One love (Musings on Chelsea fans' blame game)

Updated 13 Mar. 2016

Chelsea FC exited the UEFA Champions League 9 March and among some fans the blame game is on, or rather, continues. Blame has been fan norm since Chelsea's play this year was shown to be far from the excellence it was in 2014-15 when we won the Premier League, indeed led from start to finish. 
Today (12 March) we exited the FA Cup and blame reached a fever pitch. I need to get this off my chest while fresh. Many, perhaps most, Chelsea fans will disagree but this is how I see it.

Please keep in mind that I grew to respect José Mourinho but eventually that eroded as I watched his poor decisions and eventual crass manipulation to preserve his reputation. 

WHO IS BLAMED

• Michael Emenalo, CFC Technical Director

• He was widely trashed after José Mourinho was fired and Emanalo spoke of "palpable discord" between José and the players and referred to José as 'the individual'. Emenalo haters, often longtime Chelsea fans, like to mention he has zero qualifications, coached a girl's club, and imply he has the job only because he's pal of Roman Abramovich, Chelsea's billionaire Russian owner since 2003.
• Emenalo is blamed for not recruiting wisely. 
• Some 'fair and balanced' fans use the Twitter hashtag #EmenaloOUT. Check it out with a Twitter search. Slightly less hateful than #RafaOut? 

• Chelsea's Board of Directors, who presumably want the club to be winners but who many fans currently diss as incompetent. Fans didn't say this in earlier years when Chelsea won PL titles, and the UCL. Miraculously in space of one year, BOD are sh*t. 
• Did José have no input into signings? Was he just a poodle to Emenalo and the Board's decisions? Hard to believe.

• Specific Chelsea players, who it is claimed would not play for José and 'betrayed' him (José's own word). José played the blame game to protect his image as a great manager.

• Chief culprits are players whose form dropped dramatically compared to last year, including
• Diego Costa (20 PL goals 2014-15; 11 PL goals to date)
• Eden Hazard (14 PL goals 2014-15; 0 PL goals to date)

• Chelsea players in general (with one exception*), because they are deemed to lack club loyalty. You know the drill, score a goal and pound the club crest on your jersey. Indicates you are loyal to and devoted to your club. Pretty phony, given most players today are hired guns who play for several big businesses (clubs) over their careers.

• *Exception is John Terry - Chelsea's Captain, Leader, Legend, who's been with the club from a young age, indeed more than half his life. When he taps the CFC crest, you know it means something.

WHO'S NOT BLAMED - José  Mourinho
Few longtime fans blame Mourinho who took Chelsea from PL winner to bottom of Premier League in 8 months and was fired after the club lost 9 of 16 PL games. José is the 'teflon manager', in same category as Jesus Christ or an infallible Pope to adoring fans. José rightly has huge deposits in fan's goodwill bank for his 3 PL wins.

The case for why José played a role in Chelsea's decline
(1) José's management style exhausts players after 2-3 years. Sooner rather than later millionaire players will say enough, I don't need this cynical manipulation. Players play for intrinsic reasons like love of the game and personal pride. Suspect the brighter among them resent José's mind games, see them for what they are, and naturally rebel.  

Takes a big personality to maintain control, keep the respect of players, adopt to changing circumstances, and develop youth. José Mourinho is an Alex Ferguson wannabee but his record shows he  lacks whatever it takes to manage a club for more than a few years. For interest:

• Ferguson's formula

(2) José prefers defense to freewheeling offense. José's preferred style of play tends to stifle creative players, especially midfielders used to pressing forward on the hunt for goals. For example, José couldn't let Juan Mata  - Chelsea's 2 time POTY  - be Juan Mata. Most fans grieved Mata's sale to Man United, but few criticized José for the loss. The magic of Mata-Hazard-Oscar was lost forever.

(3) José did not give Chelsea's young players (long list) a chance to shine, prove their worth. Why? Likely because to validate his genius as the 'special one', he needed wins now. Always playing the first squad, barring injuries, was the result. Even then, 'kids' seldom got a chance to play, gain top flight experience, prove their worth.  

(4) José was out of control, stressed and fearful for his reputation if the club lost a game, as shown by his treatment of Eva Carneiro and Jon Fearn. Only Eva had guts to call him on it, demand an apology. 

José quote: "I wasn't happy with my medical staff because even if you are a medical doctor or secretary on the bench you have to understand the game." Apparently, José winning takes precedence over giving medical help to a player who is on the pitch and asking for it.

At his core, José is a skilled manipulator who excels at obscuring his role in creating problems. He's an expert at the blame game. His main schtick is to blame referees and encourage fans to see the entire world as against us. As if Chelsea is so important that the entire Premier League - referees, referee association, FA -  would conspire to keep us down. Really?

He's done this act for years and it's worked well until senior management cottons on that there's dissension in the ranks and is forced to jettison him for the good of the club.

WHAT'S NOT BLAMED - Circumstance/Chance
Few Chelsea fans blame circumstance and chance. But Chelsea had many key players injured this year, including Gary Cahill, Diego Costa, Radamel Falcao, Eden Hazard, Nemanja Matić, Oscar, Loïc Rémy, John Terry, and Kurt Zouma.

