'All for ourselves and nothing for other people' seems in every age of the world to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. -Adam Smith "All the 'truth' in the world adds up to one big lie." Bob Dylan "Idealism precedes experience, cynicism follows it." Anon

Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts

November 2, 2011

Secret letter claims Family International leader caused deadliest air crash in history

Chain The Dogma     November 2, 2011


Secret letter claims Family International leader caused deadliest air crash in history

He praised God for the death of nearly 600 innocent people

by Perry Bulwer

In May 2011, a news report of a deranged person who committed a horrific murder caught my attention. I usually avoid such crime stories, put off by the sensationalism and gruesome details which often accompany those reports. This time, however, a provocative headline proved too much for me to resist. That headline was in the online edition of the British tabloid, The Daily Mail, and read: "Why was he on the streets? The 'prophet of God' who decapitated British woman in Tenerife was a violent character known for attacking passers-by"

It was not the gruesome decapitation that drew my attention, although I suspect the editors included that detail in the headline for exactly that reason. I scan newspaper headlines from around the world on a daily basis, so I frequently encounter similar articles, or hear about them on broadcast news, but rarely pay much attention to them. A common feature of many of these types of homicides or violent assaults committed by persons with severe mental disorders is the claim that they were acting on the directions of God.  That link between psychosis and religious faith  does interest me, however, so it was the juxtaposition of 'prophet of God' and 'Tenerife' in the headline that caught my curiosity as I recalled another psychotic foreigner living in Tenerife who claimed to be God's final prophet before Jesus' return in 1993.

Although that deluded cult leader, David Berg, did not actually kill anyone himself, death threats against his enemies are scattered throughout his writings, and he claimed in secret letters to his followers that his curses and prayers caused the deadliest aviation disaster in history.  He praised God for killing nearly 600 innocent people and considered the disaster proof of his exclusive, direct connection to God. He even published a comic based on those letters for the specific purpose of indoctrinating the group's children with 'proof' that he was God's prophet. But despite the group's efforts to cover-up  the ugly truths about Berg and his hateful extremism by attempting to destroy all copies of those letters, comics and many others just like them, I tracked down hard copies of some of those purged publications in order to further expose the morally degenerate mind of the man behind The Family International. (see the end of this article)

David Berg, who died in 1994, was the founder and self-proclaimed prophet of the Children of God, now known as The Family International. He fled the U.S., along with the group's current co-leader, Karen Zerby, in the early 1970s just as the New York Attorney General was about to release a damning report on his cult's activities there. While hiding in England,  the corrupt couple experimented with new sexual doctrines, both as a means to justify their own licentiousness and to devise a new method of undercover or clandestine proselytizing, which would come in useful for the group in countries where evangelizing is forbidden or restricted. In this instance, 'under the covers' also has a literal meaning, because the new recruitment technique involved the sexual seduction of potential members and supporters. It became known as Flirty Fishing,  a reference to Jesus' call to his disciples to be fishers of men (Matthew 4:19). Berg introduced the new doctrine to regular members very cautiously at first, suggesting it was the ultimate altruistic act to save souls, next to martyrdom, but it didn't take long to degenerate into religious prostitution.

After fine tuning Flirty Fishing in England, the demented duo set off for Tenerife in the Canary Islands and immediately began their sexual seductions in hotels and nightclubs. Flirty Fishing quickly became so lucrative that they called for dozens of God's Whores  to join them. As a fugitive from justice, Berg had remained until this time a recluse even from most of his own followers, but in Tenerife he was emboldened by the success of Flirty Fishing. In England, Berg and Zerby had remained incognito while practising this perversion, but in Tenerife he behaved more like a flamboyant pimp, appearing in clubs every night surrounded by a harem of 'hookers for Jesus'. Berg mistakenly believed he was winning powerful friends who could support and protect them, but civic and church authorities soon became concerned with their flagrant behaviour. It didn't take long for journalists to discover the scandal. The German magazine Stern, Spain's Interviu, and Time  all published articles that included a photo of Berg surrounded by a dozen or so of his Heaven's Harlots.  It was the first time most of his followers had ever seen any photo of him, let alone a current one.



David Berg (Moses David) with a bevy of Flirty Fishers in Tenerife, 1977. This photo, possibly first published in the German magazine Stern, has also appeared in Time magazine, Rolling Stone, and Deborah Davis' book. Karen Zerby (Mama Maria), current leader of The Family, is holding Berg's left hand.


A 1978 Newsweek article  on the Children of God reported that

... on the island of Tenerife, COG women were accused of taking prospective recruits to bed. When local prostitutes complained of the competition, Berg reportedly put a curse on the island-and shortly after that, the worst accident in airline history took 583 lives on the runway at Tenerife.
While it is true that Berg did curse the island and several days later the air disaster occurred, complaints by local prostitutes were not the reason he cursed, then fled Tenerife. The Stern article, cited by Time, accurately reported the real reason Berg escaped the island: he was being investigated by judicial authorities. His own writings, which the group later attempted to completely destroy, prove that.

Berg did make an initial court appearance before he fled Tenerife, which was unusual since he preferred to hide from legal authorities and taught his followers to do the same. Here is an example of that in a letter he wrote to them in 1979 titled, Flee,  which was later censored by the group as indicated by [deleted] in the text.

3. WHEN THE SYSTEM IS OUT TO GET YOU, YOU CANNOT FIGHT THEM. IT'S RIDICULOUS! ALL YOU CAN DO IS FLEE! The Lord Himself said so. (Mt.10:23.) He didn't say hang in there & fight it out & defend yourself, did He?

28. LET ME TELL YOU, I KNEW [DELETED] IN TENERIFE that they weren't going to quit, they weren't going to stop there, & I got out while the getting was good! [DELETED]

29. GOD HAD TO GIVE ME A DEFINITE WARNING TO MOVE & MOVE FAST! [DELETED] Now what do you want to do, just sit there & wait for them to come? Some of you are just sitting there waiting for trouble! That's how crazy people can get it they don't listen to the Lord! Once you reject the Truth of God's warnings & you don't repent, you don't confess your sin of disobedience & really repent & make things right by packing up & moving on like I've warned you, you're apt to go right off the deep end!

