April 13, 2003 – B
More on David Orchard
“…They are advocating deeper and deeper integration into our powerful neighbour, talking about removing the border altogether in economic and even military terms. The next step, we are informed, may be for Canada to adopt the US dollar as the common currency for the North American free trade zone. For Canada to give up its currency would mean the end of our monetary and fiscal independence…”
“…there are clauses in the Canada U.S. trade agreements that in my view are not related to free trade and which are jeopardizing our sovereignty, our prosperity and our future well being…”
“…we conceded under chapter 11 of NAFTA, for the first time in history, the right of private American companies to sue the Canadian government directly for any law or regulation in Canada which in their opinion causes them “loss or harm” and which they feel contravenes the terms of NAFTA…”
“…Not only did we not achieve free trade, we have ended up curtailing our freedom to such an extent that every government in Canada now crafts any proposed legislation to make sure it won’t become the target of a NAFTA law suit. This is no way for Canada to govern itself. We can trade freely and productively around the world and keep our ability to pass laws in our own interest at the same time.”
“…In my view we must rebuild the Canadian military. The ongoing dismantling of our military capacity is an absolute disgrace. The military is the key tool any nation uses to defend and maintain its sovereignty. We can no longer even rescue our people lost at sea or patrol our borders in an effective way.”
“At the same time the Liberal government is taking steps to merge what is left of our military under US command.”
“My position is that our military must be rebuilt and maintained under Canadian command. Its focus should be the maintenance of our territorial integrity, and it should not be used to launch attacks on smaller countries across the globe…”
“The Canadian military must be used to protect our country and to keep the peace. I am strongly opposed, for example, to an attack on Iraq. Such an attack would be a blatant violation of international law…” (1)
I disagree with the part about publicly owned forests and the Kyoto Accord, but he is right about many things.
(5/30/20 – Now i think it makes sense to have a balance of some kind–democratically controlled resources so that they’re not turned over to public-private control or mega-corporations in the long term–which has been happening anyway for “publicly owned forests” being removed from public access and turned over to private conservation groups, but there should also be private ownership for everyone–for all citizens–and private ownership is traditional in Europe anyway. Forests should be accessible both ways to ordinary people–not just for corporate use–which is what is actually happening, and especially with these big Agenda 21 plans I learned about much later).
“Canadians have won a historic victory with the federal government’s decision to rein in its “Big Brother” database, the privacy commissioner said Wednesday.”(3)
Canada and Iraq War
“If the government still thinks this war was wrong, they have no right – no matter how subtly – to be offering the Americans our congratulations on it.”(4)
But I don’t agree that M.P.’s should be “chastened”. Members of Parliament are adults and should be saying what they like and speaking up for their country and their values. In fact, they should be the ones running the government – not just the Prime Minister. There are enough M.P.’s speaking for U.S. government interests in Parliament.
April 8, 2003 Avril Lavigne speaks out on Iraqi war
Pop star applauds Canada’s stance
“I don’t believe war is a way to solve problems. I think it’s wrong. I don’t have respect for the people that made the decisions to go on with war. I don’t have that much respect for (U.S. President George) Bush. He’s about war, I’m not about war — a lot of people aren’t about war,” she said forcefully. (5)
Liberty & War
“In early March, Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced the Freedom to Read Protection Act (H.R. 1157), federal legislation that would remove a threat to the privacy of bookstore and library records posed by Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act.” (6)
“Neo-imperialism and the ‘Anglosphere’ – pro-war immigrants want an American Empire”
“”People are now coming out of the closet on the word ’empire’,” noted Washington Post resident neocon Charles Krauthammer. It’s a measure of the new shamelessness. No idea is too obscene as to not enjoy its momentary fashion, not even the repeal of the American Revolution.”(7)
“Now that our president has embedded us in the Middle East for an indefinite future, you might as well start trying to educate yourself about the area and its conflicts.”(8)
Discusses the part played by Britain historically.
April 9, 2003 The Ends of Alliance in Iraq
by Christopher Deliso
Analysis of events surrounding Iraq war including possible disagreements between the U.S. and Britain.