Besides losing those players, injuries meant  that healthy substitutes were tossed into games lacking experience (because José gave them none to little) and key players like Willian often played exhausted. 

Players often lose form from year to year. Just a few of many:

• Papiss Cisse, Newcastle United
• Radamel Falcao, Man United
• Wayne Rooney, Man United
• Roberta Soldado, Tottenham Hotspurs
• Fernando Torres, Chelsea
• Thomas Vermaelen, Arsenal

Were all these players dogging it, out to get the manager fired? Or just struggling with circumstances that meant they lost their magic?

WHAT'S NOT BLAMED - Top players shun Chelsea
Many top players have not opted for Chelsea in recent years. Maybe they are happy where they are but maybe some are not keen to join Chelsea, even under genius manager José. 

BLAME GAME
In sports, as in life, some people prefer the blame game as opposed to examining themselves and those dear to them. To some fans, if something goes wrong, someone must be identified and blamed. The reasoning is as follows:

• Those who I support are never responsible else I will be diminished as a savvy fan who knows it all.
• When folks play the blame game, they often engage in irrational thinking to justify blaming others. 
• For example, why in hell's name would Chelsea players want to sabotage the club and their reputations and future earnings by choosing to become losers - to say nothing of lowering their own feelings of self worth - all to cost José his job? Does not compute. 

If that were true, then following José's exit, form would miraculously reappear. It hasn't.

Also, the blame game crowd aren't satisfied with 'what players did was wrong.' Instead, players become lesser beings, unworthy of respect. It's personal and they are demonized as cretins who destroyed both José  and the fans' dreams of eternal Chelsea glory under José. 

BOTTOM LINE
What gets me most is Chelsea fans who put it all, or mostly all, down to lazy, pampered rich players betraying Gawd Almight, José.

Mourinho is a multi-millionaire who frequents Victoria Secrets fashion shows and GQ awards. With this lifestyle, he's interested in protecting his brand and earning power and expertly practices the blame game to do so. Any footie manager's decisions and actions are NOT infallible. 

To me, the players did NOT deliberately sabotage Chelsea. Which is not to say that José did not p*ss some of them off with cynical mind games and manipulation. Plus he creates unrelenting stress to perform perfectly, always. But to blame Chelsea's 2015-16 season on player sabotage is nuts. Players too want to protect their pride, brand and earning power. 

Sometimes bad things happen for complex, interrelated causes, not simplistic reasons like 'the players did it because beloved José could never be responsible.' Sort of akin to 'the dog ate my homework' vs admitting I, and my hero José, are responsible. 

Seems José's responsible for nothing when a club loses but gets credit for everything when it wins. 

Folks like simple explanations but simple seldom conforms to reality. 

Football clubs are big businesses where players are mere commodities to be bought and sold. To think of players as loyal souls who play their hearts out for a big business that they have no history with, that they know will dump them sooner or later, is deluded. Today most, indeed almost all, play for several clubs over a career.

In my view, several factors played a role to a varying extent in Chelsea's unprecedented fall from PL champs to mid-table ordinary in 2015-16. In particular: 

1. José Mourinho's management style, his tendency to manipulate players (always) and blame them for losing (once losing becomes the norm - otherwise he plays the role of I'll take the heat for the odd loss), and his failure to develop Chelsea's young players by giving them adequate game time. 

• Is José to blame? Not really. He did what was best for José and no doubt what he thought was best for Chelsea. Was he a factor in the rapid decline? Had to be a major factor. He was 'the boss' running the club day-to-day, preparing and motivating the players, developing tactics.

 2. Circumstance/chance - injuries, loss of form by key players. Yes, poop happens.

3. Emanalo, Board of Directors and José too (because he must have had some say) in failing to recruit top players for key positions. 

Many top players are happy where they are and a body at rest tends to stay at rest unless a significant outside force acts on it (Newton's First Law of Motion). Chelsea is not a significant outside force. Chelsea club history with Roman in charge reeks of instability. The number of managers is the canary in the coal mine. Top players shun Chelsea for good reason. 

For Fun
Having spent 6 months bumming around Jamaica, I'm a reggae and Bob Marley fan. This ditty expresses how I feel about Chelsea. And by implication, what I think about Chelsea fans who diss the club and its players and feel the need to play the blame game. How about feeling the 'one love' for our club and players? Okay to love José too, but he's not the 'one love', my fellow fans. 

• One love (Bob Marley)

Alberta NDP has gall to questions who is a journalist

Updates are sure to come

Quick musings on issues arising from Alberta's NDP banning The Rebel 'correspondents' (call them what you like, just NOT journalists) from government news conferences - then reversing its decision.

First, Levant's outfit is not a media organization, it's a propaganda tool created to trash the NDP and anyone else Ezra doesn't like, such as PM Justin Trudeau, Omar Khadr, and Muslims in general. 

CBC's Neil Macdonald beat me to the punch with 

• The Rebel and the NDP, why not to provoke Ezra Levant

But I'll say my views, regardless.