I think Berg only appeared in court because of his growing delusion that he was God's prophet and so would be protected. That court appearance quickly changed his mind, however, as the judge gave him a taste of his own medicine. A day later Berg, who was infamous for violent verbal, emotional and physical abuse of his followers and their children, complained: "I could hardly believe my ears when that Judge started spouting off and shouting at me. It shows it's all a religious controversy." (at par. 14) But earlier, right after that court appearance, his confidence in God's protection had already disappeared as he realized he might be in more trouble than he thought. "It might be better to get out before there is a court order making it impossible for me to leave." (par. 9) That is the real reason he fled Tenerife, not complaints from the local prostitutes.

Those quotations in the previous paragraph are from that secret letter I refer to in the title of this article. That letter was written for followers and associates and was intended, as I said, to demonstrate Berg's power as God's final endtime prophet. The letter's full title is The Wrath of God! On Tenerife and its System's Ugly Face of Tyranny! More Prayers Against Our Enemies and the Results! The picture on the pamphlet depicts God's hand smashing a sword against a passenger jet in a big explosion. The letter was eventually published in a volume of Berg's letters dealing specifically with Flirty Fishing. Neither that volume or the individual letter was meant for the general public. It was an internal letter, therefore secret, and made even more secret by the group's later attempts to purge all publications  that contained incriminating evidence of wrong doing or extremists doctrines such as anti-Semitism.

Although most of the group's publications are archived online on two websites   run by survivors, many dealing with Flirty Fishing are not, including The Wrath of God. However, I have posted the copy I obtained here at the end of this article. When you read the entire letter it becomes quite clear why the group would try to keep it secret. Here are some highlights from the letter, or I should say, lowlights.

The letter consists almost entirely of Berg praying against his enemies, with a bit of commentary thrown in here and there. It starts off with a transcript of the prayer Berg prayed just before going to court. He starts by cursing the judge, asking God to give him lots of sicknesses (in a later prayer he claims the judge is demon possessed; see par. 34). He then moves on to cursing entire cities, praying for their destruction and the destruction of all his enemies. He even asks God to let him watch the destruction of innocent people, citing Old Testament scriptures as authority for such hatred. But Berg was just getting warmed up with that prayer.

In that first prayer, Berg quotes II Chronicles 36:16, and then repeats that in a prayer the day after his court appearance, when he began making plans to flee. "For they have mocked the messengers of God and despised His words, and misused His prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against his people till there was no remedy." When I first read that in preparation for this article, I thought it was a reference to a different biblical event, the one where Elisha, the prophet of God, cursed 42 children for mocking him and a bear came out of the woods and killed them all, which is described in II Kings 2: 23,24. Cult leaders like Elisha and Berg are obviously psychopaths with narcissistic personality disorder. Berg is upset because the people of Tenerife are not taking him and his message seriously, so he curses them all to death. In Berg's second prayer he reiterates his requests for death and destruction of those who opposed his group and their message. This prayer also contains claims of previously answered prayers against Nixon, Reagan, New York City, and California for supposedly persecuting him and his group (see paragraphs 25 to 28). Berg directs those claims at his followers to help convince them of his prophetic powers and links to God, but those claims are ludicrous, not supported by fact, and merely reveal the bruised ego of a rejected narcissist.

Berg's prayers get more vile the deeper into the letter you read. At paragraphs 39 to 44 Berg gets specific, asking God to kill priests, a bishop, a judge and a maid. Paragraph 40 also includes a parenthetic note inserted after the air crash praising God for answering Berg's calls for vengence: "And He did!--The Crash, The Floods, etc. PTL!" There are similar notes scattered through the remaining letter. For example, just five days before the crash Berg prays the same prayers again. He asks God to destroy his enemies before his eyes not only so he could see the destruction, but so the world would know he was a prophet, and to do it soon. The parenthetic note in paragraph 55 reads: "The great air crash occurred only five days later!" Over and over again similar gleeful notes reinforce the notion that Berg's prayers and curses directly caused the worst air crash in history. "I want to see it. I want to hear about it," Berg prays at paragraph 57 in a chilling display of bloodlust.

As I mentioned earlier, this letter and the children's comic based on it were used by Berg and Zerby to reinforce the notion that Berg was God's final endtime prophet. In it Berg repeatedly prays for God to prove that to this followers by answering his prayers. The coincidence of the air crash occurring shortly after Berg's prayers was seen by Berg and Zerby as an opportunity to hammer home the point, so the letter repeats over and over again that the crash was God's answer to prayer. However, there is one element of Berg's prayers that God apparently over looked, though Berg and Zerby were not too concerned about that part. At paragraph 63, Berg prays: "Spare thy children, Lord, and spare the innocent, spare the guiltless." But God didn't spare the innocent, so if God answered Berg's prayers pleading for the destruction of his enemies, why didn't God also answer his prayer to spare innocent, guiltless people? That does not make any sense on any level, whether theological or rational, especially when that God is supposedly loving, compassionate and just. Why would a loving God who answers prayers not answer a prayer to save innocent lives? That kind of critical thinking is just too deep for fundamentalist believers like Berg, Zerby and their followers because it requires doubting and asking the right questions, which they never do. Here is the only comment Berg and Zerby had to say about the deaths of hundreds innocent people in that crash, in a note between paragraphs 76 and 77: "We are sorry for the victims and their families, but who can deny it was the will of God!"

Such heartless arrogance, empty sympathy and bible-based immorality. According to leaders of The Family International, the death of hundreds of innocent people, including children, was God's will because somehow that all-powerful, prayer-answering God was unable to differentiate between the guilty and the innocent on those two airplanes. And what about the 61 people on board the Pan Am plane that survived the disaster? If God spared them, why not spare all the other innocents? I can think of a dozen other related questions, but Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals never ask questions like that, because in their world doubting and questioning God are sins. But believing in biblical literalism always leads to irrational conclusions such as the belief that mass killings and genocides are justified when God commands or causes them. And it also leads to irrational explanations such as the claim that even if innocent children are killed along with their guilty parents, God is actually doing those kids a favour by taking them straight to heaven, or some nonsense like that. Here are two Berg quotations that illustrate that point. The first refers to famines in Africa and the second refers to the genocide of Canaanites in the Old Testament, where Joshua's army slaughters everyone in Jericho, including children: Joshua 6:21

