her work led to the founding of the Elizabeth
Fry Society of Toronto.
Fighting several illnesses during her later years, she retired in 1951. She died at
age 63, in 1954.

Lethbridge Signing News Release

2011-03-07T14:58:00.003-07:00

MEDIA RELEASE:

Harris-Zsovan to Sign Copies of Eugenics and the Firewall at Chapters Lethbridge 12 March 2011

Release: 07 March 2011

LETHBRIDGE -- Lethbridge author Jane Harris-Zsovan, will sign copies of Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada's Nasty Little Secret at Chapters,701 Ist Avenue South, Lethbridge, Alberta, Saturday, March 12, 11:00am-5:30pm. The book is published J. Gordon Shillingford and Distributed by University of Toronto Press. J. Gordon Shillingford Publishing is primarily a literary publisher that publishes theatre, poetry, Canadian social history, politics, religion, true crime, and biography. Website: jgshillingford.com.

Jane Harris-Zsovan is a Canadian author and journalist based in Lethbridge, Alberta. She writes for national and regional periodicals about business, faith, politics, history and contemporary issues. Her books include Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada’s Nasty Little Secret and Stars Appearing: The Galts’ Vision of Canada.

It's a dirty little secret the heirs to Alberta’s populist legacy don’t want Canadians to talk about. In 1928, the non-partisan United Farmers of Alberta passed the first Sexual Sterilization Act. The UFA’s successor, the Social Credit Party, led by radio evangelist William Aberhart, and later by his protégé Ernest Manning, removed the need to obtain consent to sterilize “mental defectives” or Huntington’s Chorea patients with dementia.

Between 1928 and 1972 nearly three thousand citizens were sterilized, lied to, experimented on, and subjected to daily abuse at hands of provincial staff in Alberta.

Most Albertans have forgotten the victims whose names made headlines in the 1990s, and politicians and pundits have shown little empathy for the victims. Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada`s Nasty Little Secret sets the record straight.

“It`s a valuable addition to modern Canadian historical studies. I hope it comes to the attention of professors, so that it can be included in reading lists. One of the most important aspects, as you can tell from the review, is your inclusion of the modern debate on eugenic practices.” Ian Stewart, Writer, Book Reviewer for the Winnipeg Free Press.

``Difficult Subjects`` discusses Eugenics and the Firewall

2011-03-03T12:53:00.002-07:00

Here is the link to "Difficult Subjects", written by Samantha Power, of VUE Weekly in Edmonton, Alberta Canada.

Eugenics and the Firewall is featured in this article: The difficult subject is Alberta's Eugenics Scandal. We're good Canadians here.

We don`t think it`s 'good manners' to talk about the skeletons in our closets. But we need to, sometimes, in order not to repeat our mistakes. That's why I wrote Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada's Nasty Little Secret. Samantha Power does a good job with this article, and a good job of explaining why I wrote Eugenics and the Firewall.

My interview in ArtsBridge now posted.

2011-03-02T10:05:00.006-07:00

Spring/Summer 2011 ArtsBridge is out. Ashley Markus interviewed me about Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada’s Nasty Little Secret. Read it on my wordpress blog: Click the JHZ artsbridge interview link. Then click on the icon that appears. Article will appear.)

Better yet, eliminate the icon clicking. The article is here: "Shining a Light on Alberta's Past."

Young British Fogey knows Canadian Queen is not a moonlighting UK Royal

2011-02-20T11:38:00.008-07:00

This guy calls himself a young fogey I don't know about the 'fogey' part, but Rafal Heydel-Mankoo has a deep understanding of the Canadian constitution, and from what I've seen in the blogosphere, an all too rare one for a guy living in either London, Ontario or London, U.K.

I've said it here a few times: the Canadian Crown is a Canadian institution, not a British one. Our Queen is Queen of Canada by an Act of the Canadian Parliament and her role as Head of State is entrenched in the Canada Act 1982. That means Canada would remain a monarchy even if the United Kingdom became a republic.

It's basic civics, but suprisingly hard for many journalists, air-headed blow-dried tv presenters, and pundits to grasp.

Thanks Rafal Heydel-Mankoo for helping educate the Europeans, Americans, Canadians, and the rest of the Commonwealth about these basic constitutional facts.

Setting Up Spring Signings

2011-02-09T18:16:00.000-07:00

I'll be signing copies of Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada's Nasty Little Secret 12 March 2011 at Chapters in Lethbridge. More details on this and other upcoming events to come..

It's time the right owned up to Alberta's eugenics horror story.

2011-02-04T17:06:00.011-07:00

A friend emailed me this column by Michael Coren, a man esteemed in Canada's Conservative and Christian intellectual circles. Judging by his CV, Coren is a smart man, but if "The Barbaric Vision of Progressive Heroes" is any indication, it appears Coren only knows part of Canada's eugenics story.(The part his Socred, turned PC, turned Reform, turned Tory/WRA -- or whatever they're calling themselves this week-- buddies from Alberta aren't afraid to hear guys like Coren talking about.)

It's the part he thinks the 'progressives' were responsible for. An aside, Coren might be surprised to know just what progressive meant to early 20th century prairie populists. Ernest Manning, whom most conservative types from Toronto think was one of them,considered himself proudly progressive as well as conservative. As did and do most prairie folk.

But in Coren's discussion, progressive appears to mean left-wing, socialist, or a member of the 'godless' CCF. (By the way, the father of the CCF Tommy Douglas, Preacher and Premier of Saskatchewan, was a social conservative, fire and brimstone Baptist just like Premier of Alberta and radio pastor, Ernest Manning and his mentor, William Aberhart were.)

But why does Coren's discussion of Canadian eugenics omit the worst forced sterilization scandal in the British Empire (Commonwealth), the one in which nearly 3000 Albertans were sterilized at the hands of the provincial eugenics board? (Another 1900 were ordered sterilized, but escaped the knife.) Vulnerable Albertans were also lied to, beaten, used a cheap domestic labour, and made guinea pigs.

He references Douglas's university paper, "The Problems of the Sub-Normal Family," in which Douglas appears to favour legalization of sterilization for 'sub-normals' as a means to remedy illegitimacy and poverty. (Douglas's paper is vague and leaves quite a few logical gaps. He's not clear whether this sterilization is to be voluntary or forced or if it is to apply to adults who already have children.)

But Coren fails to acknowledge that, when Douglas became Premier of Saskatchewan, he never set up a provincial eugenics board. Douglas's support for eugenic sterilization was scared out of him during a 1936 trip to Europe. (One look at the rising NAZI tide convinced Douglas that a great evil was loose and that NAZI eugenics would lead to mass murder. He was right and he never forgot the lesson.)

But, as Douglas had his epiphany about NAZI eugenics, Alberta's Social Credit regime, led by William Aberhart, was hell-bent on ramping up its eugenic sterilization factory by weakening and/or removing consent provisions in the 1928 Sexual Sterilization Act (brought in by the former UFA government.) Aberhart's Socreds -- and many of their constituents -- were frustrated by the low numbers of defectives who were sterilized under the UFA legislation.

After Premier Aberhart died suddenly, his protege, Ernest Manning, became premier. Contrary to a lot of right wing political revisionism, Ernest Manning remained Aberhart's disciple throughout his life. At his December 1968 retirement from the premiership, Ernest Manning, declared that William Aberhart was ahead of his time and 'one of the greatest men this country ever produced.'

Premier Manning held fast to the Socred's revamped eugenics legislation. Critics of the eugenics board were ignored --or sued. The province's travelling, and virtually unaccountable, appointed eugenics board violated even the weak protections within the law; and the Manning government clung to the Sexual Sterilization Act years after medical and mental health professionals (albeit belatedly) denounced the 'science' behind eugenic sterilization in Alberta.

When I wrote Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada's Nasty Little Secret, I hoped Mr. Coren and his colleagues in the Christian and right wing media would start talking about Alberta's UFA/Socred links to forced sterilization.

So far, no luck. Maybe the Manning legacy is too dear to Canadian evangelicals and the right wing, but surely, telling half the story does a disservice to Conservatism, Canada and Christianity. Doesn't it?

Winnipeg Review features Eugenics and the Firewall

2011-01-18T03:43:00.002-07:00

Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada's Nasty Little Secret was featured in the Winnipeg Review, 17 January 2011.

Eugenics and the Firewall Canada's Nasty Little Secret featured in Red Deer Advocate Now

2011-01-04T12:35:00.002-07:00

Out this morning: "Book Examines Alberta's Dark Eugenics History" in the Red Deer Advocate. Reporter Lana Michelin really did a great job sorting out those dates, names and stats I gave her.

More coverage in the Media (Winnipeg Free Press)

2011-01-02T13:49:00.004-07:00

Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada's Nasty Little Secret was reviewed in the Winnipeg Free Press 31 December 2010.

I enjoyed reading Ian Stewart's article about my book. Eugenics and the Firewall:Canada's Nasty Little Secret.But I should clarify a couple of things:

In 1921, the United Farmers of Alberta -- a populist party that claimed to have no platform and to be non-partisan -- were elected as the Government of Alberta. (They defeated the Alberta's first political dynasty, the Liberals.) In 1928, the UFA government brought in a Sexual Sterilization Act to allow sterilization, by consent, of patients leaving mental hospitals.

The surprise election of the William Aberhart and his Socred followers, in 1935, that led to the weakening of consent provisions in the Sexual Sterilization Act (eliminating the need for consent for several classes of Albertans) and allowed the Eugenics Board to travel the province seeking defectives in every nook and cranny. (Complaints about the eugenics board, foster care system, or social services were viewed with distain by the governing Social Credit MLAs. In fact, at one point, the Manning Government sued the IODE for publishing complaints about Alberta Social Services.)

The Social Credit led Government of Alberta allowed the Eugenics Board to break even the weak provisions and restrictions they left in their revamped Sexual Sterilization Act.

Both the Socreds and UFA governments claimed to be populist and progressive. Eugenics was considered a 'progessive doctrine' in the early 20th century.

2,822 Albertans were sterilized between 1928 and 1972, when the newly elected Progressive Conservatives, led by Peter Lougheed, rescinded the Sexual Sterlization Act. Another 1900 Albertans were approved for sterilization, but escaped the knife. Nobody's quite sure where they went.

Eugenics and the Firewall Canada's Nasty Little Secret featured in Prairie Books Now

2010-12-28T15:17:00.007-07:00

Paula Kirman interviewed me recently for her article: "A not so proud history." The interview appears in the Fall Winter 2010 issue of Prairie Books Now! As I told Paula, "History isn't about the past at all. It's about charting a future in which our children are not unwitting victims of our mistakes.``

The Province of Alberta`s Eugenics Board existed in the context of a populist political culture that viewed political dissent as something nearing treachery (eg: William Aberhart`s Accurate News and Information Act and the Manning government`s lawsuit against the IODE over its publication of criticisms of Alberta Social Services). That culture helped political `leaders` to create a dual sense of self-righteousness and victimization among the electorate.

As I tell Prairie Books Now!:

``The political culture Aberhart created, and Ernest Manning perfected, is one of extreme passivity and a pack mentality. It is still largely with us....It`s a culture that lets politicians get away from the hard questions by invoking `Western Alienation` or Aberhart`s dream of oil riches and wealth on earth for the righteous. Of course we are not the only province in Canada where this happens, but the historical context is unique here. It`s based on the warping of that progressive vision that birthed the province.``

Unfortunately, the latest issue of Prairie Books Now! is not on-line. (You can pick up a copies at bookstores throughout western Canada.

A few more quotes from Paula`s article:

"The topic of eugenics in Alberta proved to be very sobering for Harris-Zsovan, who describes her main emotion while working on the book as dismay."

"Harris-Zsovan finds that there are connections between past policies and the current Alberta political landscape."

"While Eugenics and the Firewall is often shocking in what it reveals, there is also an underlying feeling of hope that we can learn from history"

"History is not just shabby stories. Scandals are not best left buried. If we don't come to terms with our ancestors' mistakes, we will make the same ones," Harris-Zsovan says.

The Real King's Speech

2010-12-17T16:49:00.011-07:00

Christmas Day Messages by the Sovereign to the peoples of the Commonwealth are a tradition. This year is no exception: Elizabeth II will address to the subjects of her realms and the wider Commonwealth, just as her father did in his reign.

But no Royal Christmas address was more poignant than the one Canada's wartime king, George VI, made in 1939 -- as Canadians joined the the Empire the fight against all aspects NAZI tyranny (including Eugenic sterilization and murder.) Colin Firth's movie, The King's Speech tells how an Australian therapist helped him, while still Duke of York, overcome his stutter in order to speak to his subjects.

The King's subjects across the world sat frozen in the dark winter of uncertain victory when he quoted these words by Minnie Louise Harkins:

"I said to the man who stood at the Gate of the Year, 'Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown.' And he replied, 'Go out into the darkness, and put your hand into the Hand of God. That shall be better than light, and safer than a known way."

Distaste for Opposition: Part of Alberta's Eugenics Past?

2010-12-15T20:08:00.007-07:00

27th November, 2010, Greg Weadick, MLA for Lethbridge West, told the Lethbridge Herald that he favours more local imput from the local health advisory councils. (Apparently, the one in Lethbridge doesn't hold many public meetings.) He added that he'll also be scheduling meetings to get citizen input.

A good start, maybe.

But Weadick and the rest of the Tory caucus know, the Alberta Health Services Superboard is not bound to take the advice of local advisory committees. And Weadick stopped short of advocating a return to the our province's political tradition of electing local hospital board trustees.

Why? The tradition of electing local hospital trustees (and education trustees, too) goes back to the roots of the province.

Is the Tory Caucus opposed to any citizen input they cannot control? And why do Albertans put up with the erosion of our democratic traditions?

Surely, the province's dark past, as home to the worst eugenics sterilization scandal in the British Empire (carried out at the bidding of an non-elected, out of control, band of government appointees, who did not even bother to follow the flawed dictates of the Sexual Sterilization Act), suggests that we need more accountability to the electorate in our health system, not less.

If we aren't careful, the province's politicians will shut out the electorate when it comes to education, too. I predict that our local school boards will soon become the play thing of mandarins in Edmonton, too -- unless we stand up and say 'no'.

Let's reverse the trend.

Why the Crown of Maples is not a Colonial Relic

2010-12-13T19:31:00.007-07:00

I've noticed that quite of few non-Canadians read this blog. I suspect my foreign readers, unless they are from a Commonwealth country, don't quite understand how Canada can be an independent nation and yet share a monarch with 15 countries (including the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Bahamas, Jamaica and several other Caribbean countries, and even tiny Tuvalu). Here's the full list of countries Canada shares a Head of State with: The Commowealth Realms.

The various incarnations of the British (English/Scottish) Crowns have always included more than one kingdom: France, Ireland, Scotland, England, Germany, and Norway all have histories of sharing what was later called the British Monarch.

The term British itself is an admission that the Queen rules multiple kingdoms and has several parliaments.