WHAT IS A JOURNALIST?
How do you know if someone is a journalist or just someone calling themselves a journalist? I look to standards of practice described by professional associations.

Current standards of practice for journalists are outlined in the Canadian Association of Journalists' 

• Ethics Guidelines (Please read these carefully)

Levant's minions practice none of these best practices. His work force consists of rabidly right wing propagandists, not journalists. 

WHAT IS A  PROFESSION?
Journalism likely is NOT a profession in the traditional sense. First, a profession requires special education, training, or skill. 

It often involves studying a specialized body of knowledge at an educational institution,  including on-the-job training to acquire real world experience. For example:

• Ryerson's School of Journalism
• Poynter Institute

Second, professions are self-regulating. If you fail to follow what is expected practice, you are struck off.

WHO DETERMINES WHO IS A JOURNALIST?
Main issue that concerns me for this blog is how so many mainstream media (MSM) journalists say that it's not the government's job to determine who a journalist is. 

In a former life I was a member of a health profession that was government regulated with a mandate to protect the public safety. If we screwed up, after a hearing, we'd be struck off.

For interest, Alberta's

• Regulated professions
• Designated occupations

Note: Standards in Alberta exist for bakers but not for journalists. Seems journalists are truly bottom feeders, unaccountable to no one except employers. 

As Neil Macdonald wrote, journalism is NOT a profession by any standard.

Personally, I wish it were, even though those calling themselves journalists say that's impossible. 

If any idiot can be a journalist, it degrades those who studied the craft and follow its code of ethics. 

The bit about newspapers and media in general having fewer staff to cover local news doesn't convince me that we should accept anyone as a journalist. 

Are Chelsea fans shit?

This blog was stimulated by recent experiences as Chelsea (CFC) fan. As background, I'm a longtime Canadian sports fan of hockey, baseball, NA football, and  soccer, aka football in rest of the world. I've only been able to fully support Premier League's CFC since PL became available on TV in Canada.

As a Chelsea fan, what I've noticed for awhile now is how many CFC fans rush to diss individual players if they are not perfect. You'd think being a fan meant you support your club's players unconditionally, but you'd be wrong. 

Mostly, it means you support manager Jose Mourinho because he gave you three Premier League championships in 2004-5, 2005-6, and 2014-15.

As soon as a player shows weakness, that he's not perfect, he's dissed by Chelsea 'fans' as shit. Current prime examples include Ivanovic and Willian, with many more targets in the wings.

I don't get it. Has Roman Abramovich's money made Chelsea fans so privileged, so pampered, that all players must be exceptional? By definition, exceptional is rare.

Branislav Ivanovic was one of Chelsea's best players in 2014-15, yet now fans want him out because he's had a bad start to 2015-16 season. Willian is a fantastic energy bunny who's saved Chelsea's arse many times with his defensive play. But because he doesn't assist on goals and score enough, he's called shit by many fans. They don't say he's a talented player who could improve offensively. Oh no, they call him shit.

My wish is that Chelsea fans reap what they sow. Namely, they're not perfect, indeed, many are shit fans who are just not up to the task of being perfect. 

As a Chelsea fan, I know I have many weaknesses, one of which is writing blogs like this one. You can imagine how that endears me to my Chelsea friends and followers on Twitter at @eurofutball.

Why Harper does not deserve our vote (Links to 9 blogs)

This blog's purpose is to provide links to the 9 prior blogs on why Canada's PM Stephen Harper does not deserve our vote and a 4th term.

1. Control of the media
2. Censuring of scientists
3. Abuse of Question Period
4. Obstruction of Access to Information requests
5. Abuse of omnibus bills
6. Abuse of prorogation
7. Environmental record
8. Economic record
9. Summary of why Harper does not deserve our vote

As a Canadian, I see Harper as betraying everything Canada stands for. He's anti-democratic, anti-scientific, and an embarrassment. 

CBC's Checkup Panel, with 4 insightful, smart physicians, on 'What health issues should be on the federal election agenda' provides evidence of why Harper is NOT good for Canada.

Only we voters can get rid of him.

Comments are most welcome.

Why I will NOT vote for Harper:Part 9 (Summary)

Vote for Harper? Inconceivable!

Ninth and final  in a series of mini-blogs on Canada's federal election to be held 19 Oct. 2015. 
DaBa, pen name of a Guest Blogger, wrote the blogs. 
My comments follow the  blog. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In Summary

Rather than include all of the main points of the eight prior blogs in this series, three Harper failings are highlighted: democracy, the environment and economy.

1. The Harper government runs one of the most undemocratic regimes in Canadian history — and has undermined and abused democratic institutions and procedures at every turn. 

2. Harper is the only Canadian Prime Minister to be found in contempt of Parliament, which occurred in 2011 after his government refused to release certain program costs to Opposition MPs. 

3. "We have a crisis in Canada where public information is disappearing and being restricted." (Executive Director of  Canadian Journalists for Free Expression)

• Weak Canadian access to information rules need revision, says Canada's information commissioner

4. The Harper government shows no intention of moving forward with climate policy and remains the worst performer of all industrialized countries.