55. I FEEL SORRY FOR ALL THE WOMEN & CHILDREN OVER IN THOSE COUNTRIES THAT ARE STARVING TO DEATH, BUT WHOSE FAULT DO YOU SUPPOSE IT IS? It's probably their men's fault to begin with, & probably the women's fault as well, because they worship false gods & idols & images & the dead & the Devil & are into all kinds of evil practices & cruelty & horrors that the mothers are just as guilty of as the fathers! The only innocent ones in those crowds are their poor little children, & they're better off dead than to live in societies like that with mothers & fathers like that! Maybe that's why the Lord lets them starve to death & it seems to hit the children the hardest & they die the quickest. That's merciful! Thank God! I told you time & again, don't fear death! Don't fear starvation, it's the easiest way in the World to die! It only takes a little while, & you may wish you could die quick. https://pubs.xfamily.org/text.php?t=2138

10. AFTER THE WALLS HAD FALLEN DOWN, JOSHUA PUT THE ENTIRE POPULATION TO DEATH, as God's Word had commanded--because they were wicked, filthy, vile people! Some people say, "Oh, my! What a cruel God He must have been in those days!" Well, God knows the earth needed to be cleansed of the horror of those people! If you knew some of the sins that they had--sodomy & so on, which is one of the vilest sins known to mankind ... ,

YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY GOD HAD TO COMPLETELY WIPE OUT THE POPULATION! Everybody except who? Rahab! Compared to these men of Jericho, even a harlot was a saint! https://pubs.xfamily.org/text.php?t=1153

David Berg was referred to by some as the Love Prophet.  He created the immoral doctrine called the Law of Love  and Karen Zerby, his successor and current leader of The Family, created Loving Jesus, a doctrine that sexualizes the worship of Jesus.  He insisted, as the Bible does, that God is love, and he changed the name of his group to Family of Love at one point.  He claimed that his biblically-based moral system was superior to all others, and yet he has no qualms about celebrating the mass murder or mass starvation of children. And neither do other more mainstream evangelical leaders. For example, Pat Robertson takes great joy in claiming that natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina and the Haiti earthquake, that killed thousands of people including children, are God's punishments against evil doers. And here is how another Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, echoes Berg by justifying the slaughter of innocent Canaanite children in Jericho in a recent talk at Oxford that he hoped would be a debate with Richard Dawkins, who "... has consistently refused to debate Craig and branded him a 'deplorable apologist for Genocide' in his Guardian column...."  Here is what Craig wrote about biblical genocide prior to his Oxford talk, as cited by Dawkins:

"But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel's part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, 'You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods' (Deut 7.3-4). […] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."
And here is what Craig said at that talk, as reported by the Oxford student newspaper:

“However, in a question and answer session near the end of the debate, Craig’s response to the accusation that he approves of Biblical genocide provoked murmurs of disapproval from parts of the audience, and a loud boo from the upper wings.

“There was no racial war here, no command to kill them all,” he initially said, referring to extermination of the Canaanites in the Old Testament, “the command was to drive them out.”

Then Craig said: “But, how could God command that the children be killed, as they are innocent?”

“I would say that God has the right to give and take life as he sees fit. Children die all the time! If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead…than being raised in this Canaanite culture. “
That is exactly what David Berg taught and The Family International believes, that a just, loving, merciful God kills innocent children in order to save them. That kind of morality is truly immoral.

By the way, in case you are wondering about Flirty Fishing, and whether or not The Family International still practices that form of religious prostitution, it all depends on who you ask. If you ask group leaders and members, they will insist that they formally stopped that years ago. However, you cannot trust anything they say on the matter because they have a well-documented, deeply ingrained habit of lying to outsiders, including to government and legal authorities. (see this article  and the section Deceivers Yet True in this article)

When they claim to have abandoned a doctrine or practice, it usually means that they will take those underground and no longer publicize what they actually believe and do. For example, Berg's writings are extremely anti-Semitic, with bigoted references to Jews being anti-Christ scattered throughout. In all of the censored versions of Berg's letters, all occurrences of the word 'anti-Christ' that do not refer to that specific character described in Revelation are references to Jews and have been [deleted] from the text. However, the current leader of the Family International, Karen Zerby, wrote in 1992 at the height of negative publicity the group was receiving around the world that prompted them to censor their publications: “Of course we’re being a little quiet about the Jews now, but we’re going to come to the place where we’re going to come right out and tell the truth about them.”

I am certain that they have the same attitude towards Flirty Fishing (FFing). Although they claim to no longer practice religious prostitution, it is only because of the negative publicity they received, not because of the various excuses they give or because they no longer believe the practice is scriptural. Here is an official statement from the group's leaders:

In 1987 the Family discontinued FFing to emphasize other means of ministering the Word of God to others, as well as to take advantage of opportunities to reach more people than the very personalized ministry of FFing allowed. At that time as well, the plague of AIDS had begun its rampage through the world—another indication that it was time to reconsider Family policy of allowing sexual interaction outside our communities. Although we no longer practice FFing, we believe the scriptural principles behind the ministry remain sound.

In James Chancellor's, Life in the Family: an oral history of the Children of God, which I critique in this journal article,  Chancellor examines that practice in chapter four. Footnote 8 of that chapter refers to a series of Berg letters that initiated the whole Flirty Fishing (FFing) doctrine and quotes a group spokesperson:

8. These Letters are known as "The King Arthur Series." They are no longer avail­able and cannot be found in any Family home. Noah explained: "We don't do it any­more, so we pulled the King Arthur Letters out of the homes. To be honest, they make such a strong and compelling case for FFing, Father David was afraid if he left them in the homes, people would have a strong desire to continue or begin the FFing ministry again."
And here are some quotations from a Berg letter emphasizing the effectiveness of Flirty Fishing and describing it as likely the only ministry that will still be available to them during the dark days leading up to the return of Jesus, which he predicted would happen in 1993. Since that obviously never happened they have pushed the rapture up by 50 years, leaving plenty of time for Flirty Fishing to be resurrected.

87. JUST BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN THE HEADLINE NEWS IN THE FAMILY MAGAZINE & you haven't heard as much about it as you did during the incipient stages of '76--I always remember '76 because that's the year Family of Love got famous in Tenerife, ha! When we finally hit the jackpot & made the headlines FFing with the FOL, we had to leave Tenerife. That's how effective it was! We were winning too many converts--the police, the Guardia Civil, the mayor, the police chiefs, the top representatives of the Bishop, the young people, the college students, the Mafia!

88. WE WERE GETTING EVERYBODY!--AND THE BISHOP WAS GETTING SCARED STIFF! I doubt if he could get stiff at his age, but anyway, he was getting scared & he decided it was time to put a stop to it. It was being too effective, too fruitful & we were getting too many souls, winning too many hearts, winning too many friends as well! So that was when it got started back in those days.

