Harper’S Amero/SPP Plot

Such was the case with Gordon O’Conner, who was done in as minion of defense by Harper’s pro-Bush militarism in Afghanistan, especially the scandal of Taleban prisoners being tortured after Canadian soldiers turned them over to an Afghan faction. O’Conner, though clearly not up to the job, could not be blamed for a policy that was entirely the product of Harper’s devotion to the U.S. and Israel. Nevertheless, O’Conner was shuffled off to a less conspicuous post and replaced at defense by Foreign Minion Peter McKay. Other changes were not significant. While this non-event got more attention than it deserved, substantive coverage of Harper –- and Paul Martin before him -- taking Canada’s sovereignty to the cleaners has been all but non-existent. What little we do know about it comes largely from public protests and organizations like the Canadian Action Party. On Aug. 20 and 21 Harper, Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderón met at Château Montebello in Quebec to discuss the (shhh!) Security and Prosperity Partnership, which has as its objective the consolidation of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico into one North American politico-economic entity. To the sub rosa conclave, the press and parliamentarians were not invited, although business leaders were. According to official sources, critics of the SPP have it all wrong -- the SPP isn’t a treaty or an agreement; it’s simply “a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity.” If that be the case, why is this claim found on a website bearing a U.S. government domain and why is there no public dialogue? (Felton’s Second Law of Electoral Politics: “A transparently self-serving, virtuous title for a group or project serves to mask conduct detrimental to the public good and rule of law.” For example: Security and Prosperity Partnership, Canadian Coalition for Democracies, and “Operation: Enduring Freedom”.) When a dialogue on the SPP was organized in June 2007 at the University of Ottawa, the Harper government refused to participate. Granted, the event at Simard Hall was highly critical of the SPP, but Harper should have sent a representative, if for no other reason than to regurgitate official fictions, deny the obvious, and give the illusion that he gives a damn what Canadians think. The fact that Harper refuses to debate the SPP fuels legitimate speculation that something criminal is going on, and that he is betraying the interests of Canadians. Sue Corcoran of the Council of Canadians rightly points out that the SPP, unlike the North American Free (sic) Trade Agreement, is not being discussed among elected legislators in full view of the public; rather, it’s being negotiated in secret by unelected bureaucrats. Harper was elected by Canadians, but his primary allegiance is to his church and pro-U.S./pro-Israel interest groups. The case of Regina v. Stephen Harper on the charge of sedition in the matter of the SPP begins here. http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=155076 [Proofreader’s note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on October 18, 2007]

Note: http://www.tehrantimes....