5. Harper may blame the current recession on any number of historic or international events, but there can be little doubt that his polices have exacerbated the situation.

6. Harper's strong card was his promise of a balanced budget, however, it appears the government will run a $1-billion deficit in the current fiscal year even if it uses all of its contingency fund, says a report recently released by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. 

• Federal government facing $1-billion deficit: budget watchdog

7. The Bank of Canada's Monetary Policy Report released last week downgraded economic growth for 2015 and projected that Canada had slipped into a technical recession in the first half of the year. 

8. Moreover, the Canadian dollar dipped to its lowest point in more than a decade.

Vote for a Harper government? — Inconceivable!

Is Harper the worst prime minister in Canadian history? 
Clearly YES!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments
An amazing op-ed article appeared in the New York Times, 14 Aug. 2015:

The closing of the Canadian mind

Subtitle: Stephen Harper, the prime minister of Canada, is creating a legacy of secrecy and ignorance. 

A few selected quotes [précised] about our PM:

He has consistently limited the capacity of the public to understand what its government is doing, cloaking himself and his Party in an entitled secrecy, and the country in ignorance. 

Mr. Harper’s war against science has been even more damaging to the capacity of Canadians to know what their government is doing. 

In 2012, he tried to defund government research centers in the High Arctic, and placed Canadian environmental scientists under gag orders.  

He ended the mandatory long-form census, a decision protested by nearly 500 organizations in Canada, including the Canadian Medical Association and Canadian Chamber of Commerce. 

[He] passed the [Un]Fair Elections Act, a law which not only needlessly tightens the requirements for voting but also restricts Elections Canada from promoting voting.  

He is “tough on crime” and builds more prisons at great expense when even American conservatives realize that over-incarceration causes more problems than it solves. 

Conclusion: Whether or not he loses, he will leave Canada more ignorant than he found it. 

Harper will leave Canada more ignorant. How sad. Yet it correctly sums up our PM, mocked for what he is in the New York Times, who's print version has the largest circulation of any metropolitan newspaper in the USA, and is long regarded as a national "newspaper of record", respected around the globe.

Vote for Harper? Who could? He does not deserve our vote. 

As always, comments are most welcome. 

When tempted to whine, we all need a wake-up call

Anecdotes on two experiences in the past week. 

1. For the past few years, driving to Edmonton's Old Strathcona Farmer's Market on Saturday about 07:45 - along 83 Ave. from 109 St. to 105 St. - I've noticed a woman ~50 years old on a motorized wheelchair driving along 83 Ave. to the Farmer's Market. All I noticed was that she appeared to blow into a straw to control her vehicle and I assumed perhaps she had cerebral palsy. 

Last week at Whyte and 111 St., where I'd never seen her before, the same woman asked me for help. Specifically, she asked if I could transfer something on her wheelchair's foot plate, which was in danger of falling off, to the storage bin at the back of the wheelchair. 

As I helped, for the first time, seeing her close up, I noticed that she had stumps for arms and legs. She also had a slight speech impediment but was totally understandable. I thought, so not cerebral palsy, at least not alone, and perhaps she was a victim of Canada's thalidomide tragedy. 

When I said I had seen her many times on Saturdays going to the Old Strathcona Farmer's Market, she replied, 'Yes, it's my favorite place in the whole world.' Walking away, I admit to fighting tears. 

2. By chance this past Saturday, as I exited the Old Strathcona Farmer's Market - where some doors on 83 Ave. were closed (which usually aren't) - the same woman was just arriving. I held the door open and she drove in. 

But - and it's a big but - there was a partition directly in front of the door that blocked her access. She literally was stuck up against the partition unable to go forwards or backwards. I waited to see if I could help. She struggled with her 'sip and puff' control system and finally got her wheelchair seat to swivel and drive sideways to bypass the partition.

As for me, I was gobsmacked by her spirit and courage. Complaining about my aches, pains, and inconveniences just became A WHOLE LOT HARDER.

Comments are most welcome.

Why I will NOT vote for Harper:Part 8 (Economic Record)

Harper's Economic Record

Eighth  in a series of mini-blogs on Canada's federal election to be held 19 Oct. 2015. 
DaBa, pen name of a Guest Blogger, wrote the blogs. 
My comments follow the  blog. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Harper's Conservatives like to promote themselves as good managers of Canada's economy. The reality is quite different.

Deficits
In 2006-07, the Conservatives inherited a surplus of $13.8 billion — which they turned into a deficit of $5.8 billion within two years. Subsequently, they have been in deficit each and every year. Since Harper was elected, the federal debt has increased by over $150 billion. 

Economic growth
Canada's economy declined in every year since 2010 and averaged only 1.7 per cent per year. In the previous nine years, economic growth averaged 3.4 per cent annually.

Jobs and unemployment
In 2014, only 120,000 new jobs were created — less than in 2013. 
At the end of 2014 compared to 2008:

• Employment rate (percentage of adult population employed) was lower;
• Labour force participation rate was lower;
• Youth unemployment rate was higher;
• Share of total employment made up of full-time jobs was less; 
• Quality of jobs had sunk to its lowest level in a quarter of a century.