Bet you didn't realize that Scottish Kings once considered Norway one of their kingdoms. Henry VIII of England, considered himself to be King of France, too. And many French Kings considered England part of their territory. Several 19th Century British Monarchs were also Electors of Hanover, in what is now Germany, and many of the King`s German subjects were counted among the loyalists who fled the American Revolution to British North America. (Canada)

This illustrates another important point: Citizenship in a Commonwealth country is not based on ethnicity. It`s based on adherence to parliamentary democracy and loyality to the Crown, including Parliament. (If only we could remember that!)

For a more modern understanding of Canada's constitutional monarchy, read, The Crown of Maples published by the Government of Canada. Just click on the headings and the text will appear.

Enjoy.

my comment on death threats & freedom of speech

2010-12-08T11:23:00.011-07:00

Sadly, some so called 'libertarians' in Alberta, have apparently suggested that Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, be killed by the United States secret service. One of these individuals also, apparently, sent a threatening email to a Canadian woman who called him on his own words. (I am leaving the names of the individuals who made these comments out because the police are investigating these matters and these allegations must be proven in court. I believe people are innocent until proven guilty.)

What's wrong with these alleged calls for execution without trial? If they indeed occurred, they smack of fascism. And are akin to the thinking of the Aberhart era in which the rights of the vulnerable and the freedom of the press were savagely attacked as the work of the 'sons of Satan.' Such acts are unconstitutional.

Our constitutional monarchy in Canada upholds the rights of citizens to have their day in court. It is illegal to make death threats in Canada. It is illegal to counsel someone to commit a crime.

Premeditated murder is a crime in Canada and so is capital punishment. We do not send out 'hit men' on our political opponents. We do not allow our allies to violate the basic tenants of the Magna Carta, The British North America Act, The Human Rights Acts, The Canadian and Alberta Bills of Rights, or the Canada Act. Not even in the name of friendship.

To suggest that some people are not entitled to their day in court and that the right of the state, any state including the United States, is more important than the rights of an individual, any individual, to have his or her human and civil rights respected, smacks of the kind of thinking that made Alberta home to the worst forced sterilization scandal in the British Empire. (Actually Alberta and British Columbia were the only places in the British Empire to allow eugenics boards to operate. (Such boards were common in the U.S. where the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, a kind of warped Calvinism, sometimes trumped Enlightenment ideals.)

If proven in court, these death threats and calls for contract killings on political opponents from so-called libertarians will reveal two things: libertarianism in Canada is code for 'Social Darwinism.' And most so-called libertarians haven't figured out that, as a Commonwealth realm, Canada is not part of the American Empire and never can be.

We paid for that right not to be part of the American Empire, with the blood of farmers, tradesmen, and other volunteer soldiers, during the American Revolution, The War of 1812, the Boer War, World War 1, World War II, Korea and we still are paying for that right in Afghanistan.

We cannot depend on other countries to stand up for us. We must stand up for what is right ourselves. That is our birthright. And our duty.

Are we missing the point?

2010-11-27T14:12:00.010-07:00

This morning I was googling online coverage of the launch of Eugenics and the Firewall:Canada's Nasty Little Secret. I noticed that very few people commenting on blogs announcing my book want to own their eugenics past. They blame 'others' for it.( If you live in a Western Democracy and much of the rest of the world, there's a good chance one of your great-granddaddies believed in eugenics. And whether you consider yourself left-wing or right-wing, your political legacy includes pro-eugenics advocates.)

The on-line debate I saw between Darwinists and IDers, over whose fault eugenics was, reminded me of the question posed at the Monk Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair last night in Toronto.

Yes, "Is religion a force for good in the world" sounds a lot like "Who should we blame for eugenics and other human rights abuses: Christians or Athiests?"

Interesting questions, to be sure. But they miss the point: Human beings seem happy to use any excuse - religion, politics, and, dare I say it, even science - to demean and kill one another.

The answer to the question, who was responsible for eugenics disasters (such as Auschwitz, the out of control Eugenics Board in Alberta,Canada, murdering Ukranians in Soviet Russia, or segregating and sterilizing blacks, criminals, and other so-called 'defectives' in the United States)is easy: People were.

The hard, hard truth for us in Alberta, Canada to accept is that it wasnt't the CCF, the communist miners, or the Father of Medicare who brought about our eugenics disaster. It was church-going Farmers, shopkeepers and populists, enamoured with how the U.S, dealt with defectives, who pushed for the Sexual Sterilzation Act brought in by the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA) government in 1928.

British Columbia was the only other jurisdiction in the Commonwealth (British Empire) that had a eugenics board. The rest of the Commonwealth rejected forced sterilization of defectives. The Commonwealth countries adopted positive eugenics ideas that were grafted to the older Christian tradition of charity and to the idea of equality of opportunity.)

It was not Adolf Hitler who removed the consent clauses for several classes of citizens in Alberta; it was an elected government led by a Christian radio evangelist. Eugenics was taught in churches. Eugenics corrupted the Calvinist doctrine of the 'Elect'. (I'm sure it's not what Calvin in mind.)

But before the athiests get too smug, they should remember that Sir Francis Galton, half cousin of Charles Darwin, is considered the founder of Eugenics. Both Galton and Darwin used the work of Thomas Malthus, a classical economist (remember trickle down theory?)who feared the poor breeding more than he feared hell's fire (Malthus was a clergyman)to create their theories.

Classical economists portrayed money markets, human greed and selfishness (self-interest) as noble natural forces that humanity shouldn't interfere with. Anything that comes of out neo-liberalism: from Marxism to Free Market economics is based on these dubious ideas.

Eugenics was particularly popular with the middle and upper class in the Commonwealth, The U.S. and Northern Europe. On both sides of the Atlantic, the middle and upper classes feared they were being overrun by poor people and foreigners. They saw only two choices: turn poor people into middle class people (positive eugenics) or stop them from breeding or even breathing (negative eugenics).

Eugenics was an an idea that resonated so much with middle class fears of crime, insanity, and moral degradation that it got grafted into Christianity (where it nearly destroyed older notions of charity, grace and redemption). It spread throughout society as far as the Communists (many of whom thought children should be owned by the state). Eugenics is one of the worst examples of 'group-think' in modern history.

Whether people are capitalists, socialists, Christians, athiests, democrats or autocrats, they will use whatever they regard as 'right' to justify their most evil acts. That's the second scariest bit of the whole saga.

The scariest bit? We don't appear to have learned anything. Instead we revert to blaming the 'other guy' or the the other guy's belief system for evil.

Eugenics and the Firewall: What's the book about?

2010-11-15T14:13:00.003-07:00

It’s a dirty little secret the heirs to Alberta’s populist legacy don’t want Canadians to talk about.

In 1928 the non-partisan United Farmers of Alberta passed the first Sexual Sterilization Act. The UFA’s successor, the Social Credit party, led by a radio-evangelist William Aberhart, and later by his protégé Ernest Manning, removed the need to obtain consent to sterilize “mental defectives” or Huntington’s Chorea patients with dementia.

Between 1928 and 1972 nearly three thousand citizens were sterilized, lied to, experimented on, and subjected to daily abuse at the hands of provincial staff in Alberta. Most Albertans have forgotten the victims whose names made headlines in the 1990s, and politicians and pundits have shown little empathy for the victims.

The Eugenics Board horror story has largely been buried in Canada’s mainstream national media. Conservative bloggers and columnists in Canada continue to blame the Liberals and CCF for Canada’s barbaric eugenics program. The tar sands, oil royalties, health care budgets, environmental policies, and making sure the province’s interests remain high on the federal agenda top the provincial headlines.

But the questions must be answered: How did a province that claims “strong and free” as its motto deny basic freedoms to so many of its own citizens? Why does the extent of Alberta’s eugenics past and its link to the UFA/Social Credit legacy remain the unacknowledged moral blind spots in Canadian politics?

It’s time to set the record straight.

You are welcome to attend the national launch of Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada's Nasty Little Secret (J.Gordon Shillingford Publishing.) 1:30-3:30 PM at the Galt Museum & Archives. Can't make the launch? Eugenics and the Firewall will be available in bookstores throughout Canada.

You should also be able to order it in the United States. (Distributor in the U.S. and Canada is University of Toronto Press.)

If you are in another country, contact J.Gordon Shillingford Publishing directly for information about how to order.

Eugenics and the Firewall: National launch 17 November

2010-11-13T15:39:00.007-07:00

You are welcome to attend the national launch of Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada's Nasty Little Secret (J.Gordon Shillingford Publishing.) 1:30-3:30 PM at the Galt Museum & Archives. Can't make the launch? Eugenics and the Firewall will be available in bookstores throughout Canada.

You should also be able to order it in the United States. (Distributor in the U.S. and Canada is University of Toronto Press.)

If you are in another country, contact J.Gordon Shillingford Publishing directly for information about how to order.

Eugenics and the Firewall heading to bookstores 12 November.

2010-11-02T17:54:00.005-06:00

Mark 12 November 2010 on you calendar! That the day Eugenics and the Firewall will be ready for bookstores across Canada. Launch details are being pinned down as I write this.

In the meantime, here's a sneak peak at the back cover text:

It’s a dirty little secret the heirs to Alberta’s populist legacy don’t want Canadians to talk about.

In 1928 the non-partisan United Farmers of Alberta passed the first Sexual Sterilization Act. The UFA’s successor, the Social Credit party, led by a radio-evangelist William Aberhart, and later by his protégé Ernest Manning, removed the need to obtain consent to sterilize “mental defectives” or Huntington’s Chorea patients with dementia.

Between 1928 and 1972 nearly three thousand citizens were sterilized, lied to, experimented on, and subjected to daily abuse at the hands of provincial staff in Alberta. Most Albertans have forgotten the victims whose names made headlines in the 1990s, and politicians and pundits have shown little empathy for the victims.

The Eugenics Board horror story has largely been buried in Canada’s mainstream national media. Conservative bloggers and columnists in Canada continue to blame the Liberals and CCF for Canada’s barbaric eugenics program. The tar sands, oil royalties, health care budgets, environmental policies, and making sure the province’s interests remain high on the federal agenda top the provincial headlines.

But the questions must be answered: How did a province that claims “strong and free” as its motto deny basic freedoms to so many of its own citizens? Why does the extent of Alberta’s eugenics past and its link to the UFA/Social Credit legacy remain the unacknowledged moral blind spots in Canadian politics?

It’s time to set the record straight.

Belinda Crowson`s straight shooting speech would make the Galts Dance the Highland Fling.

2010-09-17T12:04:00.009-06:00

``To all of those people who told me that it’s not appropriate to talk about those women, to those people who told me that when 13 year-old girls enter prostitution it’s my personal fault, to those people who told me that I should go to church more (ok, that one’s probably true), and to those people who told me people were deliberately choosing not to move to Lethbridge because of the plaque we put on The Point and because of my book, I have to say loudly, clearly and resoundingly – thank you. I wouldn’t have written this book without you.``
Belnda Crowson, Author of `We Don`t Talk About Those Women`` (Lethbridge Historical Scoiety 2010) at her book launch 15 September 2010

Perhaps the ladies of the night thought we needed a bit of piano music. Or maybe the city`s founders just wanted bit of the bagpipes. But as ghouls played havoc with the microphones at our famously haunted Galt Museum last night, I glanced out the window at Sir Alexander`s ruins (the part of the hospital he commissioned and which was built while he was alive and a frequent summer resident of our city.)

For just one second, I thought I could glimpse our city`s co-founder,Canada`s First Finance Minister and creator of the Canadian Dollar, standing there in his top and tails wearing the medals Queen Victoria gave him. Was that a satisfied grin on his face? And was that his son, Elliot, standing just behind him?

There`s no doubt about it. Lethbridge`s straight talking Father of Confederation and his son would have loved his Belinda Crowson`s speech. (and the sketch about Mayor Hardie.) And Sir Alexander`s father, novelist John Galt, would have literally danced highland fling over it.

Belinda did the city proud last night. She also did writers in Canada a great service by braving the smug, self-censoring Albertans who continually try to sanitize our history and manipulate our heritage to suit their own political and social agendas.

Most imporatantly, Belinda`s given readers a great book to curl up with this winter!

Contact the Galt Musuem Bookstore or the Lethbridge Historical Society to get your copy of We Don't Talk About Those Women: Lethbridge's Red Light District 1880s to 1940 by Belinda Crowson, (Lethbridge Historical Society 2010)

Who is John Galt? Well, Let me Tell You.

2010-09-11T22:52:00.004-06:00

Somebody in Lethbridge tried to bring some fictional character named John Galt into the city debate on taxes. Very, very sad. Most Lethbridgians have no idea of the grand vision the city was founded on. It was a vision that started with the Scottish Novelist, John Galt. Not without his own foibles, he often got himself in trouble for speaking his mind when it would have been better to chill. (I find him somewhat of an inspiration.) He also didn't really like taking orders, which caused big problems with the directors of the Canada Company. But Canada owes a great debt to him.

John Galt was a social progressive who wound up in debtor’s prison for trying to build a Royal City named Guelph.He got in trouble trying to help poor Scots own their own land at prices that the Canada Company directors were not amused by.

He was a Sandemanian convert (thanks to his father-in-law, publisher and lay preacher, Alexander Torrance) who believed in sharing and in building large scale infrastructure and cultural projects. (His sons went back to Presbyterianism and Anglicanism.)

His son, Sir Alexander Galt, largely shared his father’s belief in the grand vision of Canada, but he took it further to envision a reformed British Empire with a shared monarch among equal dominions. (Ie: the modern Commonwealth but with a lot more clout.)It was a vision he arrived at after considering every option for Canada from outright republicanism, to annexation, to continued colonial status. And, I believe, it's a decision that helped create Canada's global perspective.

Member of the Provincial Parliament for Sherbrooke Quebec, Alexander Galt introduced the motion to federate British North America in the Canadian Colonial Legislature at Kingston. It was another progressive novelist and friend of Charles Dickens, Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, who was among the first British Officials to catch on to this poetic vision. Too bad we don’t teach this stuff in School.

The City of Lethbridge (founded on that original vision first espoused in Galts original motion to the provincial assembly) survived thanks to huge financial contributions and concessions from the Federal Government and from philanthopy from benefectors such as the Baroness Coutts and Lady Galt herself.

If you want to know the real vision of Canada, read Canadian Reflections, one of the best poems ever written about the Canadian Dream. Sir Alexander Galt's father, John Galt, wrote it when he was dying pennniless in Scotland. He and his wife, Elizabeth, believed so strongly in that dream that he sent their three sons back to Canada to start over. (Elizabeth eventually joined them here.)

Alexander Galt and his brothers, John and Thomas, arrived in the country as youths: penniless, shamed, and having watched their father cheated out of his businesses. Both Thomas and John were later knighted for their contributions to Canada.

For many years, Sir Alexander Galt was a good friend of Charles Dickens, whose own social conscience was shaped by the fact that his father had also been sent to debtor’s prison. The Galts' social conscience led them to donate a huge amount of money (most for health care), facilities (a hospital for example) and land (including Galt Gardens) to the City of Lethbridge in order to that those dreams could be fulfilled. Yes, Lethbridge is the only city in Canada founded by a Father of Confederation — not that that is poltically correct to say these days.

Incidentally, Sir Alexander Galt, died fearing that his District of Alberta, NWT adventure had landed his wife and unmarried daughters in the same predicament his own father had left his mother. Elliott Galt spent his life fixing the problem.

