Mothra Canada

I'm completely mystified by the  near-universal  negative  reaction that Never Forgotten National Memorial 's proposed Mothra Canada war memorial has provoked in my fellow Canadians. Who wouldn't like a tax-payer subsidized 10 storey statue to Mothra on Cape Breton?

Come on, guys. What's your problem? Ecological vandalism? That the monument will ruin "a pristine geological site of peaceful scenic beauty"? 

They did an 86 page Detailed Impact Analysis. Ok sure, so it was done by the engineering firm Stantec, who are one of the corporate sponsors listed on the NFNM "Partners and Supporters" page but it's not like they're putting up the world's largest ball of tinfoil or twine on the site.

Here's a nice letter from Chief of Defence Staff General Tom Lawson to project founder Tony Trigiani pledging the help of the Canadian Armed Forces.  I didn't know CAF did that.

And just look at the list of Honorary Patrons : JustMin/AG Peter MacKay, Tom D'Aquino, Mila Mulroney, Frank McKenna, Jean Charest, some corps, plus CBC stars Rex Murphy and Peter Mansbridge. Oh wait, Mansbridge was on there last week when I looked but now he isn't, and Rex Murphy is listed as a "Freelance Journalist". 

A privately directed enterprise since described by Peter MacKay as a "private-public partnership", the site will feature the names of "Major Gift donors" but not those of the war dead.

From the NFNM website :

"The Never Forgotten National Memorial Foundation has developed recognition opportunities for Major Gift donors at varying levels, for both Canadian and International donors.

As a living, breathing and fully interactive memorial, the Never Forgotten National Memorial will offer ongoing marketing opportunities for individuals and corporate partners."

A fitting motto for a war memorial because war has always done exactly that.

Bumped up from comments : Brian Busby quotes :" Naming rights located throughout the Founders Hall and other special areas of the Interpretive Centre will also recognize the contributions of project partners and other major donors." 
and then responds : A shame the Ross Rifle Co. is no longer around.

.

Democracy and Parliament not sidestepped, only suspended

We would like to thank Con MP Brent Rathgeber for that lovely explanation of Steve's dismissal of parliament - first ignoring its will and then proroguing it - and move on to how the media props up that contempt by ignoring it.

.

With a little help from his friends ...

.

As pointed out by POGGE here and here, CBC and CTV/CanWest both blew their year-end interviews with Steve.

.

Mansbridge took a stab at getting some explanation from Steve on why he prorogued parliament but then allows Steve to blow him off with bafflegab about how Canadians don't care about it anyway. The question Mansbridge should have asked is why Steve is ignoring a parliamentary motion to hand over unredacted documents on the Afghan detainees and did he shut down parliament to avoid doing so?

.

At least Mansbridge gave it a shot. In their year end interview, the CTV/CanWest tagteam of John Ivison and David Akin don't even mention proroguing or detainees, never mind ignoring the will of parliament. They just skip the whole friggin thing. In fact their interview, which ran in the National Post, opens with this :

IVISON: "Prime Minister, it seems there is not going to be much for us to write about, unless there are Senate appointments in our near future."

Yup, year end review, not much goin' on here right now. What ever will we write about?

.

In his blog entry : Interviewing Harper: What to ask? Why not ask about prorogation? David Akin explains that Mansbidge already covered that issue - no, David, clearly he did not - and that they did not have much time to ask questions that could be rewritten up by their affiliate papers :

"[T]he goal for Canwest, at least, is to leave the interview with a story that the local editors of the Vancouver Sun, Montreal Gazette, Ottawa Citizen and other Canwest papers would find interesting enough that they would make (valuable) space for in their papers."

Yet within that admittedly short 13 minutes there was apparently ample time for questions like this :

AKIN: Do (you) see yourself in a decade -- you may not be prime minister -- do you see a career for yourself after this? I don't sense you're the board of directors type but I don't know, maybe you are -- an academic? What do you want to do? Where are you in a decade?"

Steve in a decade? Who gives a rat's ass? We want to know where our parliament is right now.

Akin responds in comments at Pogge's.

Happily the conservative US UK mag The Economist, in two separate articles, goes straight to the heart of what the Canadian media to a truly frightening degree ignores :

.

Harper goes prorogue

Parliamentary scrutiny may be tedious, but democracies cannot afford to dispense with it

Never mind what his spin doctors say: Mr Harper’s move looks like naked self-interest.
His officials faced grilling by parliamentary committees over whether they misled the House of Commons in denying knowledge that detainees handed over to the local authorities by Canadian troops in Afghanistan were being tortured.

A legislature matters more than the luge
Mr Harper is a competent tactician with a ruthless streak. He bars most ministers from talking to the media; he has axed some independent watchdogs; he has binned campaign promises to make government more open and accountable. Now he is subjecting Parliament to prime-ministerial whim. He may be right that most Canadians care more about the luge than the legislature, but that is surely true only while their decent system of government is in good hands. They may soon conclude that it isn’t.

Canada without Parliament - Halted in mid-debate

Stephen Harper is counting on Canadians’ complacency as he rewrites the rules of his country’s politics to weaken legislative scrutiny.

The danger in allowing the prime minister to end discussion any time he chooses is that it makes Parliament accountable to him rather than the other way around.
It is now up to [the opposition] to show that Canada cannot afford a part-time Parliament that sits only at the prime minister’s pleasure.

One would hope it would also be a matter of some concern to the Fourth Estate.

CANADIANS AGAINST PROROGUING PARLIAMENT - 92,000 120,000 140,000 and counting ...
On Facebook .

.