Harper's economic record in a nutshell:

• No matter how you add it up, Harper’s fiscal record is a catastrophe

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments
Harper, like most politicians, likes to take credit for good economic times and blame bad times on the global economy, forces beyond his control. And  he's correct that global forces play an important role in how Canada's economy performs.  For example:

• Strength of Canadian $ compared to US $ 
• Affects all nations with weak or strong currencies, e.g., Swiss strong currency negatively affects its drug manufacturing companies; 
• Weak CDN $ good for exports, bad for firms who must buy US goods to manufacture products.

• China's economy slows so it buys fewer of Canada's exports (applies to all exporting nations). 

• China devaluates its currency, the yuan, and takes commodities-linked currencies like Canada's down because China is a huge importer of our commodities. 

Harper links Canada's economic record  - good and bad under his watch to -  two major events:

1. Global financial crisis of 2007-8
Harper claims credit because we did better than others, conveniently omitting to mention that

• Liberal government left economy in great shape; 
• Our existing bank laws prevented the greedy excesses of US financial institutions.

Bottom line: We did well not because of anything Harper did but because of prior Liberal government policies and Canada's strong banking laws.

2. Plummeting oil prices tanked Canada's economy
Fall in oil prices  - caused by Saudi flooding the market to retain market share - effects all Canada's oil producing provinces, most notably Alberta, and the entire Canadian economy.

After long denying the 'R' word, Harper claims the current recession (if it is that) is not his fault AND our economy is strong.

REALITY CHECK
As DaBa's blog explains, Harper's economic record is terrible. To claim otherwise is to try to bamboozle Canadian voters. Harper thinks we are stupid. Harper cannot take credit for Canada's relative strong performance after the 2008 recession.

Canada would not be in the economic trouble it is today if Harper and his conservative pals in Alberta did not bank most everything on oil versus promoting sustainable energy, a more diversified economy, and investing in infrastructure.

Facts

• Harper's brand as strong on the economy is fiction using any economic indicator, whether deficits, growth, job quality, unemployment;
• His policies have left Canada weak, susceptible and powerless to global oil prices.

Like his environmental record, Harper's economic record is a massive FAIL. He does not deserve our vote. 

As always, comments are most welcome. 

Part 9. Summary: Harper does NOT deserve our vote

Why I will NOT vote for Harper:Part 7 (Environmental Record)

Harper's Environmental Record

Seventh in a series of mini-blogs on Canada's federal election to be held 19 Oct. 2015. 
DaBa, pen name of a Guest Blogger, wrote the blogs. 
My comments follow the  blog. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In 2002, when Harper was leader of the Canadian Alliance, he sent a letter to supporters saying

We're gearing up for the biggest struggle our party has faced since you entrusted me with the leadership. I'm talking about the 'Battle of Kyoto' - our campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto Accord. 

Soon after he won his majority in 2011, Harper pulled Canada out of Kyoto, the first signatory to do so.

Given the subsequent environmental performance of the Harper government,  Germanwatch and Climate Action Network Europe - which produce an annual report card on climate change performance - rated Canada 58th out of 61 countries in regards to its efforts to combat global warming, above only Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan and Australia. 

• Climate change performance index (Dec. 2014)

In 2013, these organizations said Canada 'shows no intention of moving forward with climate policy and therefore remains the worst performer of all industrialized countries.' 

• Canada has worst climate change record in industrialized world

In 2012, the government launched an unprecedented assault on Canada's environmental laws when it introduced Bill C-38, an omnibus bill that put a halt to automatic environmental assessments of projects under the federal government's purview. 

All told, the Fisheries Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act and Canadian Environmental Assessment Act were either repealed or simply gutted, while the NEB was neutered, a reality felt to this day:

• Dozens drop out of 'biased' energy board review of Trans Mountain pipeline (12 Aug. 2015)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments
Navigating through the statistics of which countries perform best on climate control is difficult and, in a way, irrelevant, even given that's it's damn embarrassing to be ranked so low by global organizations. We're a proud nation and hate to be viewed negatively on the world stage.  

But that's what Harper's regime has led us to on the environment, where we're widely mocked internationally. 

Perhaps a more valid benchmark is how well Canada accomplishes what we say we will. 

• 2009: Canada signed  Copenhagen Accord, committing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 by 17% from 2005 levels.
• Baring drastic action, Environment Canada projects that 2020 levels will only be slightly less than they were in 2005. 
• Huh? Talk about under-performing. 
• And it's because Harper isn't serious about climate change.

In comparison

• USA reduced greenhouse gases by ~10% between 2005 and 2012.
• EU  says it's on track to meet  2020 target of reducing greenhouse gas levels by 20% from 1990 levels.

Harper routinely lies about everything, including claiming his government has a great record on greenhouse gases. Fact is, according to international watchdogs, even the United Nations, we have worst record of industrialized nations. 

With Harper on the environment and any issue, it's all about 

• Controlling the message to protect his government by lying & obfuscating facts.