Is it odd that when John Galt's name gets mentioned in the Muncipal Election, nobody seems to understand how really important he was to our city, our province, our country, and the Commonwealth of Nations? No, it's not odd. It downright depressing. Pathetic really. And as ungrateful as the City Council who changed the street names Sir Alexander Galt gave Lethbridge to honour its early benefactors, just a few weeks after his sons, Elliott and John, turned over a hospital and a health care endowment that continues to benefit citizens of this region -- a region they loved.

Jane Harris Zsovan, Author, Stars Appearing: The Galts’ Vision of Canada (2006), Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada’s Nasty Little Secret.(J. Gordon Shillingford Publishing, Fall 2010.)

Can West Global:Headlines should match the article.

2010-06-16T07:11:00.009-06:00

Dear Canwest Global:
I tried to let you know that your headline was in error, but your email link doesn't work. Not surprising, given this morning's gaff.

The headline you splashed across the internet this morning: Canadians don't want Queen, even if she's done great job is just plain wrong according to the text of the article underneath it:

For example, according to this, the Queen's approval rating is 73% and CDNs don't want to become a republic anytime soon. (That's remarkable considering that we've had mostly pro-republican governments between 1964 and 2006 and most business interests are pro-US/Canada integration and have been using the media to foist that agenda on CDNs for decades.)

Further, if 80% of Quebeckers want a republic after the reign;and 2/3 (you conveniently don't give the actual percentage) of CDNs indicate they would favour becoming a republic after the Queen dies (in 20 or even 30 years if she lives the lifespan of women in her family); that would indicate than in many provinces most CDNs favour remaining a monarchy when Charles or William becomes King.

And that's without us even having a discussion about what the Commonwealth and our ties with the Crown mean to us culturally and economically! Thanks to the media and pro-U.S. business lobbies, most Canadians do not realize that many of the fastest growing markets are in the Commonwealth.

They don't know that they can vote if they live in Britain. They don't know that the British government does not really consider the Queen's subjects foreigners (It's still called the foreign and Commonwealth office in the U.K.)

Consider the opportunities that still remain for Canada if she capitalizes on these ties. Most Canadians answering your survey were never given that information, I bet. Even Quebecois would likely change their mind if they were given those facts. (And Anglo-Canadians would become fans of the Francophonie if they saw the opportunities there too.)

Why don't you ever do a story on trade opportunities within the Commonwealth -- a market of 2 Billion people? Surely loosening any such ties is bad from a business point of view, especially as Canada and Commonwealth is again comng to the fore in with both British and Canadian governments. (O.K. I guess I have queries to write.)

Further, most people answering your survey may not realize that there's a bigger national unity risk to republicanism than to retaining the monarchy. (Quebec isn't going anywhere if they see a trade opportunity of 2 billion customers. And it's time to tell Quebeckers about those opportunities even if their politicians and elite don't want ordinary Quebecois to hear this stuff.)

Under the Canada Act, this country cannot become a republic unless every MLA, MNA, MPP,MP and Senator agrees. Considering that many Canadians (the majority in most parts of Ontario, the Prairies -- including Alberta--and the Maritimes) do not want to change our form of government--I would expect most --7-9 --CDN provincial legislatures would refuse to endorse a republican constitution. An elected head of state would would further concentrate power in Central Canada.

And that could well mean bye, bye Alberta and bye bye Saskatchewan and bye bye Nunavut, the NWT and the Yukon. And maybe the Maritimes, BC, and Ontario. What does that leave? Quebec -- alone without a market of 2 billion people? Nah. I don't think so.

In short, if you bothered to investigate these issus and inform CDNs, the answers on that survey would change. But then you couldn't run the same old worn out story you run every time a member of the Royal family prepares to come to Canada. It's more than annoying, it's a disservice to the country.

Her Majesty is coming to celebrate Canada Day with Canadians -- something she was not allowed to do very often under previous administrations. And so, let's welcome her and invetigate the opportunities our system of government can yet give us instead of focusing on issues that are destined tear up our beloved country and its' constitution and international ties that still give us untold opportunites far beyond this continent..

Alberta's Eugenics Disaster:Lessons to benefit all Canadian Political Parties

2010-04-15T21:42:00.002-06:00

Eugenics and the Firewall will be published this fall. Writing it took me on an amazing journey through Alberta’s past and political culture. I got a chance to look at Albertan’s changing attitudes toward the Sexual Sterilization Act.

The Province of Alberta’s handling of the eugenics issue during the 20th century is fascinating, and a cause for both hope and worry. The saga shows us the belief systems underlying Alberta’s political culture. (And Albertans aren’t as right wing or as homogeneous as pundits claim. )

Hundreds of lives were ruined by the public’s blind trust in a theory, politicians’ adherence to ideology and expert recommendations, and the voters’ faith in the moral rightness of the provincial government. This fascinating saga has lessons for all Canadians of every political stripe.

Canada's invisiblity a good thing?

2010-01-21T10:46:00.006-07:00

Good News! Canada's Armed Forces is setting up a field hospital in Haiti. Great idea. Now this is the kind of effective mission Canadians do best. And we do it without strings attached.

Let's not change that.

In recent days, pundits have talked about boosting Canada's international reputation and influence in the Americas. One gentlemen, suggests Canada make Haiti a protectorate and share power there with the U.S. (Ok Americans, go ahead and laugh. I know you want to. Canadians, too.)

Aside from the fact colonialism is abhorrent to most Canadians, there are other resasons this would not work. Our different systems of government (constitutional monarchy vs. republic), different political cultures, and the fact that the Americans regard us a country, that Fox News and South Park points out could be invaded (with guns) and still be the punch-line (Ut is kind of funny becuase when US tried to invade Canada, in 1812, the joke was on them.)

The U.S regards Canada just like every other country in the Americas. They may like us as individuals, trade with us, visit us, and pay our musicians and actors big money, but they do not Canada as a equal in the Americas. (That, by the way, is the essential problem for the Americans in the Americas. Fix that, and they've solved a whole range of international issues.)

Now, there is an upside to all this. Freed from competing with Americans for turf and prestige, Canadians do what they do best. Our aid workers and emergency personnel go into other countries where the people we help are assured that we do not have some political agenda for being there.

We can fight for human rights as John Diefenbaker fought against apartheid. We can take a stand on international issues, as Pearson did during the Suez Canal crisis. And we can concentrate on building our economy and sharing our prosperity with each other and the world. Other nations may not see Canada as powerful, but they often do see us as an honest broker.

Haiti needs aid workers, more than soldiers. It needs money and jobs more than military. And while, building field hospitals and clearing runways is important; providing funds to non-profits on the ground in Haiti is the more effective course in the long run -- for Canadian taxpayers and the Haitian people.

So please, no more talk of protectorates and neo-colonisim. It's not only offensive. It's quite frankly delusional.

Please Prove Me Wrong

2010-01-20T15:17:00.006-07:00

The BBC is reporting that there are no Canadians providing emergency aid at Leogane in Haiti. The Canadian media reported that HMCS Athabaskan landed in Leogane yesterday while HMCS Halifax and Canada's DART Team landed at Jacmel, the ancestral home of our Governor General. (Translation for non-Canadians: Queen's reprsentative and stand-in when Elizabeth II is not in the country.)

I was puzzled by the discrepency, but British Press often get news wrong when it comes to Canada. (American media avoid making mistakes by not covering Canadian stories at all.) So I scanned the English speaking media from several countries and I found no mention of any Canadian ships in Haiti and few mentions of Canadians even providing aid to Haiti.

How do you miss ships in the harbour unless no one knows they are there?

If we are not contributing enough that anyone on the ground in Haiti knows we are there, then the mission is a failure and shame to Canadians and our Armed Forces. If that is so, the Government of Canada must stop wasting our money and bring them home. Or make the mission effective. Whether that can happen is out of our individual hands.

But Canadians can pray effectively. We can send our money to accredited organizations like World Vision, the Red Cross and Dcotors without Borders, knowing the Government of Canada will match our donations.

Still, I am deeply disappointed. Like milions of Canadians, I thought Canada's DART, Mounties, ships, sailors, and soldiers would be effective in Haiti. But, perhaps we were only deluding ourselves to get a good night's sleep. How very, very sad, for us and even more so for the Haitians.

One last thing,I would be absolutley delighted to be proven wrong. So, please leave your comments. Good news would be welcome.

Thanks N.J.

2010-01-06T16:05:00.011-07:00

N.J. Lindquist interviewed me recently regarding my contribution to Hot Apple Cider: Stories to Stir the Heart & Warm the Soul.

N.J. Lindquist is an author, publisher, & advocate for Canadian writers, (especially those with a Christian world view.) I would like to her for allowing me to speak candidly about Canadian publishing, how Canadians view their own stories, and, especially, how that affects the work of Canadian writers with a Christian world view, whether they are Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or Anglican.)

While you are on the HAC site, take a look at interviews by other Canadians who have contributed to Hot Apple Cider: Stir the Heart & Warm the Soul.

Letter to my MP

2009-12-21T14:35:00.003-07:00

21 December 2009

Rick Casson,
Member of Parliament
Lethbridge
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario

Dear Mr Casson:
.
Cut it with the partisan crap. Show up for your committee meeting; bring your Conservative colleagues with you; and urge the Prime Minister to stop playing politics with the detainee issue. Conservative MPs' confusion over allegiances may yet be the downfall this government. And they border on treason.

Here's why:

You cannot bear true allegiance to her Majesty The Queen without standing up for Canadian sovereignty and Canadian values and protecting the role of Parliament in our democracy.

Parliament (The Sovereign, House of Commons and Senate) are supreme in Canada, not the PMO or the Conservative Party. Stop insulting Canadians by treating Parliament like an impediment to democracy. It is the basis of Canadian democracy.

You are elected to represent the interests of Canadians in your riding, not to play stupid political games. Remember, it is the voters who hire and fire you, not the party brass.

The irony is this: your political games are blowing any hope of a Conservative majority. Even if you have no respect for our parliamentary system, or Canadian values; sheer self-interest must be telling you that you are acting in a self-destructive manner by treating Parliament as an impediment to democracy, In fact, Parliament is the basis of democracy.

The fact that, even the Prime Minister is 'first among equals', is the strength of our system of government. The fact that the Head of State and her representatives are partisan, protects us from the arrogance of the executive and total partisan dictatorship that, it appears, our current Head of Government would find more efficient.

I love our old-fashioned parliamentary system. It serves Canadians well, and has served us well since before Confederation.

God help us all, if Canada ever strays from our current system either combines the Head of Gov/Head of State functions or turns the Head of State into a partisan, because then Parliament will have lost supremacy. Democracy will be in even more peril than it is today.

It is plain that members of the Conservative party find the opposition an impediment to their will. (That is their job. The Opposition is there to question and hold the government accountable.)

Show up for your committee meeting. Remember that Parliament is supreme in Canada. Democracy may be inefficient when it comes to carrying out a party agenda, but it is the basis of our system.
.
Sincerely,
Jane Harris Zsovan
p.s.
Even Reform MP, Ray Speaker, used to send us actual reports from Parliament instead of advertising flysers. Please return to that time honoured tradition that Mr. Speaker and his predecessor, Conservative MP, Blaine Thacker followed. It is much more befitting the role of a Member of Parliament.

cc. The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minster of Canada

What Janine Krieber can teach the Liberal Party

2009-11-22T11:57:00.009-07:00

Janine Krieber, wife of former opposition leader Stephane Dion, gave her Facebook Friends an honest and personal appraisal of her experience in the Liberal Party. Somehow the party hacks got hold of it and made her remove her blog post.(No doubt, some of those who asked her to take the post down wanted to spare her and her husband from harassment by party zealots. But Liberals who think making Krieber take her post down will contribute to rebuilding their party are mistaken.

Most Canadians probably don't agree with her contention that the Lib/NDP/Bloc coalition was the right decision for Canada. But suggesting she should not have written it smacks of the kind of 'thought policing' Conservatives have long accused the Liberal elite of. That suspicion that the Liberal elite was a social engineering machine is also the root of calls to demote or remove Human Rights Commissions and other 'progressive' institutions established by the Liberals.

It may be a shock to Liberals, but many Canadians consider the now defunct Liberal regime as the source of forced unhistorical identity.(I love our flag, but did we have to push it though despite the objections of many Canadians? Did we have to bring the Constitution home without Quebec's approval?) That arrogant re-engineering has made word liberal a profanity in parts of Canada. (To be sure, Conservative accusations that the Liberals curtail free speech are a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, but tackling Tory thought policing would take more than one blog post.)

I confess that I agree with most of Krieber's comments about the way the Liberals treat their own.

I remember the fake smiles and coercive tactics party brass used to elicit silence when I belonged to the Alberta Liberal Party and the Liberal Party of Canada. The well-being of individuals was clearly not as important as the overall goal of winning.

So many memories. So little time to write them down.

Here's one: A young woman broke out in tears after she had been treated callously by other workers in the Calgary McCall campaign office during a by-election. She was a far better worker than they were, but they thought they had better links to the brass.

I also remember calling the police after a zealot phoned my house and told me I had to leave town because I had contested a nomination against his preferred candidate. "You are finished in Lethbridge," he said and went on to assure me that if I didn't leave I would hever find work. The verbal abuse went on for about 15 minutes. (I was dumb in those days, I wouldn't hang up on crank callers.) A police constable payed him a visit I understand. Strangely, for years after that I heard the strangest stories about my personal life from all sorts of people, including the guy that's now my husband.

Oh, and then there was the witty fellow who gave me this sage advice, in front of the boards of Lethbridge West and Lethbridge East: "Jane if you want that nomination, you better get out there and start talking to people and it wouldn't hurt if you started sleeping around." Did the members of this progressive party say anything when these comments were made month after month? No. Some of them looked away. Some of them looked down. But nobody made a move to stop it. (Later I got phone calls from other women who'd been harassed by this individual.)

When I brought the issue to the attention of the party brass, they sent the wolves out (in order to protect their Liberal stronghold in Southern Alberta). I wanted them to create a Code of Ethics which would have ended discrimination at the constituency level. They were terrified I was going to 'go public' and destroy them. As one elected official told me, "This could destroy lives." He was right. It nearly destroyed mine.

About this time I was asked to work with the federal party's women's commission. Another phone call to inform me that was not going to happen. I was told, "There's a lot of concern about you being involved in the Women's Commission." Never heard from them again.

I have long since forgiven everyone involved. I did it because my faith tells me I must. And because it frees me to live in the present. Some people actually merit the forgiveness and are genuinely sorry. A few have learned that character assassination can get out of hand and destroy a person's job prospects, family life and health. As far as I'm concerned those individuals are off the hook. They are in God's hands. I believe, many of them would never react the same way again.

But if the federal and provincial Liberals want to make it up to me, do this: Clean up your act. Stop acting like a cult. Stop acting like the mob. Listen to people when they tell you want you need to hear to fix your own party.

One of the wisest comments I got from a friend during those crazy days after the nomination in Lethbridge East was this: "You didn't win because you didn't get enough votes." Sometimes the truth seems like a simpleton.

