A Dim View of "Enlightened Sovereignty"
When our well-travelled Prime Minister addressed the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, this January, he made Swiss cheese of our sovereignty – you know, sovereignty, the right of a nation to be unique, to make its own laws, to govern itself without interference from outside its borders, and to protect the civil rights of its citizens.
“Notions rooted in a narrow view of sovereignty and national self interest must be reconsidered. We cannot do business as though for one to have more, another must have less. That is not true, it is not just, and it cannot be the path we take …Our ambition … must be a shared belief that the rising tide of recovery must lift all boats, not just some. This is the exercise of sovereignty at its most enlightened.” ~ Prime Minister Stephen Harper
How very humanitarian-sounding. And how very deceptive, this sleight-of-hand that has him pointing upward to heaven and an “enlightened stance”: his gilded phrases paint a picture of a more “just” global society, replete with warm, fuzzy images of neighbor helping neighbor through tough times. But behind the words hide a reality that was easy to miss, in the midst of Harper’s pep talk.
The trouble with this sort of political doublespeak is that the words are often accepted at face value, without an awful lot of thought, simply because they sound uplifting. But how is this heavenly state of pure justice and compassion to be attained? Caught up in the high of the moment, few will ask. Those who do will find that what Harper paints as a selfless, just and true path to take must, by definition, involve the collaboration of foreign authorities in order to develop a “shared belief”. That would mean each nation would have to sit down with other nations to determine whose sovereign laws had to be “adjusted” – and that would mean that the wishes of the voters of those “free and democratic” nations would be, of necessity, ignored.
So far, this “enlightenment” consists of lightening our burden of decision-making, as in what values we should uphold, what laws to enact, and what standards to maintain, because, gosh, we shouldn’t be so selfish. Instead, we should accept decisions made by foreign-dominated committees. Correct me if I’m wrong, but to me, that smacks of a global governance system in fetu, about to be birthed and nourished with more and more collective decision-making, until it is in place and in control, a real-life Rosemary’s Baby in the guise of a saving grace for an “enlightened” humanity.
The fact that the chief pitchman for this idea happens to be our prime minister makes my stomach heave.
What’s really disturbing is the level of manipulation being used here, the subtle phrasing that ends up creating a clearly two-sided argument, where if you choose the right side, you look and feel like a hero for being a “humanitarian”, and if you question the process and seek to delve deeper into its ramifications, you are made to look and feel like a selfish jerk who doesn’t care about other people.
This is a propaganda technique: the limiting of the scope of argument (for efficiency’s sake, of course), limits the scope of discussion, which limits the scope of understanding – along with the outcome. At its most manipulative use, the desired choice is presented as being “necessary” in order to prevent something unthinkable from occurring. One is made, in this case, to choose Harper’s “enlightenment” strategy, or else be seen as the aforementioned jerk.
The Illusion of Free Choice
Many people will fall into that trap, and will accept, as they are assured, that there are only two ways to go, thereby leaving them sacrificing their sovereignty “for the good of all”. In order for the reader to understand exactly how this works, let’s take a peek at a couple of recent examples, right from the legislative pens of the Harper government. There are a lot to choose from, but these rather stand out.
Warrantless search and seizure of private consumer use data from internet service providers was hyped by the Harper gang last spring, and was touted as the only way the government could protect children from the ravages of kiddie pornographers who vend their perversion over the internet. So if you want to preserve our enshrined right of protection from illegal search and seizure, you’re in favor of kiddie porn.
The same game was trotted out by Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, as she cautioned the Senate that failure to approve Bill C-6, the late, but soon-to-be-reincarnated Canada Consumer Protection Act, would result in the corpses of dead babies stacking up. Never mind that the bill wiped out the law of trespass, provided for the same warrantless search and seizure as the ISP legislation, and gave the Minister the judicial power of judge, jury and executioner. C-6 would give her unprecedented power over ordinary Canadians, and would open the door for other areas of legislation to be so affected. But gosh, how could you be in favor of dead babies?
And lest we forget, all this harks back to the profound pronouncement of George Dubya Bush immediately after the “attack” on the World Trade Center: “You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists.”
The same sort of pressure was subtly brought to bear internationally, over the past year, with the World Health Organization’s declaration of a Level 6 Swine Flu “pandemic” -- after it conveniently redefined the word so that it could make that pronouncement. Surely, hinted World Health mogul Margaret Chan, we don’t want this virus spreading, so everybody co-operate and let’s all get our vaccinations... and with that, she gave herself the ability to collapse governments, declare martial law, and force vaccination of entire populations, regardless of sovereign laws, in all nations which signed (as Canada did) the WHO’s International Health Regulations.