Canada can do much better by balancing economic benefits of oil sector with protecting the environment and developing sustainable energy resources. We have everything needed to be leader of sustainable energy on world stage except political will, thanks to Harper.

Harper's environmental record is a massive FAIL and he does not deserve our vote. 

As always, comments are most welcome. 

Part 8. Harper's Economic Record

Why I will NOT vote for Harper:Part 6 (Abuse of Prorogation)

Harper's Abuse of Prorogation 

Sixth in a series of mini-blogs on Canada's federal election to be held 19 Oct. 2015. 
DaBa, pen name of a Guest Blogger, wrote the blogs. 
My comments follow the  blog. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Although prorogation normally allows governments to bring in fresh bills, usually mid-way through a prime minister's mandate, Harper has used prorogation four times, shutting down parliament for a total of 181 days.

In December 2008, Harper enraged constitutional experts by proroguing Parliament. Many accused him of simply trying to avoid a confidence vote over a fiscal update, which his minority government appeared certain to lose. 

Apart from the doomed attempts of Charles I to prorogue the British parliament in the 17th century, there has not been precedent in any parliamentary democracy anywhere in the world where a democratic parliament was shut down to hide from a vote of confidence. 

• Prorogation redux: Harper in contempt of Parliament 

In 2010, Harper prorogued parliament again in the midst of a controversy over Canada's treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan.

In August 2013, Harper prorogued during a scandal involving the expenses of Conservative senators.

Opposition Leader Tom Mulcair accused Harper of shutting down Parliament to evade accountability and to avoid questions on the Senate. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments
What is prorogation of Parliament? 

The main effect of ending a session by prorogation is to end all government business. All government bills that have not received Royal Assent prior to prorogation cease to exist; committee activity also ceases. Thus, no committee can sit after a prorogation.

Note who wrote 'Harper in contempt of Parliament' above:

• Errol B. Mendes
• The person calling our PM in contempt isn't a political shill for opposition parties, or a leftie media hack, he is a constitutional lawyer of the highest regard internationally.

Even The Economist, not a left-wing rag by anyone's standards, chastises Harper on his abuse of proroguing:

• Harper goes prorogue: Parliamentary scrutiny may be tedious, but democracies cannot afford to dispense with it

To date these blogs have featured Harper's contempt for and attacks on democracy whether it be

• Control of the media
• Censuring of scientists
• Abuse of Question Period
• Obstruction of 'access to information' requests
• Abuse of omnibus bills

Today, Harper's anti-democratic mentality is evident by forcing Canadians who want to attend his campaign events to be vetted by the party and receive a bar-coded ticket bearing their name.

Honest, you couldn't make this stuff up.

As an aside, Conservatives has been embarrassed into relenting on the 'no photos' rule, naturally putting a spin on it, but stick to the vetting. To claim it's about security is nonsense since Harper's party has done it since at least 2008.

With Harper it's all about 

• Controlling the message, as practiced by authoritarian regimes worldwide;
• Even if it means abusing democracy.

Harper does not deserve our vote. It's fair to say he is a SCARY outlier among all prior Canadian Prime Ministers. 

As always, comments are most welcome. 

Part 7. Harper's Environmental Record

Why I will NOT vote for Harper:Part 5 (Abuse of Omnibus Bills)

Harper's Abuse of Omnibus Bills 

Fifth in a series of mini-blogs on Canada's federal election to be held 19 Oct. 2015. 
DaBa, pen name of a Guest Blogger, wrote the blogs. 
My comments follow the  blog. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When Harper was a Reform MP, he argued that a Liberal 20-page omnibus bill should be broken up so that its measures could get closer scrutiny. 

However, when Harper came to power, in 2010, he tabled an omnibus bill with 883 pages addressing a multitude of issues, served with the threat of an election if the opposition failed to support its passage. 

Since then, Harper has passed 10 more omnibus bills, each between 300 to 450 pages. Each has been an abuse of process and each has shown contempt for Parliament by subverting its role.  

Major changes to policy and law that should have been examined by MPs have been pushed through with almost no debate, sometimes with disastrous results:

• Harper's Ottawa is omnibusted (Globe and Mail, 2014)
• Harper sneaks in ideology-driven policy via a 321-page “omnibus” budget bill with many unrelated measures (Toronto Star, 2013)

In 2012, one of the omnibus bills, C-38,

• Completely gutted Canada’s environmental laws;
• Cut $36-billion from health care funding;
• Weakened Canada’s food inspectors through job cuts;
• Made it harder to qualify for EI benefits. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments
PM Harper consistently shows himself to be a hypocrite, preaching one policy when in opposition, and behaving exactly the opposite once in power. 

His 180^o turn on omnibus bills is especially odious. Once again Harper 

• Manipulates laws for political purposes;
• Hides them from MP scrutiny; 
• Hides them from Canadians;
• Mocks parliament with his utter contempt;
• Degrades Canada's democracy.

An omnibus bill is a single document accepted in a single vote that groups together multiple diverse measures. Because of its large size and scope, an omnibus bill limits opportunities for debate and scrutiny. As such, omnibus bills allow governments to

•  Subvert and evade the normal principles of parliamentary review of legislation.