Federal and Provincial Liberals: You didn't win the last election because you didn't get enough votes. Canadians don't trust you enough to vote for you. Turning it around has nothing to do with silencing critics. It has everything to do with re-evaluating and re-building something Canadians want to vote for.

Mdme Krieber, please put your post back up. This is a free country.

ps.
Just in case the people I've forgiven haven't reformed, I've got correspondence from those days. Don't even start!

Lest We Forget

2009-11-11T10:41:00.005-07:00

The eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month....

With failing hands, they threw the torch. Not just the torch of battle, but the torch of our history, our traditions, our laws, our cultural inheritance. Those who wish to erase our history, our parliamentary tradition, & our ties to the wider Commonwealth they helped to build -- drop the torch & dishonour the people who built Canada.

In Flanders Fields
By Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, May 1915

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

I`m Royally POd by Bored Reporters

2009-11-10T15:50:00.007-07:00

Wow, Here's a guy that deserves to try unemployment for awhile! Don Martin,columnist for the National Post, proclaims that he and the other fat cats in Ottawa`s press core are `bored` with one of their current assignments. So out off touch with reality is Martin that he expects his readers, many of whom may be facing pay cuts or the unemployment line, to empathize with his colleague who `groaned and begged off`` her assignment to cover the Royal tour.

The fact that the Ottawa press core is so bored and biased may explain the awesomely bad reporting of the current Royal Tour. (Not only did they mix up the Duchess of Cornwell for the lady who does diet commercials, they haven`t told the public that the Crown is entrenched in the Constitution and can`t be changed without provincial support. Nor have they mentioned that their own polls show the only province where more than 50% of the public favour a republic is Quebec. Can`t let the facts get in the way of an exciting story can we?)

Perhaps boredom and bias also explain the national media`s inability to get regional stories right. Where was the reporting of the nearly 1000 protesters at the Progressive Conservative AGM in Red Deer last weekend? Why has Reboot Alberta, a group of progressives meeting in November, received no coverage while the Wildrose Alliance makes national headlines? Where`s the balance?

It doesn't really matter what your views on the royals are. (I like 'em.) Martin`s comments are an insult to every working person in Canada.

I really don't care if the Ottawa Press Core is bored, sometimes. Nor should you.

Reporters are paid to do a job -- and if they don't like that job, they are free to try another career. Frankly, I cover what my editors tell me to and thank them for the assignment. My editors know me well enough to assign stuff I`m interested in, but I`m also happy to write the odd story that doesn`t `turn my crank.` So are most journalists in the `real world.`

Like most freelancers, I try to keep myself personal viewpoints out of a news story. I save my creativity for my books & I save my opinions my blogs.

I'm sure a lot of Canadians, including freelance writers, who provide the bulk of regional and magazine coverage in Canada, would jump at an assignment like covering the royal tour.

The only thing remotely entertaining about Martin`s column is the idea of the Ottawa press gallery calling the Royals boring. Nothing is more boring than arrogance and self-satisfaction. And Don Martin, clearly is a master of both.

What the Media and Republicans Don't Tell You About the West

2009-11-05T20:27:00.006-07:00

A Navigator poll, released a few weeks ago, indicated that Canadians don't feel our Constitutional Monarchy is relevant anymore. (Most Canadians probably think Harper, Ignatieff, Duceppe and Layton aren't relevant either, but our disconnection from civic life is another post.)

Since the Navigator poll was leaked, national media have been trying to push the idea that Charles, Prince of Wales or his heir, William, will not be King of Canada. They neglected to cite other polls, such as one on CBC's own website that had results opposite to the Navigator poll cited on The National. (That too is another post.) And they've downplayed the crowds in Hamilton, who screamed "We want the Duchess" and "We want the Prince in favour of snide comments about attendence in towns of less than 500 people." (Another post.)

A few day later, Global News released another poll, which the claimed more than 50% of Canadians favoured a republic. They also didn't explain discrepancies in two questions, both asked whether or not Canada should keep the Crown with different results. (Canadian confusion with what a Head of State is, after years of a deceitful agenda by elites to confuse Canadians on this issue is yet another post.)

What Global failed to highlight was that no province, other than Quebec, had more than 50% of poll respondents wanting any change to the constituon. Only British Columbia approached the 50% mark. Yet another, under-reported poll last week suggested BC is pro-Crown. (I need to do a post about how a stint with a polling company led me to distrust polls. I do not believe you get accurate results on constitutional questions in a telephone poll.)

The Province most strongly supportive of the monarchy, according to the Global News poll,is Alberta, In Alberta, 60% of poll respondents rejected a Canadian republic outright. Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Maritimes showed similar results. (This means that the Quebec figure, 60% support for a republic, skews the poll results.

Interesting to note that 40% support the Crown in this 81% Franco-phone province, even after decades of anti-Canada, anti-British propaganda. That result puts to lie the idea that no Quebec Francophones supporters the Crown. (Another post.)

What Canadians aren't told by Republicans:
The role of the Crown in Canada cannot be changed without the consent of the Federal Parliament and all provincial legislatures. I suspect Nunavut, Yukon and the Northwest Territories would also insist on being heard if such a major move is ever considered.

Why? The Crown plays a crucial balancing and linking role in Canada. It is the vehicle by which former independent colonies (with their own legislatures and laws) became united in the federation formally known as the Dominion of Canada (Dominion means Kingdom, not colony, by the way.) Provinces, favouring retention of the monarchy, would be well within their rights to secede from a new republic. These new nations might decide to form a new federation or they might become independent Dominions in the Commonwealth. (Although the assumption is that secession from Canada means loss of the Crown, there is absolutely nothing that says an independent Alberta could not be Dominion within the Commonwealth. And if that possiblity were presented, you might well see support for that type of arrangement surge beyond the 15% rating Separation now has in Alberta.)

Canada's place in The Commonwealth, much denigrated under CDN Liberal and ignored by UK Labour regimes, of the past 50 years, has great trade and culture potential for all Canadians. The answer to weak ties between Commonwealth countries is not to sever them, but to revive them. (Another post.)

It took the Fathers of Confederation decades to create an agreement which united British North America.

Our Federation is possible because we separate the Head of State from the Head of Government. And because that Head of State is not partisan. (Nor should her representatives be. Another post.) The Fathers of Confederation went to considerable effort to devise a federation in which one party, one region, one religion, one ethnic or language group could not trample on the rights of citizens and regions.

Electing a Head of State would make that role a partisan one. It would also lead the devaluing of Members of Parliament, including the Prime Minister, and the accumulation of power in the hands of an elected President or Governor General. Undoubtedly, this person would appeal to the political whims of provinces with large populations.

Canada's federal system, so delicately balanced, would be even more prone to tensions and threats of separation from regions not represented by the new elected Head of State.

Republicans seem to think republicanism is a sign of maturity. They suggest that Canadians, who value our Constitution and Canada's traditonal friendships, are out of date and neo-colonial in their thinking.

That is an elitist view. It smacks of the elitist decisions that nearly broke up this country up in the late 20th Century. And it derides the rights of peoples in smaller provinces and the territories to be equal partners in the federation called Canada.

Remember Meech Lake? Charlottetown? Those agreements failed because people in the provinces,including Indigenous peoples who have a special role with the Crown, (Another post,) realized that the elites' agenda to change the rules of Confederation were not in Canadians interests.

Canadians learned something for those horrendous episodes: We don't have to accept what the elites are telling us. We don't have to leave provinces behind (as Quebec was left in the night of the long knives.) It is unlikely Canadians will be cowed by threats and insults telling them to 'get with the times,' when getting with the times means losing constitutional rights.

Should there ever be a real discussion of any Constitutional change regarding the role of the Crown, many Canadians (including Quebecois) who now claim a 'lukewarm' affinity to the Crown may suddenly find themselves with a deep and abiding love for the system that has protected ethnic and religious miniorities and small communities since Confederation.

Our system may look funny to outsiders, but, I believe, most Canadians have moved beyond a childish desire to impress Americans or Europeans. Canada works. Canada is a prosperous, peaceful country. Canada has international links that should be deepened, not eliminated, thanks to her place as a realm in the Commonwealth.

Even though Elites have tried to refute the role of the Crown in building Canada, the wisdom of great Canadians remains. Western Canada's most loved Liberal Prime Minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, explained our country to the French this way: "Here in France, people are surprised at the attachment French Canadians feel for the Queen. We are faithful to the great nation which has given us liberty."

God Save the Queen! God Bless Canada!

Diefenbaker Conservatism (traditionally Canadian & Communal)

2009-08-31T16:16:00.005-06:00

We can thank Prime Minister, John George Diefenbaker, for giving Canadians their own Bill of Rights. Like our current Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who represents an Alberta riding, Diefenbaker was an Ontario born- Conservative. He moved west as a child and, eventually, represented a Saskatchewan in Canada's House of Commons.

Diefenbaker's training as a criminal defence lawyer strengthened his committment to Human Rights. Unlike some right wing Canadian Conservatives in 2009, Diefenbaker, opposed Capital Punishment because he believed innocent men and women were sometimes convicted in CDN courts.

He was a true old-style prairie populist: committed to Canadian independence from the US, strengthening Canada's international position internationally, and retaining Canadian institutions like the Crown. 'Dief' also championed Human Rights and public health. It was his government that created the Canadian Bill of Rights, the Royal Commission on Health Services, and the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act.

Many so-called populists (who appear to champion big business and the erosion of rights would do well to read Canadian Bill of Rights: The rest of us would do well to get a thorough understanding of what Canada's Conservatism tradition really is.

Regretting my own cowardice

2009-08-27T15:48:00.003-06:00

I took this post down a few days ago, simply because I was afraid of suffering professionally for stating the obvious about Canadian politics and Canada's relationship to the United States. I also thought some people might not see be able to understand that some aspects of this letter to Mr. Harper are tongue in cheek. I regret that. The day we give in to bullies is the day we give up. So I'm reposting:

I am appalled at federal government's willingness to go along with hearsay and to allow any Canadian to be tried in the American media. Further, I am appalled the government's demonstrated willingness, in several instances, to turn Canadians over to torture in other countries, simply to pursue a 'friendship' that is more wishful thinking that reality. Countries have interests that sometimes align with other national communites. They do not have friends.

Monday, 24 August, 2009

Right Honourable Stephen Harper, MP
Prime Minister of Canada
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa
K1A 0A2

Dear Right Honourable Mr. Prime Minister:

Did a little on line research that I think might help prepare you for your next trip to Washington. I wanted to know if America really is our 'best friend,' like you've told us.

If Americans like us, it just doesn't make sense that I keep hearing stories about Fox News having to apologise for threatening invasion and insulting our Armed Forces. And I wondered why the MLB forgot to find someone to sing our national anthem at a Major League Baseball game a few weeks ago. And why did Dr. Phil sneer when David Foster talked about Canada and Celine Dion. (No, I will not make a Celine joke.)

So, I decided, to take a look at American websites, like CNN and TMZ, which of course, is actually TMZed in Canada and pretty much everywhere else proper English is spoken.

Some of the 'news' sites seemed to think we aren't allowed to make an appointment with a doctor and that Canada kills its elderly and disabled people. (That must be why most of my relatives die when they reach their late 80's or early nineties? I want this practice stopped immediately. No one should be dying in Canada.)

But my favourite site was TMZed. It had the most stuff about what Americans think about Canada on it.

TMZed was following the Jenkins' manhunt. (It's the case where an unfortunate American realtor/pin-up girl was murdered when she decided to go visit her ex-current boyfirend in Las Vegas; and her Canadian boyfriend/husband realtor/reality star reported her missing then became a suspect in her killing after he escaped from the US Coast Guard and walked across a road to Canada.) I know it's enough to make your head spin. Apparently, life is real complicated in the States. No wonder they think we're boring.

Here`s what I learned on TMZed, following the Jenkin's search. Americans don't know that Canadians are their 'best friends.' More interesting stuff, I never knew about Americans:

Americans who comment on TMZed, by and large, do not believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty. They believe that it is ok to harass parents of people charged with crimes at their place of work (Eg. One individual posted Mr. Jenkins' father's website and told people to email him hate mail.) Guess the 18th century 'rebellion' really was just a bunch of colonists not paying their taxes and wanting to move on to Indian Territories without treaties. Sad.

They appear to believe that a person`s right to live is determined by their looks and lifestyle and that sex trade workers deserve to die. (A lot them thought the young woman in this case deserved her fate because she was a quote: 'skank'.

They believe that is it ok to rape and torture prisoners in jails (against international law.) In fact, some commenters were hoping to have Mr. Jenkins' raped and tortured by the other inmates, even though he had not been found guilty of anything. (I'm sure the American Ambassador and Obama don't think it's ok to rape and torture prisoners, do they? And you don't either, do you? I certainly hope not. Otherwise, I will not vote for any Conservative candidate as long as you are leader.)

Comments like 'Canadians are stupid, are pretty common' on TMZed. Somebody commenting on the site even said that no one should ever date a Canadian man because they are, apparently, all sociopaths. (I'm married to a Canadian man and he seems ok. I'm sure there are no sociopaths sitting in the House of Commons, either. Right?)

They also think that most of us are pining away to get a green cards. I'm not. Are you?

Many Americans believe that when a suspect has died, that no other possiblities should be pursued, even though the suspect was known to have a serious gambling addiction and to be involved with loan sharks. And the parents of the suspect do not believe he committed the crime. (I guess the concept of proven 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' doesn't matter anymore to most Americans.)

They also appear to think that it's ok to council people to commit suicide.(This morning there were comments on TMZed by individuals who hoped that threats of prison rape and torture were read by Mr. Jenkins. They also hoped those comments provoked him to kill himself. This is most perplexing for a nation that claims to believe in 'innocent until proven guilty' and promises to give fair trials to everyone, including Canadians.

Neither TMZed or its bloggers seem to be aware of recent court rulings that make anonymous slander of individuals on the internet something that can be prosecuted. (You may want to mention these observations to Obama, when you next see him. Ask him about the 'friend' thing too. He needs to come clean on this.)

A couple more requests: Please pull our troops out of Afganistan immediately. We should not be helping people that think torturing inmates is ok, treat our citizens with disrespect, and can't figure out if our national police force is called 'mounty', 'mountain', or 'mountain.'

Oh yes, I know you think that this is not a U.S. war because our NATO and Commonwealth partners are participating. You think the war is protecting our own security. I used to think that, too. But I started doubting it when Afghanistan passed a law that allows men to starve their wives for having too many 'headaches' at bedtime. And, I really don't think we should be siding with people that think it's ok to rape prisoners and drive suspects to suicide before they get a fair trial.

Another thing, when you head to Washington to meet Obama this fall (assuming you are not in the middle of a general election campaign) can you please refrain from calling America our, 'best friend.' It's kind of embarassing because you, Mr. Brown and Mr. Rudd all insist your countries are America's 'best' friend. (Maybe you should take your rightful leadership role as the Prime Minister of the largest Commonwealth Realm. Just pull the Aussie and Brit PM's aside at the next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, and demand that the three of you sort the thing out, once and for all. You cannot ALL be the Obama's best friend.)

You might also ask Brown why he hogged the Queen in the photos at last G-20 meeting. Oh, right, you probably don't want to bring up the photo shoots in London. Darned BBC, can't even respect a PM's need for a mini-break.