89. YOU HEARD MORE ABOUT IT THEN, WE WROTE MORE LETTERS ABOUT IT, IT WAS MORE IN THE NEWS & maybe you thought since then maybe it's kind of cooled off, maybe so many girls aren't FFing. Maybe some of you girls thought, "Well, maybe I'm a rare exception now, there aren't so many FFing girls anymore & not many FF Homes, maybe FFing is sort of going down the drain & maybe we're not FFing so much anymore, maybe it's not as popular anymore, maybe we're not getting as much results that way, maybe it didn't work out after all!"--You're mistaken!
...
91. SO JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T HEARD AS MUCH ABOUT IT LATELY DOESN'T MEAN IT HASN'T BEEN GOING ON! In fact, it's been going on more than ever & getting more results than ever as the most effective, efficient & fruitful--there's the 3 FFs!--Effective, efficient & fruitful!--Of all the means of witnessing & winning souls that we are practicing! ...
...
100. SO I THINK I'D LIKE TO DECLARE 1982 OUR GREATEST FF YEAR! I believe we're going to have more FFing & greater FFing & more success at FFing now in the coming year & the coming years than ever before as the other doors are closed & you can no longer openly litness anymore, you can no longer openly busk & cafe & park & street sing, etc., anymore, you'll be run off the streets, & the only place you're going to be able to really effectively witness is undercover, under the covers! Amen?

101. I BELIEVE IT IS GOING TO BECOME--IT HAS BECOME ALREADY--OUR MOST EFFUCKTIVE, EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT & FRUITFUL FORM OF WITNESSING! But I believe it is going to become our greatest form of witnessing, probably almost the most numerous form of witnessing as all other doors are closed & you cannot hit the streets anymore, maybe you can't even dare go door-to-door anymore.--There's three doors closed of the 7 Supporters! Out of the 7 Supporters only five are ministries, right? What are they again?--Litnessing, busking--that's all forms of public witness--door-to-door--that's getting more private all the time--Mail Ministry & FFing. That's five witnessing & supporting ministries.
...
106. BUT THERE WILL STILL BE ONE OUTSTANDING POSSIBLE VERY EFFUCKTIVE, EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT & FRUITFUL SUPPORTIVE MINISTRY LEFT, particularly for you girls! You may be the last witnesses! Revelation 11 didn't say what the sex of those last Two Witnesses was, did it? Maybe all our last witnesses will be women! It didn't say what the sex of all those people were who were caught up in the Rapture, did it? Maybe it will be mostly our girls! Maybe they'll have gotten rid of most of us boys by that time, who knows? Oh, there'll be a lot of powerful rich women who'll want boys too, so I think there'll be some of both sexes, boys--don't worry!

So, just because you have not heard about Flirty Fishing recently, and just because they say they don't do it anymore, does not mean they stopped it. I do not believe that Flirty Fishing was ever completely abandoned. It was simply too lucrative and useful in certain situations. Certainly, they stopped the most overt, flagrant practices, and probably only certain leaders and trusted members continued to practice it far more discreetly so that it could never be discovered by outsiders, but I think Flirty Fishing is like their hatred of Jews. They've learned to stay quiet about what they really believe and do. Furthermore, there are recent signs that Flirty Fishing has been renewed by at least some members. The conditions that Berg describes above that prevent overt public witnessing exist today in many countries. The group's leaders have always lived in luxury from the tithes of members, while many regular members struggle to survive financially. Recent organizational changes have made that scenario even worse, and I have no doubt that some will resurrect Flirty Fishing as a means of support. In fact, I think some have already done that if recent reports are accurate.

For related articles on The Family International on this blog see the left side-bar for a list of all titles. Also, on this page of the Religion and Child Abuse News archive I have links to dozens of newspaper articles on The Family International. see: http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com/p/family-international.html

UPDATE: November 8, 2011

The text of "The Wrath of God" has now been placed in the archive on exfamily.org at http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/ml/b4/ml0577.shtml   https://web.archive.org/web/20120919110339/http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/ml/b4/ml0577.shtml    The text is much easier to read there than here, but it does not include the cover illustration. I have removed the text pages here, but have kept the cover illustration. I have also kept the True Komix version here and added the cover page. That page clearly explains that these comics were specifically intended for indoctrinating children. You will notice that the message from Berg and Zerby, who is called Maria in the group, claims that love will solve all the world's problems, including yours. Apparently, they ignored that claim in "The Wrath of God", which teaches the opposite lesson, namely that when authorities try to hold you accountable to society for your actions the best recourse is not to love your enemies but to curse your enemies and God will destroy them.


RELATED ARTICLES ON THIS BLOG:


Folie a deux: the insane prophets of the Seventh-day Adventists and The Family International

From Sex Fiends to Family Values: the LDS and The Family International

The Catholic Church and The Family International: popes and prophets who protect pedophiles

Gaddafi, The Family International and the Antichrist

Kings and Queens of Cults

What do Pat Robertson and The Family International cult have in common?

This Is What Wolves In Sheep's Clothing Look Like


For more links to news and blog articles concerning The Family International, formerly known as the Children of God, see my archive blog at:

October 17, 2011

Canada's Christian fundamentalist Prime Minister tells millions of poor no need to protest




Chain The Dogma   October 17, 2011

Canada's Christian fundamentalist Prime Minister tells millions of poor no need to protest

by Perry Bulwer



Today, October 17, is the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty.  I doubt Canada's fundamentalist Christian Prime Minister is even aware of it given his refusal to implement any kind of poverty reduction program let alone one that eradicates poverty, which is possible to do in such a rich, stable country as Canada. Here is what Stephen Harper said  when asked for his comments on the Occupy Canada protests that began here on the 15th.

"Canadians understand that Canada has performed very well during the global economic recession," he said. "We've managed to create more growth and more jobs than just about any other industrialized country. We are extremely focused on the needs of Canadians and the needs of the middle class. We obviously have a very different situation here — we didn't bail out our banking sector. Our banking sector was the strongest in the world."

As is the habit of demagogues, they always mix in some truths to disguise the lies. That is especially true for Harper, who manipulates or ignores facts that contradict his ideology. That is something that has occurred over and over again in various positions taken by the Harper government, including drug policiesmaternal health policies, crime and punishment policies, fishery policies,  as well as in its undermining of one of the most respected statistical gathering agencies in the world, Statistics Canada.