And they've become a Conservative government brand. The PM's 'flipping us the bird', folks. Harper does not deserve our vote. 

As always, comments are most welcome. 

Part 6. Harper's Abuse of Prorogation

Why I will NOT vote for Harper:Part 4 (Obstruction of Access to Information Requests)

Harper's Obstruction of Access to Information Requests

Fourth in a series of mini-blogs on Canada's federal election to be held 19 Oct. 2015. 
DaBa, pen name of a Guest Blogger, wrote the blogs. 
My comments follow the  blog. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When Stephen Harper came to power in 2006, his stand on "transparency and accountability" included a promise to reform Canada's 30-year-old Access to Information Act, in particular to give the information commissioner the ability to order release of information, to read cabinet records and to adjudicate complaints. Subsequently, few substantive changes have been made to the Act.

Instead, the government has gained a reputation for secrecy, erecting one roadblock after another to any attempts to shed more light on government's inner workings, from the handling of Afghan prisoners to its battles with independent watchdogs.   

Ironic, because when Mr. Harper was opposition leader, he said: 

Information is the lifeblood of a democracy. Without adequate access to key information about government policies and programs, citizens and parliamentarians cannot make informed decisions and incompetent or corrupt governments can be hidden under a cloak of secrecy.

Incredibly, one access to information request actually resulted in the Harper government retroactively changing a law to cover criminal activity. 

After the government got rid of the long gun-registry in 2012, the RCMP was ordered by the Government to destroy its records. By then, however, an access to information request for this data had been made. The RCMP destroyed the information anyway, which, according to Suzanne Legault, Canada's information commissioner, is a criminal offence if an access request is being processed. Legault recommended charges be laid against the responsible RCMP members. 

However, in an omnibus bill, the Harper government simply retroactively rewrote the access laws to erase the RCMP's mishandling of gun registry records, to protect these officers from facing criminal charges. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments

On Access to Information, Harper behaves exactly the opposite to what he advocated when in opposition, which makes our PM a hypocrite. Many politicos change tunes once in power but Harper's behaviour makes him unique in the annals of Canada's political hypocrisy. He's done 180^o turn on so many issues. Our PM's brand includes secrecy and manipulating laws for political purposes.  

Retroactively changing laws sets a dangerous precedent. As a Canadian citizen it scares the hell out of me.

• Tories set ‘perilous precedent’ by retroactively changing law to absolve RCMP, information commissioner says

The Harper government not only rewrote a law and backdated the changes, it buried it in an omnibus bill. That should scare every Canadian.

Harper degrades Canada's democracy to an extent never before seen in any of our past governments. Harper does not deserve our vote. 

As always, comments are most welcome.

Part 5. Harper's Abuse of Omnibus Bills

Why I will NOT vote for Harper:Part 3 (Abuse of Question Period)

Harper Government's Abuse of Question Period 

Third in a series of mini-blogs on
Canada's federal election to be held 19 Oct. 2015.

DaBa, pen name of a Guest Blogger, wrote the blogs.
My comments follow the  blog. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question Period is supposed to be the heart of Canadian democracy, where the government is held to account by the opposition and forced to explain and justify its policies.

However, rather than provide clarity and transparency, Harper Government responses to questions during Question Period more often result in evasion, reading of prepared talking-points, denigration of the questioner, and/or aggrandisement of the government.

Paul Calandra, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, best exemplifies the nature of these responses. For example, when asked to provide more information about the scope of Canada's foray into the Middle East

• Calandra launched into a totally irrelevant accusation that an NDP fundraiser had accused Israel of genocide and that New Democrats do not support Israel. 

Similarly, when Calandra was asked how many lawyers from the PMO were involved in setting up the secret deal with Mike Duffy, he responded with an irrelevant non-answer, laughably lauding Harper's government:

Thank goodness Canadians elected a strong, stable, national Conservative majority government, led by the best prime minister in the world, flanked by a minister of finance who has won awards, with the strongest cabinet in Canadian history and Conservative members of Parliament working all over the country to hope for hope, jobs and economic prosperity.

In keeping with his failure to be accountable and transparent, Harper attended only 35% of the daily Question Periods in 2015. To further avoid answering questions, Harper signalled he would not participate in 2015 election leaders' debates organized by a consortium of broadcasters.

This is the same Prime Minister who has

• Refused to meet Canada's provincial and territorial premiers as a group;
• Skipped the Council of the Federation meetings of Canada's provincial and territorial premiers for years;and
• Did not attend the January 2015 meeting although it met just a few blocks from his office. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As stated in Canada's Model Parliament for students, daily Question Period in a parliamentary democracy is an opportunity for MPs to obtain information for their constituents and all Canadians, a chance for MPs to hold government accountable for its actions.
The right to seek information and hold the government accountable are two of the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy. 
That Harper has Paul Calandra as a Parliamentary Secretary says volumes about our PM: 

• One of Calandra's many disgraceful performances in QP, as instructed by PM Harper (After 75 seconds of CBC ads, but it's well worth it)

Harper systematically degrades our Parliament's QP and by extension Canada's democracy. Our PM prevents Canadians from 

• Getting answers to important questions;
• Being aware of key information that affects us all;
• Holding our government accountable for its actions;
• Even those involving sending our sons and daughters into life and death situations.

