As my modest contribution to the forthcoming Canadian election, I present nine items that suggest Stephen Harper is not a friend to democracy.

1. Dion-Baiting
When Stéphane Dion questioned the effectiveness of our strategy in Afghanistan, the Prime Minister accused him of being “pro-Taliban.” Last week, Harper said Dion was actually wishing for a recession. It’s a habit of our Prime Minister to call anyone who doesn’t agree with him a traitor. I’m expect him to suggest Dion is secretly a member of the pro-crack cocaine lobby.

There was a time when I thought Harper’s ways were merely politics-as-usual, and that, to afford him credit, he was a severely canny strategist. But somewhere along the way he turned from a policy wonk into a caudillo. The man doesn’t debate, reason or negotiate, he impels.

(Meanwhile, Harper has indicated that he intends to further loosen regulations governing foreign ownership of Canadian businesses—rules that are presently the most lax among advanced economies, and have already made Canada into the developed nation with the highest portion of its economy that is foreign-owned.)

2. The Media & The PMO
Upon becoming Prime Minister, Harper redrew the rules dictating how government interacts with the media. In an effort to exert “message control,” cabinet ministers were prevented from speaking to reporters, and all communications routed through the Prime Minister’s Office. Press conference protocol was upended to make it easier for the PMO’s communications czar to control who was asking what questions. Journalists generally complain of not getting calls returned and receiving information late.

“Message control” has extended to civil service employees, who now require additional clearances before speaking to the media. For example: Environment Canada scientists whose findings might be at odds with government policy.

3. Fixed Election Dates
Harper made great hay out of the way governments had historically abused their power to dissolve parliament and call for new polls whenever it was strategically advantageous. Before introducing the bill to establish fixed election dates every four years, he told a press conference:

“Fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage. They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody.”

The bill was passed in 2006. The next election would’ve been set for 2009. Not surprisingly, when it appeared the electoral stars might be aligning in his favour during the summer of 2008, Harper’s tune changed. Sure enough, he dropped the writ, calling parliament as currently formulated “dysfunctional.” The record suggests otherwise: the Conservatives have been able to pass as much legislation as previous governments during comparable time frames, while subjecting more bills than normal to votes of confidence. If anything, Harper has at times governed as though he has a majority. Or, as a University of Toronto professor of strategic management described it, “He has taken a giant step toward erasing the distinction between a majority and a minority government.”

“Short-term political advantage” was the only factor motivating Harper to call an election now. Dion confuses Canadians, and, more importantly, the Liberal Party is broke. Really broke. Like, get in line at the U.S. Treasury broke.

(Last weekend, I met a woman who had worked on several previous Liberal campaigns. This time out the call to action never arrived. She and most of her colleagues who worked for the party in the past are sitting this one out as the Liberals simply can’t afford to hire them. The situation, she said, was dire.)

4. Cancellation of the Court Challenges Program
The CCP funded the legal costs of groups who wanted to challenge government decisions that affected their Charter rights. It cost a measly $3 million a year. Created in 1978, originally to support minority language groups, it was later expanded to include other minority groups. Money provided by the CCP enabled disabled persons to secure better treatment from Via Rail, women to get pay equity, and seniors to access employment insurance. Harper’s argument for cancelling the CCP was that it didn’t make sense for the government to finance challenges to its position. He seems to forget that the government and his party are two different things. The government’s job is to serve all Canadians, even when their constitutional rights are impinged by the ruling party. The CCP was an instrument that held those in power accountable to the Charter—an exercise otherwise beyond the financial means of most Canadians.

5. Canadians Abroad, Part I
The only foreign citizen of a Western country still imprisoned at the Guatanamo Bay detention camp is Canadian Omar Khadr. Whatever you think of his wacky family, Khadr was only 15-years-old at the time he is accused of killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan.

Documents accidentally released by the Pentagon indicate that while Khadr was present during the firefight, there is no direct evidence he threw the fatal grenade. Even if he did, that would make him a child soldier, as defined by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, not a Non-Enemy Combatant.