Harper's comment on the current global protests is no different. Breaking it down sentence by sentence, here is how I see it. In his first sentence he presumes to know what all Canadians understand. After ruling with a minority government for so many years, the recent parliamentary majority he won has gone to his head . He seems to actually think the majority of Canadians are conservatives who voted for and support him, when that is far from the truth. Only 60 percent of Canadians voted  in the last federal election and only 40 percent of them voted for Harper's party. Clearly, only a minority of Canadians support Harper, but more than that, those statistics show that forty percent of Canadians obviously feel voting is a waste of time. It seems to me that those who do not exercise their right to vote are protesting against the inertia and inequity of the current financial and political systems just as much as the Occupy protesters are, since the status quo remains regardless of which political party is in power. Small protest crowds in Canada do not indicate the true numbers of Canadians who feel disenfranchised by the present system. Mocking and dismissing those protests is a foolish mistake.

The claims Harper makes in the second part of the first sentence and the second sentence of his comment are probably true to an extent, but when he says "Canada has performed very well" and created "more growth and more jobs" he means in comparison to other countries. It is true that the unemployment rate has recently dropped slightly, but that is small comfort for those still without a job who may lose their homes, let alone those without a home. So who exactly has benefited from Canada's good performance? It is definitely not the four million citizens living in poverty, including 300,000 homeless.

Harper's next claim is that his government is focused on the "needs of Canadians and the needs of the middle-class". False. He most definitely is not focused on the needs of all Canadians, since he refuses to address the issues of poverty and homelessness affecting the most vulnerable citizens, as recommended by a parliamentary committee, and as set out in Bill C-233, An Act To Eliminate Poverty In Canada,  which is a Private Member's Bill proposed by an opposition MP so unlikely to pass under a Conservative majority.

Neither is Harper focused on the needs of the middle-class, as the evidence below illustrates. Harper's final claim in that comment on the Occupy protests is that the situation in Canada is very different from that in the United States, because of our superior banking system. This is a perfect illustration of mixing lies with truth. While it is true that the Canadian banking system didn't need bailing out and is recognized around the world for that, it is not true that the situation in Canada with respect to the Occupy protests is different than in the United States. In fact, the situation is worse.

According to the recent report, "World Income Inequality",  by the Conference Board of Canada: "The increase in income inequality has been more rapid in Canada than in the U.S. since the mid-1990s." Anne Golden, president and chief executive explained:  “Even though the U.S. currently has the largest rich-poor income gap among these countries, the gap in Canada has been rising at a faster rate,” adding that high inequality raises both “a moral question about fairness and can contribute to social tensions.” The conclusions in that report are supported by the December 2010 study by the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, "The Rise of Canada's Richest 1%".

The Rise of Canada’s Richest 1% looks at income trends over the past 90 years and reveals the 246,000 privileged few who rank among the country’s richest 1% took almost a third (32%) of all growth in incomes between 1997 and 2007.

“That's a bigger piece of the action than any other generation of rich Canadians has taken,” says Armine Yalnizyan, CCPA senior economist and the report’s author.

“The last time Canada’s elite held so much of the nation’s income in their hands was in the 1920s. Even then, their incomes didn’t soar as fast as they are today. It’s a first in Canadian history and it underscores a dramatic reversal of long-term trends.”

Post-war, Canada became more equal with the rise of the middle class but by 2007, the richest 1% reversed equality trends, amassing incomes gains reminiscent of the 1920s.

Among the report’s findings:

From the beginning of the Second World War to 1977, the income share of the richest 1% dropped from 14% to 7.7%;

By 2007 they’d made a comeback: the richest 1% held 13.8% of incomes;

Since the late 1970s, the richest 1% has almost doubled its share of total income; the richest 0.1% has almost tripled its share of total income; and the richest 0.01% has more than quintupled its share of income.

So, there is the evidence that exposes Harper's blatant lie that the Canadian situation is different and better than in the United States. The Occupy protests here, and where ever they occur, are focused on the inequities and corruptions of financial and political systems. That old truism, "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer", has never been so true or so obvious as today in Canada, so Harper is both ignoring the evidence, which he is well known for, and lying to the people he supposedly serves. I think that comes easy to Harper, because of his membership in the fundamentalist, evangelical Christian and Missionary Alliance church.

One Canadian situation that is different than in the U.S. is the fact that Harper's religious beliefs and affiliation are not well known in Canada and rarely discussed. I don't think I need to describe just how different that is from the U.S. situation, where religion plays a central role in politics. However, the fact that Harper is an evangelical fundamentalist, or pretends to be one to win votes, ought to be a wake-up call to Canadians. Here is how a former evangelical and co-founder of the Religious Right, Frank Schaeffer, explains the role of Christian fundamentalism in the exploitation of the many by the few in the United States:

As the Occupy Wall street movement spreads across the country and the world, we must bring attention to the enablers of the top 1 percent exploiting the 99. Fundamentalist religion made this exploitation possible.

Evangelical fundamentalism helped empower the top 1 percent. Note I didn't say religion per se, but religious fundamentalism.

Why? Because without the fundamentalists and their "values" issues, many in the lower 99 percent could not have been convinced to vote against their (our) economic self-interest; in other words, vote for Republicans who only serve billionaires.

Wall Street is a great target for long-overdue protest, but so are the centers of religious power that are the gatekeepers of Republican Party "values" voters that make the continuing economic exploitation possible.

Fundamentalist religion -- evangelical and Roman Catholic alike -- has delegitimized the US government and thus undercut its ability to tax, spend and regulate.

The fundamentalists have replaced economic and political justice with a bogus (and hate-driven) "morality" litmus tests of spurious red herring "issues" from abortion to school prayer and gay rights. The result has been that the masses of lower middle-class and poor Americans who should be voting for Democrats and thus their own economic interests, have been persuaded to vote against their own class and self interest.

In Canada, religion does not play such a prominent role in public political life, but that does not mean that the religious right are not active behind the scenes  on core conservative values such as abortion and gay rights. Harper has always had to keep tight control over his caucus on those and similar issues, because the majority of Canadians are not conservative and do not agree with Harper's party. And so Harper lies and obfuscates. For example, he says he will not reopen the debate on abortion, which is legal in Canada, but he continues to export anti-abortion ideology and policies through international aid projects, revealing where he really stands on the issue.