How about you get your speech writer to come up with something polite & positive, but more honest? Perhaps we could call the Americans our 'closest geographical neighbour whom we trade stuff with.' Or maybe this: 'The owners of that lovely White House we admire so much that we have not lit it on fire in nearly 200 years.' Awkward, I know. Work on it.

When you go to Washington, be nice, but don't act like you really need a "friend." (And try to get out of that oil clause in NAFTA. Or at least demand that they refine the stuff here. If they balk, remind them about the Softwood Lumber thing.) Stand up and make us proud. Tuck your shirt in, but don't buy a new suit. The Americans won't be watching and we already know what you look like.

Thank you for you reading my letter.

Cheers,

Jane Harris Zsovan
An actual Canadian who will vote in the Next General Election
p.s.
I really think we owe 'real Americans' on TMZed and the other websites I visited a thank you for their honesty. It's good to know how they really feel about Canada, their largest trading partner.

Tom Wickersham: Serving Many Ways

2009-08-08T19:17:00.008-06:00

I did this interview with Tom Wickersham, Alderman for the City of Lethbridge in December. Unfortunately, the 'Christian' publisher', who ordered the article, took down his website & left town in a hurry. Not sure what his story was, but a few of us didn't get paid.(Stuff like would turn most people cynical. Not me. I tried to find a new market.)

Well, I quickly found out interviews with municipal politicians from outside the two largest cities, especially those written by writers from outside the two Golden Circles, don't get much ink in Alberta.

That's too bad because Tom grew up on the site of Fort Kipp. That experience shaped him; and his vision for our province is worth the read. Enjoy!!

Tom Wickersham: Serving Many Ways

Fast Facts:
Born: April 1, 1944, Galt Hospital, Lethbridge, Alberta,
Spouse’s Name: Arline
Family Stats: Married 47 years (December 02, 1961). Tom and Arline Wickersham have four children: three sons and one daughter, 13 grandchildren, and 2 grandson-in-laws.
Elementary School: Coalhurst.
High School: Winston Churchill High, Lethbridge.
Church Affiliation: Victory Church
Career History: Chicken Farmer (1991-1999), Fireman (1965-2001), City of Lethbridge Fire Chief and Director of Disaster Services for the City of Lethbridge (1992-2001), Alderman (2001-PRESENT)

City of Lethbridge Alderman Tom Wickersham did what many little boys dream of doing: He grew up to be a farmer and a fireman. But for the past seven years, this former City of Lethbridge Fire Chief has devoted himself to municipal politics.

In addition to his regular city council duties, Alderman Wickersham serves as Liason to the Green Acres Foundation, Lethbridge Regional Police Commission, Airport Advisory Board, Municipal Planning Commission, Sub-division and Development Appeal Board, City Affordable Housing Committee, Community and Social Development Committee and Downtown - Heart of the City Committee. He is also a member of the Child and Family Services Authority Board for the Province of Alberta. He and his wife Arline attend Victory Church.

What do you like about City Council?
`We`re an eclectic group of diverse people,`` he says.
`We`re not running under a party banner, that`s what make municipal politics so interesting,` says Wickersham. You just have a whole mix of different opinions and & I think it works well. It about who you are, not what party you represent.`

What was it like as a kid on your parents’ ranch on site of Fort Kipp?
It was fascinating. We bordered where the half-way house going to Fort Macleod was.
Mr. Fuller, who was an English gent, had a little cottage near us. He always had tea on and he smoked a pipe. The house was always warm and had a sweet smell of pipe tobacco. He fascinated me with the history of the ranch hands and traders, and some of the history of our ranch.

After school, I`d visit him. He always had a peppermint for me.
He grew up in this area and he would spin stories about wildfires and what it was like in the early days. He told me about Fort Kipp. At that time you could still see the outline of the foundations.

He had jars of arrowheads that he had picked up when the fields were broken. He had two gunbelts. One had a notch He bought it from a fellow who claimed he had killed a man.) I tried to get my dad to by those gunbelts.

The wagon ruts of the whiskey traders were still visible then. It was a great time. Mr. Fuller made it come alive.

How did you become a fireman?
I had a desire to serve and make a difference. As a young person grassfires fascinated me. I loved fighting grassfires.

I knew I didn`t want to be a police officer because, when people call them, they don`t really want to see them. As a fireman, people want to see you come right away.

I got married at seventeen. So, I was hitting the ground running, raising the family

I had a good job at Horton Steel, but we got laid off. During the two months that I received EI, I played a lot of chess with a firefighter. He said that I should apply to get on the fire department. At that time, it was very hard to get hired. 150 to200 people would apply for one job.So I became a member of the Lethbridge Auxiliary Police.

After that, I would go in about once a month to talk to the Personnel Manager at the City of Lethbridge to ask about openings. When a position came open, I made application and was one of two people hired.

How did you become Fire Chief?
I didn`t really aspire to become fire chief. I enjoyed learning things and trying to make a difference.

I have always been interested in continuous learning – I took college courses and I made myself available for any kind of education. I still try to take every advantage of seminars, education, and personal development life is continuous improvement, we never stop learning.

When the position came open, I was encouraged by co-workers and others that I should apply. (I had already been promoted to captain, union president, and vice president for the Canadian Association of Firefighters.)

How long were you a member of the Fire Department?
36 years.

You became an alderman a month after retiring as Fire Chief. Why?
I still wanted to contribute to our community.

When I became fire chief, I took on the role of Director of Disaster Services for the City of Lethbridge. It`s a very challenging role and I was in that role for nine years, 1992-2001.

Retirement is doing what you enjoy doing. I thought it would be an honour to serve as an alderman. In serving, I believe you should strive to make a difference and leave an organization better than when you started.

I retired and ran for council.

Does Your Faith Impact Your Work on City Council?

I believe it is the values in our beliefs that govern all decision making. I firmly believe that we should treat people with dignity and respect and that we should be honest and have integrity in our decision making; being true to our values and beliefs while representing the community.

We must respect the most vulnerable in society. If we start to elevate ourselves above those people then we get disrespectful. That applies to our parents as they get older and become more vulnerable and to people who are homeless.

What Challenges do you see for Lethbridge’s City Council?

Challenges ahead include homelessness and affordable living; Being able to maintain our infrastructure for our community. The next few years will be a challenge as far as the economy is concerned. We as a city council, giving the times have passed a responsible budget that will maintain services and infrastructure. We’re committed to downtown revitalization. That`s going to be a challenge.

One of the main initiatives of council is moving forward with the West Lethbridge Centre. That is going to be a very exciting development that will take us to the future as far as development for Lethbridge.

How did you operate a chicken farm while serving as our city’s fire chief?

For a number of years Arline farmed by day and I farmed by night. Without a question Arline has made a lot of sacrifices for my career and my family. Fire fighters work shifts, they miss many family events because they are working. Family support is crucial. Arline still makes sacrifices for me now that I am on council.

Do you still own the chicken farm?

No we sold that in 1999.

What is your vision for council?

I believe that if we, as council, walk together in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect we will succeed. My goal in doing that is creating a viable healthy attractive city.

Sick of Politicians Using Religion to Acquire Power

2009-07-16T15:07:00.010-06:00

4MyCanada, a non-profit organization that helps Christian youth become engaged in politics, wants its members to attend a Campaign School organized by the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies. On the face of it, there is nothing wrong with this. But 4MyCanada claims to be non-partisan and the Campaign School is for social and fiscal conservatives. The Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, says it`s not associated with the Conservative Party of Canada. Maybe not officially, but in truth it`s a Conservative, not conservative, think tank, run by one of Prime Minister Harper`s long-time organizers.

Joseph C.Ben-Ami is President of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies. Mr. Ben-Ami`s resume credits include the following: Policy Aid to Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day; National Director of Operations in Stockwell Day`s 2002 Leadership Campaign.

Also speaking at the Campaign School: Rod Bruinooge, Conservative Member of Parliament for Winnipeg South; Activist Tristan Emmanuel who recently headed up Conservative MPP, Randy Hillier`s Campaign to lead the Ontario Tories, and Faytene Kryskow, founder and director of 4MyCanada (While Kryskow may not be officially tied to the Tory party, her session focuses on turning youth into socially conservative activists.)

Most Campaign School sessions reflect the right of the Conservative Party of Canada. Sessions include Running Right: Lessons from the Hillier Campaign; Winning as a Pro-Life Candidate; Campaign Essentials for Social Conservatives:In Search of Unity: Fiscal Conservatives & Social Conservatives - Myths & Facts; Communication Essentials for Social Conservatives (aka.Spin Doctoring)

No Red Tories, Liberals, New Democrats, or Greens will speak at the Campaign School. The sessions reflect only the right of the Conservative party. So, this Campaign School is obviously designed to recruit staff and volunteers for candidates in a narrow spectrum within the Conservative Party of Canada.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Studies isn't encouraging the vast majority of Canadian Christians, who do not suscribe to its ideology, to become activists. (Christians in Canada span the political spectrum.) Since this Campaign school will train only Christians who are fiscal and social conservatives, it is not about turning the faithful into voters. It`s about political ideologues using religion to gain political power.

As a Christian, I want to point out something to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Mr. Ben-Ami, and Ms. Faytene Krystow: Cynical attempts by church `leaders` and their allied political cronies to manipulate people into giving political power to ideological elites have a long history of destroying churches, worldwide. In Canada, we need only to look to Quebec, where manipulation by priests and their political allies played a key role in the complete secularization of that province.

Duplessis`s Quebec was faith based and ideologically conservative. It was also repressive and corrupt. Both Duplessis era religion and politics have been totally rejected by modern Quebecois. The `Quiet Revolution` nearly destroyed Confederation. And it's something 21st century preachers and political recruiters should think about when they are tempted confuse political affiliation with Judeo-Christian faith.

The Fourth of July from Canada

2009-07-04T15:27:00.008-06:00

I hope Americans have a wonderful holiday, celebrating their achievements, their families and their country. But I wish Canadians, in their quest to be friends or do business with Americans, would drop the neo-colonial mindset and stand up for themselves.

I wish Canadians would insist events, like the American Revolution, are portrayed in popular media and books accurately and, at least occasionally, from our perspective. I wish Americans would stop revelling in the fact that they don't know what a Governor General or a Member of Parliament does.

Most of all I wish Canadians would stop excusing this and allowing it to happen.

It's time Canadian actors and writers told publishers and producers that our words, our spelling, our accents, our places, and our perspective are too important to exchange for money. It's time Canadians backed them up and refused to watch, read or listen to media that does not portray Canadian perspectives accurately.

Let's be honest: The United States of America is not the only freedom loving country birthed in that bloody war between brothers now called the American Revolution. The Americans did not teach the United Empire Loyalists about freedom or hardwork or fighting for what they believed.

Those who opposed American rebels had to found another country to find freedom. There was little dissent allowed during the rebellion in the thirteen colonies.

Here's what loyalists -- mostly tradesmen and farmers with diverse ethnic backgrounds, not wealthy landowners, endured: jail, hanging, confiscation of property, forced renunciation of their beliefs, tar and feathering, and eventually exile to the wilderness.

That's our history. We have no reason to hide it, but we do for fear of offense and something we call a 'friendship.' But is, what Father of Confederation Sir Alexander Galt called 'a servile fear' of American anger really a friendship?

Friends treat each other with respect. Friends are equal. Friends aren't afraid of telling their own story, using their own accent, saying their own words. Friends don't hide who they are from each other. Friends want to learn about each other.

When Canadians can talk to the Americans honestly about our shared history, then we might be able to call each other friends.

When Canadian actors are no long asked to change their accent in order to get a job in their own country; when Canadian authors, screen-writers, and producers are no longer asked to use American spelling or turn Canadian stories into American ones (as Paul Gross was when he made Passchendaele and when Americans and Canadians can see movies and read books about the United Empire Loyalists, Canadian regiments in WW I, or the colonists battles in the War of 1812, made from a Canadian perspective, we'll be getting somewhere close to friendship.

Until then, we are merely polite acquaintances condemned to repeat our mistakes. Pity.

Seal Meat and the Crown

2009-05-27T13:28:00.005-06:00

I can't resist a quick comment on the controversy over the Governor General's participation in an Inuit Seal Feast (given in her honour.) The controversy has overshadowed the good work Mdme. Jean is doing this week -- meeting with the Inuit, advocating for a Northern University, and building understanding. Why Canada's viceroy hasn't gotten much international media attention for this is sad comment on the International Media's understanding of Canadian issues. It is sad that the American media has insulted the Governor General's Constitutional Role and the British media appears more concerned with what the EU thinks than the rights of an indigenous people within the Commonwealth.

Most Brits, Europeans, and Americans do not understand that those Inuit hunters are the Queen's subjects. Nor do they understand that the role of the Canadian Crown is quite different than the British Crown. And they are completely blind to the fact thatit does not matter what the Queen's former British Press Secretary thinks of the issue. He is neither Canadian, nor a spokesman for the Canadian Crown. If they want an authority on protocol of Canada's Crown, they should be contacting a Canadian source.

The Canadian Crown is not purely Ceremonial. It has full power to dismiss a government not acting in the interests of the Canadian people. It has full rights to dissallow legislation which violates rights of Canadians or violates the Constitution. The Governor General can also dismiss (fire) the Prime Minister.

The Canadian Crown is not only separate from The British Crown, it works quite differently. The British Crown buttresses a State Church and a class system. The Canadian Crown has evolved to protect religous and ethnic minorities from political interests and to protect the weak from the powerful. Among its most sacred trusts is ensuring that Indigenous peoples are protected from political interests. The Crown controls the Armed Forces.

As the Queen's stand-in, the Governor General protects the rights of all people from the excesses of political and economic power. (No matter what language, religion, ethnicity, economic state, or class they are in.) It is also her job to increase understanding between these groups.

The Crown is pledged to look out for the interests of the Queen's subjects -- not the sensibilities of European Politicians and Animal Welfare groups. Madame Jean's only obligation at the feast was to honour the people honouring her. She did so. And nearly 80% of Canadians support her actions.

The opinions of non-Canadians (even the Queen's British subjects) have no bearing on what is appropriate for the Canadian Crown.

But it may be a good idea for British politicians who claim loyalty to the Queen to get to know the issues and people of Canada. After all, by siding with Europeans against the Queen's Canadian subjects, they may be putting Her Majesty in an awkward position.

Pat Mestern Review

2009-05-20T21:15:00.005-06:00

Fergus,Ontario based author, Pat Mestern, has reviewed: Stars Appearing: The Galts Vision of Canada. The review appears in two publications: The Guelph Mercury and The Record

Quotes From Pat Mestern's Review:
"I've always been a fan of John Galt's novels and poetry, written more than 180 years ago. I'm referring to the same John Galt who founded Guelph and gave his name to Galt, now part of Cambridge.

"Alberta author Jane Harris focuses not only on John, but on his sons John Jr., Thomas and Alexander. Their contribution to Canada's early history, especially the development of southwestern Alberta and Lethbridge was extensive. In particular, the dedication to Canada by John Galt's youngest son, Sir Alexander Galt, a father of Confederation, was brought to life in an easy-to-read, well researched format."