We are familiar with the stories of kid fighters in Sierra Leone, the Congo or Liberia, and sympathetic for the way they are manipulated or forced into killing. In Khadr’s case there is no reason not to be equally sympathetic. It was his own parents that coerced him into battle, which is even more pernicious and sad.

6. Cuts to Arts Funding, Part I: Ideology v. Economics
Much has already been written of late about the budget cuts of almost $60 million to various arts and cultural programs administered by the Department of Heritage. And the cynical manner in which the initial news was released: misrepresented on radio call-in shows in Western Canada as a kick-in-the-pants to ne’er do well radicals like Avi Lewis, Gwynne Dyer and the Toronto band Holy Fuck. The almost-funny part is that in some cases the recipients they singled out as wastrels didn’t even ask for the money, but were invited to participate in special events by Canadian embassies overseas.

Through it all, Harper maintained his government had actually increased arts funding and that the cuts made were judicious and based solely on net impact. James Bradshaw, writing in the Globe and Mail, found otherwise:

“Spokespeople for Canadian Heritage confirmed, when approached by The Globe this week, that every program cut under strategic review has come from the department’s arts-and-culture arm, leaving untouched the branches devoted to sport, youth, citizenship and identity, and diversity and multiculturalism. Such a revelation certainly hints at a targeted approach to arts cuts, which would contradict the government’s assertions that programs were axed based on simple efficiency reviews – and without ideological motivation.”

Harper’s later comments on the campaign trail about pampered artists sure don’t make his cuts sound like they were inspired by his concern for the economy. Rather, he ignored a Conference Board of Canada report that found the cultural sector directly contributes $46 billion to the economy—almost 4% of GDP. A pretty good return on what little the government is investing.

7. Cuts to Arts Funding, Part II: Class War, Anyone?
Defending his decision to cut funding to artists, a sweater-clad Prime Minister issued a tirade about spoiled cultural elites and their penchant for fancy galas, saying that the arts didn’t resonate with “ordinary Canadians”. Which is both an insult to “ordinary Canadians”—whomever they are—and an incitement to divide the country along perceived cultural differences.

8. Canadians Abroad, Part II
Sudanese Canadian Abousfian Abdelrazik has been stuck in Khartoum for the past five years because the Canadian government refuses to issue him travel papers. Part of that time was spent in a Sudanese prison, where he was allegedly tortured. Abdelrazik, who has a daughter in Montreal, is accused of being an al-Qaeda operative. The government promised it would issue him an emergency passport if he could find an airline willing to fly him home, knowing that few airlines would go afoul of the UN’s terrorist list and the no-fly of the US (both of which Abdelrazik’s name is on, although he has been charged with no crime—note that the UN travel ban permits those listed to travel home).

Abdelrazik eventually was able to secure an air ticket but the Canadian government never fulfilled its promise to supply him with papers. Foreign Affairs has since refused all comment to the media.

Taken together, the Abdelrazik and Khadr cases suggest that the Canadian government no longer takes seriously its obligation to protect the legal rights of all its citizens abroad.

9. New Copyright Legislation
Almost a year ago, the Conservatives introduced their proposed revisions to Canadian copyright law—revisions supposedly necessitated by Canada’s membership in the WTO but also sought avidly by the U.S. government and lobbyists. The changes proposed, however, go beyond our obligations to the World Intellectual Property Organization and would exceed U.S. law in their restrictions.

Canadian creators already enjoy fewer allowances for fair use, documentary and parody than Americans, and there are few exclusions permitting consumers to copy or back-up digital materials they’ve purchased. The implications are further reaching than most recognize. As University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist described it:

“The government will seemingly choose locks over learning, property over privacy, enforcement over education, (law)suits over security, lobbyists over librarians, and U.S. policy over a ‘Canadian-made’ solution.”

Fortunately, it was one of the rare instances of Harper standing down from a policy, and he shelved the proposals for the time being. But he never said his mind was changed.