If religion does not play such an overt role in Canadian politics or society as in the U.S., then why should we care what Harper believes? Because as Schaeffer explains above, religious fundamentalism helped create and increase the financial, social and political inequities that are now the focus of worldwide protests. Furthermore, it is important to know if our politicians who create laws and policies base those on evidence or ideology. Harper's government has made it very clear that ideology is far more important than evidence. At the end of it's years long fight against InSite,  for example, the government's arguments at the Supreme Court of Canada against the facility were all based on ideology or jurisdiction. Government lawyers presented no evidence of harm to counter the stacks of evidence proving that the facility saves lives, reduces harm and produces benefits for individuals and society. Likewise, by building more prisons and pushing a new crime bill Harper intends to pass with his new majority, he is completely ignoring solid evidence that crime has been falling for the last 20 years, not increasing.

I questioned above whether Harper is a true believer or just using religion as a political tool. I think that latter scenario may be more common in the U.S., where it is political suicide not to have a religious affiliation of some sort. There are only 28 atheist members of Congress,  but only one of them is willing to admit that publicly, which means the other 27 and probably many other members are hiding or lying about their religious beliefs. I think Harper may actually be a sincere believer, however, because of his consistent refusal to consider valid, scientific evidence in favour of ideological positions, which is a trait of religious fundamentalists. As I mentioned above, that is something that has occurred over and over again in various policy positions taken by the Harper government. Considering the strictly fundamentalist and evangelical tenets of Harper's church, it is really no surprise he discounts scientific evidence when formulating public policy. After all, he chooses to attend a church that believes in creationism and rejects evolution, even theistic evolution, believes the Bible was verbally dictated by God and therefore without error, believes in faith healing, and believes Jesus was born of a virgin and will return any day now. But where does Harper's religion put him in relation to the millions of Canadians struggling with poverty that his politics and policies have ignored? The cries of the poor do not move him, and so his holy book condemns him as a hypocrite:

But if a person has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need and that person doesn’t care, how can the love of God remain in him? I John 3:17 

RELATED ARTICLES ON THIS BLOG

A modest proposal to end homelessness in Canada

Asbestos, Abortion and the Canadian Prime Minister's cats




Beware of any religious organization with Family in its name

October 1, 2011

Asbestos, Abortion and the Canadian Prime Minister's cats

Chain The Dogma      October 1, 2011

Asbestos, Abortion and the Canadian Prime Minister's cats

by Perry Bulwer


Several Canadian Parliament buildings, including the Prime Minister's residence,  are currently undergoing renovations to remove deadly asbestos used as insulation for decades before it was known to cause cancer and other deadly diseases. That particular kind of remedial renovation has been going on across the country for some time now, in all kinds of buildings including homes and schools, because there is absolutely no doubt that asbestos kills people.  Those renovations on Parliament Hill will cost taxpayers close to one billion dollars, but the politicians and bureaucrats who work and live there deserve a safe environment so the cost is justified. Or is it? Perhaps those politicians, who love to call themselves public servants, ought to actually serve the public before serving themselves, and first end homelessness and near homelessness by ensuring that all citizens have adequate, safe housing before they fix up their own house. They obviously care little about the citizens they claim to serve, especially the poorest ones, but even worse, most of the politicians, including a medical doctor, who are part of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government have absolutely no qualms about exporting Canadian-mined asbestos to poor countries where it will surely kill people. Either that or they simply ignore their conscience and obey the dictates of our anti-democratic Prime Minister.

To save the Canadian asbestos export market, which brings a mere $90 million into the economy (that's 10% of the cost of renovating just those Parliament buildings), Stephen Harper ordered his government delegates attending the 2011 Rotterdam Convention to oppose listing asbestos in the international list of hazardous chemicals. Listing asbestos as a hazardous material would not prevent Canada from exporting it. Instead, listing it would simply require Canada to acknowledge the well established harms to health it causes and provide health information labelling on export shipments. Yet Stephen Harper is not willing to take even that minimal step to protect people in poor countries, including women and children, who will be exposed to Canadian asbestos, though he is willing to protect himself and his colleagues by spending a billion dollars to remove it from his home and work place. That deadly hypocrisy is obvious to both the international  and domestic communities.

Adding to Harper's hypocrisy on the issue of asbestos is the fact that he claims  to be an international advocate for maternal and child health. In September 2011, a day before attending a high-level conference at the U.N. on maternal and child health in developing countries, Harper stated: "Canada continues to play a leading role on the world stage – from improving the health of women and children in developing countries to ...."  If that is true, why is he endangering the health of women and children by allowing exports of Canadian asbestos and insisting that no health warnings of its toxicity accompany those exports? He is obviously aware that asbestos is dangerous to health, otherwise why remove it from the Parliament buildings at such great expense at a time of serious fiscal instability. Does Harper think women and children in India, for example, do not deserve the same protection from asbestos as he and his colleagues, or the women and children of Canada? Here is how asbestos affected just one Indian family.

One thing Rajendra Pevekar remembers from falling asleep on his father’s chest as a child is the smell of burnt plastic and the shiny specks of dust sticking to his clothes.

What Pevekar didn’t know was that the dust had a name -- asbestos -- and a record of wrecking the lungs of those who inhale it. Only last year did he draw a connection between the fiber from the auto-parts factory where his father worked sweeping the floor, the man’s early death, the disease that left his mother crippled and his own shortness of breath.

“This is a slow poison,” Pevekar said in an interview at his home in Mumbai’s working class neighborhood of Ghatkopar. “It destroys your lungs and you don’t even know it.”
...
Canada was India’s second-largest overseas supplier of asbestos in 2009, trailing Russia, according to the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics database.

We should not look to Harper's politically motivated public statements expressing concern for the health of women and children, but to his actions, which demonstrate exactly the opposite. It is deceptive of Harper to claim a leading role in improving women and children's health internationally when he continues to insist on Canada's right to export toxic materials that will kill many of those women and children, or when he prohibits any Canadian funding from going to international reproductive services for women.

Harper's desire to be seen as an international advocate for women and children's health began during the lead up to the G-8 summit meeting held in Canada in June 2010. His approach to the issue, informed by the religious dogma of his church, was controversial from the start because of his insistence that no Canadian funding be used for any international project that included contraceptive or abortion services. U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, did not hesitate to publicly criticize Harper's position during her visit to Canada in March 2010, stating:

You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health, and reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.
...
I've also been very involved in promoting family planning and contraception as a way to prevent abortion. If you're concerned about abortion, then women should have access to family planning. And finally, I do not think governments should be involved in making these decisions.

Two weeks before that Clinton visit, Canadian Foreign Minister, Lawrence Cannon, announced that birth control would not be part of any maternal health program supported by Canada. Two days later, Prime Minister Harper seemed to reverse that position, stating that contraceptive services would not be ruled out, but he remained adamant that abortion services would not be part of any Canadian funded program.