CBC Tars and Feathers Loyalists

2009-05-16T10:48:00.005-06:00

A few minutes ago, Brent Bambury, host of CBC Radio's Go, made the dumbest statement I've heard in a long time. In a dubious attempt at humour, he smeared the United Empire Loyalists by claiming they arrived in Canada with all their goods and slaves in tow. Has he never heard of Black Loyalists?

Does he realize that most United Empire Loyalists were actually tradesmen and farmers, many of whom lost everything they owned? Does he realise Loyalists were branded as traitors, tarred and feathered, jailed, and hounded before they fled? Some never escaped the hangman.

Very few Loyalists were wealthy. And in 1793, Lord Simcoe, Governor of Upper Canada passed the Act Against Slavery,, making the colony the first place in the British Empire to pass legislation designed to end slavery. The act has been critiqued as too timid, but in 1793, Simcoe's measure was an heroic attempt at social reform that went against the advice of wealthy business types.

If Mr. Bambury was an American radio shock jock or pseudo-news comedy host, I'd wouldn't be surprised by his error. But I expect much much more from my taxpayer funded Public Broadcaster. Agree? Disagree?

Don't Let them Dance on Your Dreams

2009-04-22T21:13:00.001-06:00

Yesterday, I packed away a little New Testament my mother gave me. It's now on the mantle at the new house we'll move into as you read this. (Anyone who knows me, knows I despaired of God giving me back my own house. I also thought I would never remarry, get a book published or make a living from writing. In turn, each gloomy prediction has proven wrong.)

One of my forebears, probably Granddad or Great-Granddad Boyle, turned down two pages in that little testament that came to us from the Bible Society of Upper Canada in 1896. One page is turned down to Revelation. Another is turned to a chapter in the book of Hebrews. The chapter promises God will never foresake the children of a good man (or woman).

Despite the fact that several of my great-great-great grandparents are buried in Canada, I watched Susan Boyle's Britain's Got Talent performance on YouTube, with a sort of clanish pride. So did my cousins. I doubt Susan is related to us. (We come from a long line of Protestants.) But, somewhere along the line, my Loyal British forebears picked up the same ability to defy convention and dream audacious dreams.

Susan's cheeky optimism and self assurance protected her from the caustic assessments of judges and bad mannered audience members. Without them, she may have walked of the stage without proving them wrong. Without them her life would be far less joyful.

That silly dance, irrepressible grin and quick wit mimic my mother's antics. (Not to mention those of her siblings.) Many times her goofy jokes made the teenage me cringe. These days, she wants to grow up to be 'The Old Woman who Wears Purple."

Then there was Susan's very direct comment when her age, 47, was brought up: "And that is just one side of me," she said, wagging her head for emphasis. That isn't a far cry from what my mother told provincial bureaucrats who interviewed her for a job after she graduated from university at age 50.

Can't remember if it was her age or her gender that was brought up. Her reply though is clear. "Is that a problem for you?" Apparently it was: She didn't get that job; she got a better one.

God guides us to our dreams. Don't let anyone trounce on yours.

Twitters on Canada

2009-04-20T10:55:00.002-06:00

Been experminenting with Twitter. Haven't spent too much time trying to attract followers or even posting while I learn the ropes. Here are a few of my recent posts:
On Canadian Media:
No more money for programmes meant to reach a foreign audience first.
8 minutes ago from web

Let's all say 'chocolate bar', 'toque', 'chesterfield', 'constable', 'police detachment', 'riding' and 'running shoe' together.
9 minutes ago from web

Seems to me that when you over package yourself to reach a 'global' audience --aka Sirius or PBS -- you wind up reaching nobody.
10 minutes ago from web

Will we see the end of the bland (North American style) programmes and return to scripts that honestly reflect our own culture.
11 minutes ago from web

Susan Boyle continues to turn entertainment on its head. Wondering if any Canadian television networks are taking note.
12 minutes ago from web

On Today's Hijacking:
Apparently pretty good: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/...
about 2 hours ago from web
So what are the changes of the Canadian Prime Minister actually being in Jamaica when the Jamaicans rescue passengers on a CDN charter jet?
about 2 hours ago from web

On Canada's Public Image (Or our obsession with it)
We don't need to sell foreigners on our story. We need to educate Canadians about their own strengths: not worry what others think.
4:51 PM Apr 16th from web
Waste of money: http://tinyurl.com/cohyda
4:48 PM Apr 16th from web

On the economy:
According to this, Canadians feel postive enough to buy houses: http://www.lethbridgeherald...
9:17 AM Apr 15th from web

On the Reserve Power of the Crown( AKA, why our 'anachronist' political system works better than 'progressives' think:
Bowen's use of the Reserve power of the Crown is way more interesting than that story of Lord Byng and Mackenzie King. And more important.
9:31 AM Apr 14th from web
Why doesn't anyone know the story of John Bowen saving Alberta from dictatorship in the 1930's? Oh right, I haven't written it yet.
9:30 AM Apr 14th from web

Frankly, I think that's what is wrong with the RCMP, too. Maybe it's time go back to own way of doing things and dump the American advisors.
9:29 AM Apr 14th from web
The Americanization of our Constitutional Monarchy along with control of power by the Prime Minister is skewing parliament.
9:28 AM Apr 14th from web

There are no Solutions without Hope

2009-03-05T11:10:00.004-07:00

There is a thin line between realism and pessimism. Pessimism is as big a lie as manic optimism. Neither help you manage your daily life.
Lately we've been getting nothing but bad news from pundits, politicians, and economic types. Yes, people are losing jobs. Yes, people are losing money in the markets (my husband looks glum when he talks about his investments these days), but the fact is we can get so bogged to down in the 'economic crisis' and injustices (too many and too real), that we become paralysed.

Fellow author, Marcia Laycock has come up with a great idea. Create your own list of seven positive things in your life, or the world in general. Post them. Tell others about them. That way, we can start to fix problems instead of getting bogged down in them. And chances are, you will come up with more than seven.

Here are my first eight:
1. My university aged daughter took the time to send me a postcard from Montreal. (I am blessed by my three healthy, bright children.)
2. Dropping House prices mean more people can buy houses. (Good news for realtors and buyers)
3. Many, in fact most people, still have jobs. I still see posting for jobs on the net and in the paper.
4. The Canadian banking system, though mocked as old fashioned and too conservative for years by foreigners and some Canadian business types, is the only G-7 banking system not to have to be bailed out by the Government.
5. People are rethinking their credit hungry, overly materialistic lifestyles, and making more thoughtful buying decisions.
6. Waste is no longer fashionable.
7. We can walk on city parks and walking trails for free. We are blessed in Canada, especially Alberta, that our cities include natural settings and wildlife within walking distance.
8. Spring is coming. That means more sunshine, more chances to enjoy the world around us, and less use of electricity and fossil fuels.

Now you try it. What do you think we have to be positive about today?

Just who is Culturally Irrelevant: YOU or the CBC?

2009-02-25T18:47:00.008-07:00

Straight from CBC.ca: "The public broadcaster says it's in talks with the Heritage Department about the dire effects of a sinking economy, which it says will plunge the corporation into a deep deficit in 2009-2010."

Really? That doesn't surprise me much.

In its quest to become culturally relevant, the CBC has stopped doing its job: bringing news, culture, and information, with a Canadian perspective, to Canadians. Instead, it's opted to buy foreign game shows and hire trendy radio hosts who are only able to relate to people living in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal. In fact, sometimes, I get the idea the CBC's new media stars: George and Jian couldn't tell a maple from an oak and wouldn't know a beaver from a rat. And in their quest to reach 'youth', they ignore Canadian history and institutions they think are 'politically incorrect', 'out of date', or God forbid, 'small townish and stereotypically Canadian'. (Sometimes, I think they are making tapes for auditions in New York.) As a result, they reach practically nobody.

Why? Because, a lot of Canadians do, at least partially, fit Canuck stereotypes -- polite, conservative (in lifestyle, but not necessarily politics), nature loving, and oh yes, just a bit 'small townish'. We sometimes wear toques, parkas, and ugly winter boots. A lot of us have eaten oatmeal for breakfast, tuna sandwiches for lunch, and meat loaf for dinner.(Not everyday, of course.) We might even take offence at a guy hosting a national arts and culture show who claims he can't understand Lent. (It's kind of a Christian version of Ramadan with fasting flexibilty, Jian. Does that help?)

I believe that we are enriched by the many cultures that have come, and continue to come, to Canada. But, face it, most guys and gals that get off a plane at Pearson and get a job, any job, in 21st Century Canada don't know much about staking a homestead or turning colonial wilderness in homes. To listen to the CBC, you think that the majority of Canadians landed here yesterday. In fact, most Canadians are not immigrants -- not even the West.

(The demographic gurus trying to sell advertising would be surprised at how many potential viewers, even in Western Canada, have pre-Confederation French, Metis, or British roots. And, because we all have at least two parents, it's impossible to fully determine ethnicity by somebody's colour, social status, or last name.)

Our colonial past is almost totally ignored by our public broadcaster. (Big mistake, because we WERE the Empire and if there are injustices still to fix in the Commonwealth, we have no business leaving the UK to do the job.) And God help you if you are are descended from colonials and pioneers, especially if they were British. In that case, you are expected to be ashamed of the political, social and cultural institutions your ancestors' helped build: You are nobody's target audience: no matter how much you have to spend.

It's clear our national broadcaster isn't very good with demographics. Exactly who were they trying to lure with the acquisition of two American game shows that spout nary a question about Canada? Last time I checked most game show viewers weren't part of the demographics the CBC seems to value above all others: the young, trendy, the urban, and the immigrant.

But CBC is not alone: most mass media, public institutions, and large corporations in Canada, have been too busy marketing themselves to some imaginary demographic that they have lost touch with Canadians outside Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal.

That's really too bad, because some of the most interesting people I know aren't young, trendy, beautiful, urban or obviously ethnic. In fact, I've made a career writing about them. And I wouldn't have changed that for all the CBC contracts in the world. 'Cause I love the boonies and the people that never make the front page or the top story.

so who's responsible for negative attitude

2009-01-20T11:29:00.006-07:00

I don't use this blog to comment on American politics. The U.S. is not my country and, frankly, I think it's rude to interfere in our neighbours' democracy. Of course, we wish Americans well and support their choices.

However, I will comment on the Canadian media's reporting of the Obama Inauguration. Firstly, I'm really happy they've all had a really good,really long vacation from looking for any news stories in Canada or around the world. Party's over guys. Now it's time to get back to work and dig for some stories.

Secondly,several times this week I've heard one national news anchor, who really should know better, say no one does pageantry as well as Americans. Seriously. Has he ever heard of the changing of the guard on Parliament Hill? Oh and wasn't that the network that cut pageantry from their broadcasts at the opening of Parliament? Don't Canadian media usually make fun of Canadian pageantry? And didn't that particular network forget to play the Governor General's New Year's greeting?

And how is it they keep asking if a black can hold power in Canada after they have seen pictures of Mdme. Jean? Why is it that they are trying to bring the 'race' card to Canadian politics? I'm proud of the fact that the amount of pigment in Mdme. Jean's skin is irrelevent to Canadians.

Another common comment from Canadian viewers watching these broadcasts: "We would like someone to inspire us, too." Good point. I have to agree. So, let's start with the politicians and pundits who spend most of their time picking apart our system and making negative comparisons like, "Of course, we can't expect to have this in Canada. We're just a small country."

First, we're not that small a country, economically, geographically or even in population, and if we'd stop navel gazing and whining about how weak we are, we could impact the world greatly. Of course, we can expect to do and accomplish greatt things.

Secondly, it's time for Canadian media to drop the negative attitude toward our history, our culture, and Canadians. They might even point out that the Canadians, who opposed George Washington's vision, also built a country based on their own view of what democracy is -- and that it didn't come easy. That it is a different, but equally, valid view.

And it's our job to hold the media accountable.

walls/bridges/ and Canadian regionalism

2009-01-19T16:01:00.002-07:00

In 1877, my great-great grandfather built a new house -- a beautiful stone house for his large blended family. I almost thought this house, along with tales of my great-grandfather's squandered inheritance, were fairytales. But this week I saw the house -- or at least a picture of it. Still standing. Still occupied.

The house still stands, but the family that once lived in it has scattered. The walls could not hold them. In fact,'walls' may have scattered them.

The lady who made time to tromp through snow covered rural Ontario to find my great-great-parents' land also sent me a picture of a bridge her grandfather built. A beautiful curved wooden bridge. It, too, stills stands after 100 years. Apparently, her grandfather built bridges in Western Canada too. I'm keeping my eyes open for them.

Aren't bridges beautiful things? Not only do they get you from one side of a deep ravine or a raging river to the other, they are beautiful architecture. Useable art.

I live in a city where more joggers, getting fit along the coulee top trails, turn east to look at the huge viaduct spanning the river valley than west to look at the outline of the Rocky Mountains and Porcupine Hills. Canada Post put our bridge on a stamp once.

Groups, like TWG are bridges too, linking people of diverse backgrounds in many regions of the country -- even beyond. Too often we talk of walls: rights and regional competition. What 'they' did and how we carry more than our fair share of the load. Too often we hold onto to our grudges and prejudices. Too often we take pride in building thicker and thicker walls and hurling insults at our kin -- and we are all kin if we go back far enough.

We love our walls, but we need more bridges,especially in Canada.

Christmas and New Year Message Links

2008-12-29T20:55:00.008-07:00

Do you get annoyed when the media interprets speeches by government and opposition leaders, rather than letting you hear the entire message yourself? I do.

I often wish the pundits would stop explaining and playing 30 second blurbs of the speeches. I prefer to listen to what is said and make up my own mind what the message is.

In the Spirit of the Season, I am adding the following Christmas and New Year Message links. No comments. No interpretations. Just a chance for you to listen for yourself. I am sure you'll figure out what each of these people is trying to say. And you don't need me to explain.

The Queen's Christmas Speech to the Commonwealth

New Year's Message from the Governor General of Canada, Her Excellency Michaëlle Jean

Christmas Message from the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper

Christmas Message from the Leader of Canada's Official Opposition, Michael Ignatieff

Want to follow this blog?

2008-12-29T19:56:00.001-07:00

Hi, I've just added the followers icon to this blog. Feel free to join the group and you will receive regular posts as I update them.

Sorting out Fact from Propaganda

2008-12-22T10:40:00.003-07:00

Hi everyone. I hope your Christmas planning is going well and that all this snow shovelling isn't dampening your Christmas spirit. Here's a little political myth busting that the media doesn't seem to want to tackle. I posted this article on the TWG blog about a week ago. The Word Guild is an organizations for Canadian writers are Christians. Since I know many of my readers are of different faith perspectives, I'm also posting it here:

Let me begin with a verse from scripture: Prove all things, hold fast that which is good. 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Now let me share a couple of historical facts that I've discovered that run counter to what you hear on the news. First, Michael Ignatieff's, promotion to Leader of the Opposition, without an election, is nothing new in our democratic tradition. Both Ralph Klein and Ed Stelmach, in Alberta, became Premiers without an election in their first terms. This has happened several times at the federal level as well.