Harper does not deserve our vote.

As always, comment are not welcome.

Part 4: Harper's Abuse of Access to Information Requests

Why I will NOT vote for Harper:Part 2 (Censuring of scientists)

Harper Government's Censuring of Scientists 

Second in a series of mini-blogs on
Canada's federal election to be held 19 Oct. 2015.

DaBa, pen name of a Guest Blogger, wrote the blogs.
My comments follow the  blog. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Stephen Harper's information policies muzzle scientists in dealings with the media:

• Canada must free scientists to talk to journalists (Nature 2010;467:501)

For example, climate change researchers from Environment Canada have been prevented from

• Sharing their work at conferences;
• Giving interviews to journalists;
• Even talking about research that has already been published. 

Similarly, scientists in departments that deal with natural resources, health, fisheries and oceans have also felt the pinch of the muzzle. Nine out of 10 federal scientists feel they are not allowed to speak freely to the media about their research. 

• Why Canada needs a Parliamentary science office

In 2013, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), representing 20,000 federal scientists, found that

• Hundreds of their members reported being asked to exclude or alter technical information in government documents for non-scientific (political) reasons;
• Thousands reported being prevented from responding to the media or the public.

As a result, PIPSC abandoned its tradition of neutrality in elections to actively campaign against PM Harper.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments
Harper's policy of preventing scientists from talking to the media, even about their published papers, is difficult to understand.

• Harper shackles science done by Canadians working in federal departments when it doesn’t serve his political interest;
• He prevents research from being published, even research done in collaboration with international scientists.

Such policies make a joke of Canada. We're a democracy yet Harper's actions resemble those of the authoritarian regimes of the former USSR. 

Of note, when PIPSC goes to the bargaining table this year, it will seek a clause guaranteeing scientists the “right to speak.” They say Canada is the first country in the world where scientists have sought that kind of clause in a contract.

You know it's bad when the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) sends a letter to Harper urging him to knock it off: Prime Minister urged to end clampdown on scientists.

Scientists are quitting their jobs and will increasingly leave a stifling environment. Harper's policy routinely suppresses not only big science but even minor scientific news. Why? Because he has to control everything? That's what control freaks do.

Shackling scientists has consequences: it weakens Canada's ability to deal with ongoing and future environmental issues that affect us all. 

• Harper controlling the science message

Harper also puts politics above scientific evidence as when he tried to shut down Vancouver's Insite safe injection site, but was overruled by Canada's Supreme Court, which stated

• The evidence indicates that a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety.

In response Harper created Bill C-2 designed to make it difficult for new sites to open. The bill is opposed by the Canadian Nurses Association and others.

Similar to his controlling the media, Harper seeks to control scientists, undermine scientific evidence, and weaken democracy. That's how he consistently behaves, folks. It's our Prime Minister's brand. He does Canadians a disservice and does not deserve our vote.

As always, comments are most welcome.

Part 3: Harper's Abuse of Question Period

Why I will NOT vote for a “Harper Government”: Part 1 (Control of the media)

Harper Government’s Control of the Media

This is the first of a series of mini-blogs on 

Canada's federal election to be held 19 Oct. 2015. 

DaBa, pen name of a Guest Blogger, wrote the blogs. 

My brief comments follow each blog. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While campaigning to replace the Martin Liberals, Stephen Harper promised more openness and accountability, however, throughout his term as Prime Minister, he has drawn

• Criticism for his near-total inaccessibility to journalists who cover politics. 

The Harper government has established more roadblocks to access to information than any previous government. For example:

• Press  releases announcing events at which the PM would be speaking, often stipulate that photographers and videographers can attend, but no journalists will be allowed. 
• As a result, broadcasts of the event show the PM speaking from a script without responses to any politically relevant questions. 

The role of the press in government matters is to monitor the different levels of government and report to the public. However, the Harper government's media policy is to prevent media access and subsequent reporting to Canadians. Journalists regularly report that 

• Their calls are not returned;
• They are given copies of speeches only when they are days old;
• Cabinet meetings are held in secret allowing ministers to avoid the press who wish to meet with them after the meetings and ask questions about their portfolios. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments 

DaBa has it right and it follows that Stephen Harper's Conservative government actively sets out to stifle democracy in the pursuit of self-interest. This alone is sufficient reason for Canadians not to vote Conservative.

Excerpt from 'The Role of the Press' by Dmitry Fadeyev (Feb. 2014) 

Members of the public cannot sit still and be passive participants of their state, but must, for the state to be a democracy, take an active role in asserting their will.

For a democracy to be a true democracy, the people must be active participants in political discourse, and for this to happen, the press itself must be an active agent that brings this about.

Harper's policy of limiting media access lessens our democracy. He and his Conservative government do not deserve the votes of Canadians.

As always, comments are most welcome. 
Part 2: Harper's Censuring of Scientists