Stephen Harper is a member of the evangelical, fundamentalist Christian and Missionary Alliance church,  so he has no choice but to oppose abortion, though it is politically dangerous for him to say so publicly. That is why Harper has never publicly affirmed that right of citizens, although abortion is legal in Canada and supported by a majority of Canadians. Since 2006, when he was first elected, until the most recent federal election in May 2011, Harper led a minority government. That meant he did not have the political clout to reopen and win parliamentary debates on issues important to his conservative constituents and caucus, such as the legal right to abortion or same sex marriage, which became legal in 2005. Harper managed to avoid the issue of abortion during those years, however, in the lead up to the election in May of this year, and with a majority government within his grasp that he did not want to jeopardize, he was forced to reassure voters he had no intention to reopen that debate. But now that he has won that majority (though only 40% of those who voted, voted for his part), and despite those assurances, it seems political debate on abortion has reopened even though it is a constitutional right.

Harper's claim that he had no intention of reopening parliamentary debates on abortion was undermined by the actions, or more accurately deliberate inactions, of one of his cabinet members, International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda, who was undoubtedly directed by Harper. Applications by Planned Parenthood in 2009 and 2010 for funding were ignored by Oda, prompting one of Harper's Conservative MPs, Brad Trost, to declare during the 2011 election campaign  that the government had defunded Planned Parenthood because of its support for abortion and therefore had reopened debate on the issue. That wasn't exactly true, as no decision had been made, but it forced Harper to make those assurances that he would not reopen the abortion debate while he was Prime Minister. After the federal election this year, Planned Parenthood submitted a revised application for funding and in September 2011 Oda approved funding to provide sex education and contraception, but only in five developing countries where abortions are illegal. That decision by Oda prompted Trost to state: "So in reinvigorating the debate as they have by funding IPPF, you'll see more politicians like myself will be discussing the matter. In a respectful way, but it will be discussed."

Although Harper is legally restrained from denying Canadian women their legal right to abortions, he has no problem exporting his fundamentalist ideology abroad. He can't help himself, it is what evangelists do. Morally, however, I see no difference between exporting asbestos that will kill women and children in developing countries and exporting religious ideology disguised as aid that comes with contractual conditions that prohibit life-saving and live-improving health services because of dogma. But morality is not Stephen Harper's strong point, if his official website is anything to go by. As I wrote in a previous post:

Around four million Canadians, including more than one in seven children, live in poverty yet the Harper government recently refused to accept the evidence-based recommendations of a Parliamentary committee to develop and implement a poverty-reduction plan. One in seven Canadian children in poverty amounts to over one million poor children. It is a national disgrace for one of the richest countries in the world, yet Prime Minister Harper shows more compassion and concern for the welfare of cats than children. His official website demonstrates that clearly. The home page under Family Center provides information on how to foster or adopt pets, but nowhere can you find any concern for the welfare of a million children suffering the indignity of poverty.

Perhaps Harper thinks a million Canadian children suffering the indignity of poverty is nothing compared to the suffering of an estimated 70 to 100 million feral cats in North America.  Or maybe his concern for cats is nothing more than mere politicking. "This public cuddling and cooing might have something to do with presenting a warmer image of the Prime Minister, but the Harpers seem legitimately committed to the cause of feline welfare," speculated Aaron Wherry in Maclean's.  Too bad Stephen Harper is not legitimately committed to improving the welfare of children living in poverty, or the estimated 67 to 78 thousand Canadian children living in care homes, most of whom are awaiting adoption. He would rather promote the adoption of house cats, which are an invasive species not indigenous to Canada, than promote the end of poverty, sub-standard housing, and homelessness for Canadian citizens and their children.

RELATED ARTICLES


Canada's Christian fundamentalist Prime Minister tells millions of poor no need to protest



Red Cross emergency mission to Indian reservation exposes Canadian apartheid

September 16, 2011

Prosecuting the Pope for Crimes Against Humanity

Chain The Dogma

Prosecuting the Pope for Crimes Against Humanity

If the systemic rape and abuse of children is not a crime against humanity, then what is?


by Perry Bulwer



A complaint recently filed  with the International Criminal Court (ICC) asking it to investigate crimes against humanity by Pope Benedict and three top Vatican officials faces some hurdles, but as a last resort it is a creative legal strategy. As Barbara Blaine, president of Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP), which initiated the complaint, stated:

We have tried everything we could think of to get them to stop and they won’t. If the Pope wanted to, he could take dramatic action at any time that would help protect children today and in the future, and he refuses to take the action.

Catholic apologists will take issue with that statement and insist the Pope personally, and the church in general, has taken action to protect children, but considering the actions taken in the U.S. and Ireland in that regard they are clearly insufficient, ineffectual, and undermined by the deception of bishops and directives from the Vatican. Long before Benedict became Pope,  he was well aware, as was his predecessor John Paul II,  that clergy sex crimes against children was an on-going problem for decades. But instead of doing the moral thing to protect children by exposing and reporting crimes by priests, Vatican policies were intended to protect the church by covering up abuses and transferring criminal priests to other parishes or countries, which led to many more children needlessly abused because of that institutional neglect and deception. That is the basis of the complaint to the ICC, as explained by Pam Spees, attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR),  which filed the complaint along with SNAP:

The Vatican officials charged in this case are responsible for rape and other sexual violence and for the physical and psychological torture of victims around the world both through command responsibility and through direct cover up of crimes. They should be brought to trial like any other officials guilty of crimes against humanity.

However, given some of the legal obstacles the complaint must overcome before the ICC agrees to take on the case, Spees "conceded she was “not hopeful” the court would launch an investigation." That does not mean the complaint has no chance. There are various arguments that can be made to overcome some of the obstacles that might prevent the ICC from taking the case. Herman van der Wilt, professor of international law at Amsterdam University, identified two reasons why he thought the complaint does not stand much chance: crimes against humanity must be perpetrated by a State or state-like organization, and the ICC has no mandate to investigate crimes committed before July 1, 2002.

As a professor of international law, van der Wilt is probably smarter and more knowledgeable than I am on the subject, but it seems to me that the Holy See, which "refers to the composite of the authority, jurisdiction, and sovereignty vested in the Pope and his advisers to direct the worldwide Roman Catholic Church", does have international recognition as a sovereign state.