“The most serious condemnation has come from the Council of Europe’s 45 members, some of whom had been included in the “coalition of the willing” previously. Croatia was the bravest of the European turncoats. The former Yugoslav nation – one which owes its freedom to American military training and supplies – declared the war to be “unjustifiable” and asked to be removed from the coalition. When the US Ambassador to Croatia warned darkly of “consequences,” the government surprisingly hit back, demanding an apology…”
“…Although it did not send troops, Canada has also failed to condemn the war outright. Of course, tacit toleration is not good enough for the likes of Richard Perle, who recently blustered that Prime Minister Chrétien has “subordinated” himself to France, and made a “very unfortunate” decision having “implications for the US-Canadian relationship.”” (9)
September 14 2001 Why the Bush Administration Wants War
More lefties who are right about war. Statement of the WSWS Editorial Board. A socialist view from Sept 14, 2001 (10)
The Agrarian Foundation
An alternative political movement that looks interesting. Could it be adapted for non-Christians?
“…Even though our roots are in the Social Conservatism of the Right, we increasingly have grown to see many problems with popular Modernism. Some of these views, suprisingly, are shared by those with roots in Liberal Leftism, though enunciated somewhat differently…”
“This all will be set in contrast to the Modern and Urban status quo. Our letterhead slogan, ‘…landed property, humane economy, & independent community’ summarizes the agrarian vision, which Thomas Jefferson, among others, thought essential for true and lasting liberty… “
- “Decided Agrarians — already familiar with the ideals of historic Agrarianism.
- Cultural anti-Modernists — concerned with the directions and problems of Modern culture.
- Anti-Globalists — concerned with the dependencies of Modern Urban & Suburban living.
- Conservationists — and responsible environmentalists concerned with the abuse of Creation.
- Communitarians — already promoting Localism and Rural development.
- Social traditionalists — and conservatives concerned about the loss of individual and local liberty.
- Economic Libertarians — concerned about the dominance of Big Government and Big Business.
- Senior citizens — concerned about the disappearance of farming communities. “(11)
- (5/30/2020 – actually this description sets off a few red flags for me now having researched Agenda 21, which is also called communitarianism–which Bill Clinton spoke about. There is always a “conservative” side to these things, so it makes me wonder–more research if I get a chance.)
Author discusses morality, self-interest, consumption, technological change, community, commercialization of everything, the good society, the ideas of Wilhelm Roepke, moral subjectivism/relativism vs. objective values.
The main point is very well taken. Pure self-interest can be destructive, even to the free market and to our freedoms.
Self-interest, however, can also be a very positive thing – especially for those who are so used to blindly serving the interests of others, including “higher authorities” such as the State.
I don’t agree with any implication that the State is qualified to impose objective values – only to protect violations of basic rights.
I believe it is enough for objective values to be merely voiced by business owners, customers, families, individuals and the community, and thus act as a non-coercive persuasive brake on the culturally destructive impact of certain business activities.
I agree that the health of our society depends on the personal integrity of the average person. The State can’t fix that problem when it’s lacking, and the more liberties are lost, the worse it gets. So people ought to simply express their values instead of lobbying for their government to create new laws, fines and jails.
Other points: I think trade with China and Cuba can have a very positive influence on those countries. Also, competition should arise naturally and it doesn’t have to be forced if a company is the best at what it does.
PRESS CONFERENCE IN OTTAWA, JANUARY 21, 2003, David Orchard declaring his candidacy for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada
New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal, March 19, 2003, Tory leadership candidate strikes a chord with Canadians by Janice Harvey
CBC News, ‘Big brother’ travel database restricted Apr 9, 2003
CBC News, Canada’s wavering war stance: Mixed messages and lost opportunities April 7, 2003 by Rex Murphy
American Booksellers Association, news.bookweb.org, Congressman Ron Paul Urges Booksellers to Rally in Support of H.R. 1157 , March 27, 2003
World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org, Why the Bush administration wants war Statement of the WSWS Editorial Board 14 September 2001
Dr. Ralph Ancil, President, Wilhelm Roepke InstituteThe Philadelphia Society, National Meeting in Philadelphia, April 26, 1997, “Morality and Markets: The Humane Balance”