The H1N1 “shamdemic” did not eventuate in such draconian measures being taken, but it might have. No matter. What was created, notwithstanding, was a massive windfall for vaccine-makers, billions upon billions of dollars, for useless, largely-untested, toxic vaccines which ultimately would be refused by most of the world’s population, then foisted upon developing countries as a “benefit” from the “caring” international community, to wreak havoc with their health and their fertility.
The case in point, though, is how it was sold: a choice that was not a choice, just as “enlightened sovereignty” is not a free choice, but a forced hand. Harper clearly thinks we are incapable of figuring out such tricks. But no, Stephen, you can only fool all of the people some of the time.
When we take an enlightened look at Harper’s suggested version of sovereignty, we find that it involves having no real sovereignty whatsoever. Instead, international committees would “agree” on how to govern their sovereignty, in exchange for unspecified benefits to humankind. But wait! That’s almost the exact definition of a trade agreement, given on the website of the World Trade Organization!
Yessiree, the WTO says that a trade agreement is the international version of a contract, and in this contract, the signatory nation accepts the “benefits” of belonging to the group, in exchange for agreeing to govern its sovereignty according to the direction of the group.
Now, can we understand the nefarious tactics being used here? Can we see the depth, breadth, and height of the mountain of manipulation being foisted upon us at every level, while smiling politicians soothe that this is the “just” and “humane” path? Isn’t this the most massive of the herd of elephants in the drawing room?
Sovereignty Suicide in Bill C-6
Much has been said of the constitutional violations in Bill C-6, which fell to prorogation, but will be reinstated as soon as possible in the new session of Parliament, beginning March 3rd. Hopefully, by that time, our Members of Parliament will be made aware that the Ministry seeking uber-alles powers of enforcement is the same one that has already been using and abusing the powers sought via Bill C-6, without benefit of it having become law.
Health Canada has shamelessly and voraciously enforced against sellers and producers of Natural Health Products for years. Recently, the whole country learned of the gun-point raid of Calgary’s Dr. Eldon Dahl, which atrocity heavily influenced the Senate’s heroic amendments to Bill C-6 in its last incarnation.
Just this week, we found out about North Regent Rx, a little-company-that-could, based in tiny Lockport, a few clicks north of Winnipeg, Manitoba. Their story reveals yet another witch hunt by minions of Health Canada, and involves a natural product by the name of Libidus, which had been making moves world-wide on a well-known competitor: Pfizer’s Viagra.
An interesting blast from the past, clipped from CBC Online News, December 3rd, 2009:
“(Health Minister) Aglukkaq told reporters on Thursday
that there is no conflict of interest in the appointment of Bernard Prigent,
vice-president and medical director of Pfizer Canada, to the
governing council of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).”
Health Canada seems to have taken particular pains to pour ice water on Libidus. In fact, a story in the Selkirk Journal, a Quebecor paper, stated bluntly that the agency had deliberately faked data in order to sink the product, and got caught.
This is the ministry which brought us Bill C-6, which in two sections made us subject to the dictates of foreign authorities: can we now see the context into which these clauses fit, in terms of Harper’s “enlightened sovereignty”? This language set a precedent whereby we would have no recourse against international directives, coming from… whom?
While Health Canada attempts to surgically alter our rights here at home, Stephen Harper is selling our national sovereignty down the river at the international level, and telling us it’s all very “enlightened”. Different verses of the same song, with a chorus heralding the birth of global government and the loss of every last vestige of human freedom.
But we’re not supposed to notice that. Instead, we’re supposed to compare how we’d feel by being part of a “big, friendly club” as opposed to being “unsupportive of humanitarian values”, and pick one.
I hate to tell Mr. Harper, but there is another option. It’s one we used to use, in fact, and it served us very well for a very long time. It was called “being a good neighbor” and “being honorable in all things”. We didn’t have to give up anything, most particularly our rights, to be good neighbors, or to be honorable, and we still don’t. There is no reason why our nation cannot cooperate with others internationally, while honoring our right to choose how we do that.
Free people get to choose, Mr. Harper. Who gave you the right to take that away from us, or to preach such madness in our name to other nations?
And let’s not forget those tortured Afghans, shall we?
Originally printed in The Agora Magazine, www.theagoranational.ca
Winnipeg-born Dee Nicholson describes herself as a “Truth Seeker". She is the author of two books, is a degreed metaphysician, Reiki Master, and life coach, as well as an activist for human rights, especially the right to choose our food, medicine, and health care. Dee is the National Director of Communication for Freedom in Canadian Health Care, which is a charter group member of Canadians for Health Freedom (www.canadiansforhealthfreedom.org). She is a frequent blogger on the site, offering commentary on a wide range of topics.
March 8, 2010