As loyal members of their parties, the caucus members (MLAs and MPs) of our political parties normally accept their memberships' choice about who should be their leader in the Legislative Assembly or House of Commons.

That is convention. It is not law, although some parties do have by-laws, within their organizations, to require members of the party sitting in the legislature or Parliament (which includes the Crown, Senate, and House of Commons) to follow the party's instruction about who to choose as First Minister or Leader of the Opposition.

But, rarely, a party's caucus (MLAs or MPs who sit as members of that party) chooses a leader without a party vote. That too is acceptable in our system of Parliamentary Democracy.

For example, when Alberta Premier William Aberhart died suddenly in 1943, there was no party convention or consultation. Instead, the Social Credit Members of the Legislature got together at a caucus meeting and made Ernest Manning the Premier. The voters and the Opposition had no say in this decision. This is a perfectly acceptable way of becoming Premier in our system of government.

We are a Constitutional Monarchy. It is the role of the Crown to ensure that there is always a stable government in Canada and the Crown has several options to ensure it. The Crown can also deny unconstitional laws as the LG of Alberta did when William Aberhart tried to deny Freedom of the Press in the Province of Alberta. His decision was backed up by both the Governor General, the Provincial Courts, and the Supreme Court of Canada. I assure you that Albertans are very glad the LG took his job seriously enough in 1935 not to sign away our Freedom of Speech because the Premier asked him to. (Interestingly, this episode is not usually discussed by the popular media, although Lord Byng's decision to deny Mackenzie King an election is.)

Why? Because first ministers (Premiers, Prime Ministers - these words literally mean first minister- are elected as members of an assembly (legislature, House of Commons) for a particular riding (sometimes called 'constituency'). Canadians, like Brits, Australians, New Zealanders, and other Commonwealth Realms elect members of assemblies (Legislatures, Parliaments). They do not elect First Ministers.

It is convention that the head of the largest party becomes First Minister. The leader of the second largest party usually becomes Leader of the Official (or Loyal) Opposition (Also sometimes called Leader of Her Majesty's Official --or loyal- Opposition.

But coalitions are also acceptable: one coalition was between Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Georges Etienne Cartier. It led to Confederation.

In the 1950s, the parties of British Columbia formed a coalition to deny the Commonwealth Cooperative Federation power. In a rather dramatic story, typical of British Columbia's colourful political scene, the plan led to the election of W.A.C. Bennett's Social Credit Party.

Learning one's history and constitutional framework helps us discern what is being said to us by our 'leaders' and, with prayer, leads us to where we need to go.

Role of the LOCAL MP

2008-12-02T09:56:00.007-07:00

05 July 1858. The Province of Canada's new Inspector General rises to speak in the colonial assembly. He has an idea to end fighting and factions in the Canadian Parliament and to save British North America's economy. Why not federate the colonies? Why not bring Rupert's land into the arrangement? Perhaps even the colonies across the Mountains? Surely such a grand country will not remained embroiled in petty squables.

The House of Assembly (also called the Legislature or Parliament) agree to take a chance on Galt's idea, to move beyond their personal prejudices and grasp a bigger vision. They choose three members of their assembly: John Ross, George Etienne Cartier, and Alexander Torrance Galt put the idea before the British Government.

The idea is so big that, when the MPPs arrive in London, many British officials doubt it can be accomplished. But the Colonial Secretary, Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, gives it a fair hearing. He likes the idea even if it is grand. (Not surprising, Lytton is a novelist and a friend of Charles Dickens.)

It take eight more years before Canada becomes the first nation within the British Empire (other than Britain herself). But, without that first vote in the Canadian Assembly, it would never have happened. Without the authorization of ordinary MPPs (MLAs) on all sides of the house, no moves would have been made.

Canada's House of Commons and Provincial Legislatures are the modern version of that 1858 Assembly. We elect members to represent us in these assemblies. No law in Canada can come into effect without their authorization. Or the Senate's. Or Royal Assent. (In short, the Cabinet has no authorization to govern on its own.)

Over the past 60 years, many Canadians have lost sight of the importance of making sure their Member of Parliament (or MP, MPP, MLA or MNA) carries their vote in these assemblies.

The role of political parties (and the highly paid hired hands in these backroom) has impinged upon the role of elected members of legislative assemblies. So much so, that many people no longer vote for their local member, they vote for a party. They accept that their member of the assembly should be follow the dictates of poltical parties and their funders. Several of these political parties capitalize on regional and ethnic divisions within the country to get support. (That's a separate post.)

But political parties have no Constitutional role in Canada. The Prime Minister is merely the Member of Parliament who has the confidience of the House. Much of the powers that job has garnered in recent years are in fact counter to democracy in Canada.

Given the current political crisis in Ottawa, perhaps Canadians will take greater care to elect members of their legislative assemblies that can represent them. Perhaps the role of political parties and ideologues will wane.

And perhaps Canadian kids will be taught how their system actually works.

Canada's Most Successful Coalition Government

2008-11-28T21:26:00.005-07:00

Hi, It's late, but with all the hoopla over the possibility of a coalition government in Canada, I have to post this. Mr. Harper suggests a coalition government in Canada would be a violation of the electorate's will and he's blocking a motion of non-confidence for one week.

Is he right?

Since only a minority of Canadian voters voted for his party in the last election, probably not.

More importantly, has Canada ever had a coalition government?

Yes.

What was the result?

Confederation.

In 1858, Governor General Sir Edmund Head asked Alexander Galt, MP for Sherbrooke to form a goverment after the MPs asked the Queen to choose a capital, then brought the government down because they didn't like her choice of Ottawa.

Much like today, Canada's parliamentarians simply couldn't keep it together and the country was sick of elections caused by parliamentary gridlock and fights between MPPs. (One time the legislators actually had to stop John A. Macdonald, MP for Kingston and Colonel Rankin, Member for Essex, from shooting each other on the steps of the legislature.)

Galt, wisely told His Excellency that he was not the man for the job as he could not command the loyalty of the majority of members in Canada's colonial legislature. Instead he recommended a coalition under the leadership of Georges Etienne Cartier and John A. Macdonald.

Ultimately these two men did join forces. Ultimately they did form one party. But in the beginning, Cartier and Macdonald shared power. And Galt joined their team on one condition -- that they made the federation of British North America into on nation their platform.

In our system, governments only stay in power when they can command enough support get their bills through the assembly. In our system, parliamentarians are under no obligation to support the government. Even the Prime Minister is elected to represent ONE riding. In that sense The House of Commons is designed to be an assembly of ELECTED EQUALS.

Unfortunately since the mid 20th Century, political parties (who do not answer to Parliament), interest groups, and backroom strategists have usurped the role of MPS and concentrated power in the Prime Minister's office rather than where it should be -- with the elected members of Parliment.

We can pray the current constitutional crisis will be as significant for Canada's future as the one in 1858. And we can insist that our leaders relearn the lessons Macdonald's generation learned long ago. Parliament only works when the party in power is smart enough to understand that the opposition is not obligated to support bills. They must sell their policies to the opposition and respect the role of Members of Parliament.

I will continue to blog on the this topic all week.

In Flanders Fields

2008-11-09T21:42:00.005-07:00

The nation's heart is found within its poets:

November 11 is Remembrance Day, the day we honour our war dead in Canada. I could write about Canadians who died for our country, 60,000 in WWI alone. I could give you statistics and facts. And it probably wouldn't mean much to you.

But the words of Lieutenant Colonel, Dr. John McCrae, a Canadian Veteran of the Boer War and World War I, will reach you. He died in January 1918, while World War I raged. He never lived to see the armistice; never returned to tell his war stories to Canadians.

Yet, his hope for us remains as lively as it was when he scratched these words on to paper as a battle raged. He remains a hero to his nation. For the past 80 years, every English speaking school child in Canada has recited these words.

In Flander Fields
By John McCrae

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Hot Apple Cider Author Signing

2008-09-29T18:33:00.006-06:00

If you are in Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada on 09 October 2008, join Marcia Laycock, author of One Smooth Stone, and me for a signing of Hot Apple Cider: Stories to Warm the Soul and Stir the Heart(HAC) at Dove Christian Supplies, right across the street from the fountain, flowers, and forest of beautiful Galt Gardens (named for the city's co-founders, Father of Confederation Sir Alexander Galt and his son, Elliott Torrance Galt.)

Marcia and I will be at Dove between 10am and 4pm, sipping some of the store's fantastic lattes, or, better yet, hot apple ciders.

Marcia and I are both contributors to HAC.

Want to know more about this inspirational anthology of over 30 Canadian writers? Check out the Hot Apple Cider Website.

In the meantime, I'm working on more posts for this blog. I will have them up in the next few days. Stand by.

Fortis and Liber

2008-07-13T16:25:00.009-06:00

It's sad. Too few Canadians actually know the meaning of their national and provincial symbols. Take the hoopla over Alberta's new licence plates. Talk over whether or not to put the provincial motto on the plates is causing a controversy.

Some quarters of our population think that putting 'Strong and Free', the English version of the Province's Latin Motto, Fortis and Liber, on licence plates represents Americanization of Alberta politics. Some Anti-Ottawa politicians and pundits think creating a distinction between Alberta and the rest of Canada is a great.(One gets the idea that they are more loyal to the land of their birth than the country that accepted them as immigrants.) Most Albertans do not.

But all sides in this discussion are way off base. It is ridiculous to suggest that ideas of strength and freedom are not linked to Canada's place within the British Empire. It lessens Alberta's place in the world to suggest the province does not share in that tradition. Or that the founders of the province were not loyal to those institutions.

'Strong and Free', in the Albertan context, has nothing to do with the United States of America. And while the ideas of creating and federating new Canadian provinces were radical in their day, the motto itself has little to do with political reform. It is a motto, handed to us by the Crown, indicating that our province's strength and freedom are tied to parliamentary democracy.

'Strong and Free' symbolizes Alberta's links to the Canadian Crown and pays tribute to the fortitude of Canadians who settled the NWT in the days before The District of Alberta, NWT, became a province. 'Strong and Free' is proudly Canadian. And Albertans remain deeply loyal Canadians.

Saturday's at the Fort (Macleod,Home of the NWMP)

2008-07-01T20:32:00.004-06:00

NEWS RELEASE

01 July 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Lethbridge Author at Fort Macleod’s Saturdays at the Fort

Lethbridge, Alberta -- Jane Harris Zsovan (who writes under the name of Jane Harris) is pleased to share her love of Alberta’s history with visitors to Saturdays at the Fort, at the Fort Museum of the Northwest Mounted Police in Fort Macleod, Alberta this summer.

She will sign copies of Stars Appearing: The Galts’ Vision of Canada (2006), at two Saturdays at the Fort: The first runs this Saturday, July 05, from 11:00am to 4:00 pm.

She will make a second Saturdays at the Fort appearance, August 16, 2008, 11a.m.to4:00p.m.

Harris Zsovan is delighted to be part of this program of art, book signings and events in one of Alberta’s most historic towns. “Fort Macleod played a significant role in the development of the Canadian identity. The image of Canada (in the minds of Europeans, Americans, and even Canadians themselves) was influenced greatly by images of Fort Macleod, The Northwest Mounted Police, and The District of Alberta, N.W.T,” says Harris Zsovan.

Stars Appearing: The Galts’ Vision of Canada is the first book in the Vision of Canada Series, which uncovers Canada's role in inspiring the reformation of the world's most powerful 19th Century empire (The British Empire) into a federation of democracies. Jane is currently researching the people who made up Alberta society when The Marquis of Lorne, Governor General of Canada, visited Fort Macleod, N.W.T. in 1881; Alberta’s role in the 19th century Social Reform Movement, and the part Grand Valley, Ontario settlers played in pioneering communities in central Alberta.

Harris Zsovan’s articles have appeared in more than a dozen publications including Alberta Views, Alberta Venture, Award, The National Post, Western Standard, Microsoft Home Magazine, The Anglican Planet, Christian Week, Maranatha News and Faith Today.

In April 2008, Harris Zsovan contributed ”Jessie’s Generation: Canada’s Firebrands of Mercy and Justice” to Hot Apple Cider: Stories to Warm the Soul & Stir the Heart, an anthology of Canadian writers. The chapter tells one strand of the story Harris Zsovan hopes to capture fully in future books and articles: the social reform movement to Canada’s poor that began well before confederation.

-30-
For Information about Jane Harris Zsovan’s writing contact:
Jane Harris Zsovan
Email: janehz@telus.net
Blog: www.visionofcanada.blogspot.com

For Information about Saturdays at the Fort contact:
Kim Driscoll,The Fort-Museum of the NWMP
Fort Macleod, Alberta T0L 0Z0
Phone: 403 553 4703 Toll Free: 1-866-273-6841
Website: http://www.nwmpmuseum.com/

Happy Canada Day!

2008-06-30T22:58:00.005-06:00

July Ist, 1867 was a party up here. But the fireworks, poetry, and parties were hardly noticed in Britain, the United States or elsewhere. In her typical invisible way, Canada became the first British colony to transition into an independent nation state while remaining within the British Empire.

Our ancestors had to fire shots to keep republican invaders and Fenian terrorists from forcing their ideology on us. But, unlike other colonial nations, we never fired shots against an imperial master to gain our nationality. In fact, British North America survived because imperial links made its people less vulnerable to invaders.

On July 1st 1867, not many outsiders took the Canadian experiment seriously. Canadians celebrated, but the noise didn't wake up the neighbours. Lucky for us!

In the next few decades, Canada's success led to the creation of many nations. It also redefined what it meant to be loyal to the Sovereign. Colonials could build their own nations. They could redefine the role of parliament, classes, and the Crown without destroying relationships with their imperial cousins. (Deep study of Canadian history is the best way to understand why we choose the political and cultural institutions that have been rejected by our southern neighbour. It also helps explain the reasons Canadians often differ in their outlook from other nations.)

In 2008, Canada continues to be part of the Commonwealth of Nations, proving that interdependence is a valid path to Sovereignty! We continue to be a constitutional monarchy by order of our own parliament and provincial legislatures. Our system of government was entrenched in our Constitution in 1982 and cannot be changed without the consent of the federal parliament and every provincial legislature.

Our choices may bewilder our neighbours. But they are choices we have made. Canada's success proves independence can result from loyalty to old friends.

Happy Birthday Canada.

Quotes Worth Considering

2008-05-31T19:21:00.005-06:00

"IF YOU DESTROY YOUR PAST, YOU ALSO DESTROY YOUR FUTURE."
Dr. Zahi Hawass Undersecretary of the State for the Giza Monuments, Egypt

"YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT THE SAND WILL HIDE IN THE WAY OF SECRETS"
Dr. Zahi Hawass, Undersecretary of the State for the Giza Monuments, Egypt

If Dr.Hawass's words are true, then they don't just apply to Egypt. Canadians must also be vigilant in uncovering and understanding their full heritage -- owning the past we can be proud of and owning the past we would change if we could. (Not picking and choosing aspects of our identity that absolve us of responsibilities.)

Only then can we embrace our full destiny, taking our full place in the world.

Removing Canadian Context in Media

2008-05-29T23:01:00.009-06:00

Is it just my perception? Or are our major media outlets are doing all they can to water down Canada's political and cultural uniqueness?

I'd love to hear your perspective on this. If you can think of more instances of the obliteration of Canadian institutions or historical links in the popular media, please add your comments. And include your suggestions for halting this trend.

I plan to add to this list as I see more instances of this watering down of our heritage by the major print, radio and television outlets. Here's what I've come up with in the past hour:

The use of the word “May Long Weekend” instead of "Victoria Day Weekend" in media and advertising. A few newscasts did wish viewers “Happy Victoria Day‘ on Monday 19th May, but advertisers and most news reporters continue to use the bland and meaningless term "May Long Weekend."

Canadian media personalities who use who say ‘Loo tennant” instead of Left-ennant (Yes the word is spelled Lieutenant, and that may confuse a grade two student, but if you are old enough to report on Canadian issues, you should have figured out Canadian English.)

The use of the word ‘officer” instead of 'member' when referring to a member of a Canadian police force. Alternatively, Canadians broadcasters could use rank eg. 'constable', 'inspector', 'commissioner' when referring to individual members.

The use of the generic and vague word 'military' instead of “Canadian Armed Forces” when referring to the Canadian Armed forces.

The fact that two of Canada's three major television networks did not cover Prime Minister Harper’s meeting with the PM of Great Britain. Nor did they cover Harper's audience with the Queen on their National News broadcasts tonight. Only CTV showed video clips of the royal audience and only CTV covered the official London leg of the trip in any detail.

I also can't find much of anything about today's meeting between the Prime Ministers on any of the websites of Canada's national newspapers, although that could change by morning. That's truly puzzling, because the Governor General received ample attention when she met with the President of France a couple of weeks ago.

Is there an agenda here? Or is this just sloppy reporting? What do you think?

What I Sent the Globe and Mail

2008-05-21T22:59:00.007-06:00

I never heard back from the Globe and Mail about this submission to their Op-Ed Page. Fortunately, I have a blog.

Is Time Running Out for Canada's Republicans?

Well, this was the week for republican rants in The Globe and Mail. Allan Fotheringham (05 May 08), gave a dubious account of history that linked Canada's Crown to the mess Mugabe's making in Zimbabwe. Then Bloc Leader, Gilles Duceppe, attacked the Governor General for doing her job by representing all Canadians, including Francophones outside Quebec.

So what's causing these outbursts from depression babies like Fotheringham (only six years younger than the Queen) and proto-boomers like Duceppe (who's turns 61 in July)? Could time is running out on their dreams of re-creating Canada/Quebec in their own images?

It appears that, even in like countries like Australia, supposedly way ahead of Canada on its path to a presidential utopia, republicans are in trouble. This showed up in my in-box this morning:

"The West Australian 2006 survey of youth attitudes showed that support for a republic in the 18 to 30 age group had fallen to 38%. Then the Morgan poll of 22 February 2005 found that only 37% of those aged 14-17 were in favour of a republic. Now in 2008, this has fallen to a dismal 23%, with 64% supporting the constitutional monarchy and 13% undecided. Some undecided voters may be just unwilling to reveal their intentions; in any event they tend to vote No in a referendum. And it is not only that young people are disinterested in a republic. It is that they are positively interested in their past and their heritage. The republican attempt to shred our flag has collapsed. It looks now as if the republican attempt to shred our constitution is going the same way. The overall result is equally dismal for republicans. Support for a republic is at 45%, the lowest for 15 years.

There are signs the same trend is showing itself in Canada. For example, a 2005 Globe and Mail poll put support for the Monarchy at an unprecedented 82%. A 2007 Angus Reid poll found that youth supported the monarchy more strongly than Canadians aged 35-54. (This increase in support among youth was evident even though the survey questions have been attacked as biased and confusing. For example, Angus Reid asked Canadians if they wished to end formal ties to the British Monarchy. In fact, the Queen ended formal links between between the Canadian and British Monarchies when she signed the Constitution Act of 1982)

Despite their negative nit-picking at our Constitution for the last 40 years, republicans haven't succeeding in convincing enough Canadians that their vision is best for Canada. They claim to support democracy and accountability. So why is it that they never mention this article in the Constitution Act 1982?

41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assemblies of each province:
(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

In plain English: The Crown's place in Canada cannot be changed without approval from the Senate, House of Commons and every provincial legislature.

Since in some regions, like Atlantic Canada, support for the Crown reaches over 80%, that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Besides, on her worst day, the Queen's poll results are usually higher than the Prime Minister's.

Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the man who reformed of Canada's Divorce Act and legalized homosexuality, presided over the Repatriation of the Constitution. Trudeau was clearly not afraid of unpopularity or change. But in 1982, when he had his chance to weaken the Crown's place in the Constitution, he entrenched it. Why?

Maybe after years of governing this country, Mr. Trudeau came to the same conclusion the Fathers of Confederation came to in 1867: That remaining a Constitutional Monarchy with a shared Head of State is the best path for Canada.

Canada could have become a republic in 1867. It could also have become part of the United States. (Some British bureaucrats wanted to buy peace and trade with the Yanks at almost any price.) But those options were rejected. Not by the British. They were rejected by Canadians.

Canadians, not British bureaucrats, came up with the vision of nationhood for Canada, fully equal to Britain, and a shared Crown. They believed they could retain their cultural, economic, and political connections and still be a sovereign nation. That success of that vision led to the birth of dozens of nations. And eventually to the creation of the Commonwealth. Canadians should take great pride in this.

The guy who convinced Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George Etienne Cartier to pursue this dream was Sir Alexander Tilloch Galt. In the 19th Century, Galt was as controversial and enigmatic as Trudeau was in the 20th.

By the time Galt died in 1893, this one time annexationist and rebel, was as attached to his radical new vision of reforming the British Empire into a Federation (decades before there was a Commonwealth) as he had been to federating British North America in the 1850's and 1860's.

The Fathers of Confederation considered many options for Canada. But they came to the conclusion that a federated empire with a shared Crown was the best political, economic and cultural path for Canada.

Could they have stumbled on something that took psychologists like Abraham Maslow another 60 years to discover: that self-actualized, creative people flourish in an interdependent state that values relationships and gives them leverage in the world?

Maybe sharing a Head of State isn't a sign of immaturity. If so, then monarchists may have a broader view of Canada's place in the world. And maybe, just maybe, their eyes are more firmly fixed on Canada's future.

-30-

2008-05-12T22:32:00.003-06:00

Hot Apple Cider Hits Presses

2008-04-24T00:12:00.001-06:00

I know. Blogs are supposed to have regular posts. And I’ve been silent for weeks. But I promise to be more prompt with posts in future .

You see, I’ve been waiting to make an announcement. And here it is:

Hot Apple Cider: Stories to Warm the Heart and Stir the Soul is published. So get yourself a warm cuppa’, sit down and enjoy a big helping of inspiring writing by some of the best Canadian authors around.

My author’s copies arrived the other day . But I don’t expect them to last long.

Hot Apple Cider: Stories to Warm the Heart and Stir the Soul has contributions from over 30 of Canadian authors. Their stories will inspire and energize you. And while the book is aimed at the Christian market, I think HAC is going to have a big impact on Canada’s publishing industry. I see this book crossing over into mainstream markets.

This inspirational anthology appeals to readers who just want to sit down and enjoy a good read. Most chapters can be read in less than half an hour. And these days, who has more than 30 minutes at a stretch to sit down and relax with a book?

I’m very excited to see my chapter Jessie’s Generation: Canada’ s Firebrands of Justice and Mercy included in this superb anthology of writers. My chapter’s about Canadian women who turned their world right side up without money, jobs or even a vote! Check out www.hotapplecider.ca

And oh yeah, Stars Appearing: The Galts’ Vision of Canada is available at www.visionofcanada.com.

(I’ll post an update of retail locations and signings for both books in the next few days.) I’m also working on brand new book — more to come! Talk to you soon.

Jane HZ

Facts, Fiction and Canadian Public Discourse

2007-12-22T20:45:00.002-07:00

Last week I read a letter in my local newspaper that typified the public debate in Canada. The author had very strong opinions about the nature of Canada, but those opinions were based on an erroneous understanding of Canadian history.
It's not surprising the author of the letter believed what he did (although a look at the map of Alberta would have shown him that there were indeed Francophones here in the 19th Century).
Canadian history has been been edited by pundits, politicians, business groups, lobby organizations, and yes journalists --on both the right and left sides of the political spectrum -- for decades now. And the 20 second clips, op-eds, and documentaries the 'reinterpet' historical events for entertainment purposes continue to flood the media. Even history books are written from a 'point of view' that 'critiques' events for 21st century readers. (ie: tells us what we should think.)
But until we reject this spoon feeding and dig deeply into the facts, we cannot begin to understand the vision that founded this nation and envisioned a place for Canadians as leaders in the world. And we cannot claim our full inheritance until we know what that inheritance is.
And that is a pity that's goes well beyond Canada.

Does Our View of History Matter Anyway?

2007-09-18T12:08:00.002-06:00

I don't believe we should remain stuck in the past. Nor should we idolize our forebears. Our ancestors do have lessons for us. But these lessons are based on their humanity: their failings, dreams, struggles and faith. They are lessons we can relate to in our own lives as we seek to move into a better future.

But over the past forty years, most analysis of history and public policy discussions have taken a materialist approach. History books talk about Acts, events, and results, not dreams, grand visions and the emotions of historical figures. Their religion is either scoffed at or ignored.

Fiscal reality, not emotional attachments, governs public policy. Political leaders love to tell us that 19th Century based political and cultural arrangements that 'hamstring' politicians and economic interests don't make sense. The idea that such arrangements were made with full intention of curtailing power of elected officials and economic interests is usually forgotten in discussions about the future of Canada.

We have adopted a materialist approach that says feelings, dreams and emotions do not matter. Politicians and political theorists have relegated symbols such as the Crown, flags, and anthems to political fluff that to be changed 'at will' without any concern for the effect this has on citizens' attachment to their country or on the structures safeguarding citizens' rights. International relationships are simply utilitarian.

This view says Treaties and constitutional arrangements regarding language, religious rights and the role of provinces or the role of the Crown or its representatives don't matter to us, because we weren't born when those arrangements were made. We can change them even when they leave out an original party to the agreement -- as Quebec was left out 1982. (Change is seen as good. Waiting for agreement and timing that works for everybody is deemed not necessary.)

But the vision that built Canada was based on dreams, faith and big ideas. It was also based on on consensus of peoples and regions. 19th century 'political elites (especially in London), colonial administrators, and capitalists' rarely thought of the rights of individuals. The idea that colonists could keep political and cultural arrangements they loved -- and sometimes died to protect -- and turn themselves into nations was unthinkable to the guys who hung around gentlemen's clubs in London and New York. Why not sell out the rights of colonists in order to facilitate trade across the Atlantic?

But the colonists dared to dream impossible dreams. They believed that it did not matter what the 'money men' said. They could turn Rupert's Land and British North America into a sovereign nation without war and without severing ties to the rest of the Empire. (These visions of interdependence and peaceful transformation remain key parts of the Canadian identity.) They believed God could intervene in impossible situations.

By the mid 1880's their faith and hard work not only had made their dreams reality, it was beginning to change their Empire into sovereign nations (dominions) within the Empire. While the bureaucrats in London thought this was merely a change in status for 'their' colonies, colonists from Canada to Australia were dreaming that their nations would be equal in status to Britain and that they, and their fellow colonists from many nations, would have as much protection from the Queen's government as the Lords, Ladies, and Financiers of the realm.

This is what the Commonwealth of Nations is actually intended to be, but it goes a step further by recognizing that groups such as the Indigenous peoples of Australia and the First Nations of Canada ought to have protection equal to their 'colonist' neighbour. And that the poor should be protected as much as the rich.

This is why we continue to see Our Queen and her representatives visit hospitals and espouse the rights of the poor and minorities. It is also the reason The Crown recognizes the accomplishments of artists, writers, theologians, innovations, community leaders and even individual acts of heroism. It is why the Queen quotes Bible verses and speaks of role of many faiths in the lives of people throughout the Commonwealth -- and only a few radical materialists protest that she is the embodiement of the union of 'faith and public life.' Why? Because, in Canada, it is the Crown's role to acknowledge that there is more to life than 'materialism.'

The Fathers of Confederation recognized that politicians and businessmen should not have total control of the nation. They recognized that one class or one part of the Empire should not run over the rights of others. It was a world changing dream, based more on poetry than rationalism. (And no they didn't get it perfect, but that is a post for another day.)

My next post will talk about some of the dreamers who created our country and consider what role 'Dreams and Grand Visions' still play in this nations of 'dreamers, innovators and poets.

The Forgotten Vision of the Red Coat Trail

2007-07-04T16:07:00.002-06:00

As I sat in the chapel at the Fort Museum in Fort Macleod on Canada Day, I felt like I was capturing a little of the vision that inspired our ancestors to create a nation out of wilderness. I realized that vision wasn't about furs, or imperialism, or even about making money.

The British subjects who created Canada were immersed in a culture that valued justice, compassion and grace more than making money. They viewed prosperity as the result of moral uprightness and a disiplined life. Staying true to their values mattered. The good fortune that might flow from adhering to these values was of secondary importance.

Many settlers, policeman, teachers, and doctors, who came to the plains to alleviate suffering and injustice, died with only a few dollars to their names. Even Justice James Macleod, the hero of the NWMP, died with only $8.00 to his name. It's popular to denounce the coming of the whites to the Canadian prairie and to point out evidence of greed, injustices and the inequality that still exists today.

But those injustices exist because we allow them to exist. And we forget the promises previous generations made to live in harmony and and justice.

The North West Mounted Police were not perfect. Nor was the man who named this province, Governor General Marquis of Lorne. Or John A. Macdonald. Or George Etienne Cartier. Or Louis Riel for that matter. They did the best with what they had. It is our turn to rediscover those ideals and make their vision a reality.

We are bound by honour to pick up their torch and finish their work.

WHAT IS VISION ANYWAY?

2007-06-26T16:26:00.000-06:00

According to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, vision is the 1. act or faculty of seeing. 2. a thing or person seen in a dream of a trance. b.a supernatural or prophetic apparition. 3. a thing or idea perceived vividly in the imagination 4. imaginative insight. 5. Ability to plan or form policy in a far-sighted way, e.g. in politics. 6. a person etc. of unusual beauty. vt. see or present in or as in a vision.

Hmmm. Maybe we all need to work on creating a little more vision in the world.

As Canadians, we have a particularly strong indebtedness to vision. Without seeing past the problems and the impossibilities we would have no nation. The colonists would have thrown their hands up in defeat and accepted invasion and the loss of their dreams.

And Today. Do we still need vision? Yes. Without a vision of the future we cannot solve problems of inequality, homelessness, and violence it the world. Lack of vision leaves us in the mire of despair and uncertainty. Without vision we can't even figure out who we are.

It's that idea -- of vision -- that I am most interested in exploring in my writing and in my everyday life: Where it has brought us; where we came from and where we are going; and what inspires us to dream that vision.

It's those questions that prompted me to write Stars Appearing: The Galts' Vision of Canada. And it's that search for vision that keeps me working.