So too does Vatican City,  which meets all eight criteria  used to define an independent country. By that definition, Vatican City is also a sovereign State,  so either way the systemic crimes against children within the Church do qualify as crimes against humanity committed by a State, so I'm not really sure what the professor was thinking on that issue.

As for the obstacle of time, the fact that many of those crimes occurred before the ICC's mandate began in 2002 is a tougher one to overcome, but not impossible. Civil statutory time limitations for initiating sexual abuse claims  have worked mostly to protect the Catholic church from lawsuits, while denying victims justice. However, courts have sometimes suspended those time limitations temporarily in some jurisdictions to allow victims to sue within a specified period, or ruled them invalid in the case of some individuals with special circumstances. I am not suggesting the ICC has a mechanism for overcoming its prohibition against investigating crimes prior to 2002, just that clever arguments can be made to overcome that prohibition.

The scandal in Philadelphia  comes to mind as an example of how clergy crimes that occurred before 2002 could still be investigated by the ICC, indirectly. A grand jury report details how the Philadelphia Archdiocese allowed 37 priests credibly accused of child abuse to remain in ministry, and failed to inform the local and national review boards set up by the U.S. bishops to help keep them accountable. The head of the Philadelphia review board, Ana Maria Catanzaro,  said the archdiocese pre-screened which cases they reviewed, hiding problem priests, because it was more concerned about lawsuits and liability than protecting children. Although many of the crimes committed by those 37 priests occurred before 2002, the cover-up and neglect by Cardinals and Bishops continued long past 2002. In my opinion, the prohibition against pre-2002 investigations can be overcome with that or similar arguments. Besides, there are many cases after 2002 that the ICC could investigate.

The covering up of crimes by Bishops and Cardinals is a fairly straightforward argument to make with plenty of evidence to back it up. Certainly, the 20,000 pages of documents CCR lawyers submitted to the ICC to support their complaint contain some of that evidence. The other basis of the complaint is that the Pope and the other officials named in it had command responsibility, meaning that they are responsible for the crimes of their subordinates. Command responsibility has been used mostly in war crimes cases, since it is usually applied to organized groups like military, para-military or police units where there is an obvious chain of command. However, command responsibility can also be applied to a civilian state organization and the CCR lawyers have done an excellent job making the case that the Pope and the other church leaders are responsible for the systemic crimes against humanity committed by priests around the world. If you are not convinced, I urge you to read the full complaint and decide based on the evidence of horrific crimes provided within it whether or not you agree with Jeffrey Lena, the Vatican's U.S. lawyer who called the complaint a “ludicrous publicity stunt and a misuse of international judicial processes.” That is typical of statements by Catholic spokespersons and apologists, whether lawyers, church officials, or laypersons. But what is more ludicrous, abuse survivors and advocates fighting anyway they can to protect children and hold perpetrators and their enablers accountable to civil and criminal law, or spokespersons for a church that claims to be the moral authority for the world denigrating those survivors of horrific spiritual and physical abuse by priests, who represented God to them, as nothing more than publicity seekers? 
The Catholic Church and The Family International: popes and prophets who protect pedophiles


What the Pope should have said in his Easter sermon: "I did it. I was wrong. The buck stops here."




September 13, 2011

The Order of British Columbia is Out of Order


Chain The Dogma

The Order of British Columbia is Out of Order

by Perry Bulwer



The Order of British Columbia (the Order)  is an honour awarded yearly by an advisory council administered under Provincial legislation. The purpose of the award is "... to recognize persons who have served with the greatest distinction and excelled in any field of endeavour benefiting the people of British Columbia or elsewhere."

I don't usually give much thought to this award when it is announced, but a controversial appointee made me and many others  pay attention this year. I'm referring to the former Premier, Gordon Campbell,  who was convicted of drunk driving near the beginning of his tenure, which ended with him resigning in disgrace this year with a voter approval rating of just 9%,  making him the all time least popular Provincial Premier in Canada.


 Mug shot of Gordon Campbell in Hawaii after arrest for drunk driving


Many people objecting to Campbell's appointment base their arguments on a misunderstanding of the legislation, on the timing of the appointment or of its apparently political nature. But I think those arguments miss the main point, which is that Campbell simply does not deserve the honour, now or ever. Some people misread the legislation and thought Campbell was ineligible for the Order this year because he was nominated while still holding office. The first rule of statutory interpretation is to take the words in the legislation in their literal and plain sense as in a dictionary. Adjudicators first assess the common understanding of words and phrases, and in the case of the Order of British Columbia the Provincial Symbols and Honours Act states in section 17 (2):

A person who is an elected federal, provincial or municipal representative is not eligible to be appointed a member of the Order while that person remains in office.

It refers clearly to the appointment, not the nomination. Because of the confusion over that point, however, the Chief Justice of British Columbia, who is also the chairperson of the advisory council, issued a very brief clarification. He did not need to rely on any legal reasoning or citation because of that rule of interpretation. He simply wrote, without further explanation: “The nomination package for Mr. Campbell was received on March 10, 2011. Mr. Campbell was appointed to the Order of British Columbia on Sept. 2, 2011. At that time, he was not an elected MLA.”

Although Campbell was clearly eligible on that basis, some still object over the timing of the nomination. Campbell's tenure as Premier did not officially end until March 14, 2011, yet the nomination package for him was received by the advisory council on March 10, 2011. He had made public comments a few months earlier that he would be stepping down, still, the rush to nominate him is well out of order. Campbell is only the second of 35 B.C. Premiers to be appointed to the Order. The only other one, Bill Bennett, was not appointed until many years after he left office. So why the rush to anoint, I mean appoint, Campbell, especially given his mixed record? It smacks of political bias, which is another argument being made against the appointment.

Political columnist, Bill Tieleman,  points out that "... most members [of the advisory council]  have political or governmental connections to the former Campbell government." He goes on to highlight the political chicanery, scandals and corruption that occurred not only under Campbell's government, but involved two other persons receiving the Order this year who also are strongly connected to Campbell. Ken Dobell, Campbell's own former deputy minister who unethically deceived the citizens of British Columbia, and David Emerson, who notoriously and unethically deceived voters by switching federal political parties just days after being elected. As Tieleman writes: "... honouring Campbell, Emerson and Dobell is merely the latest manifestation of this entire province being out of order." Even if there was no actual political bias in the selection of appointees for the Order this year, there is certainly the appearance of bias. Either way, the prestige of the Order has been seriously diminished by the appointment of corrupt politicians, which casts a shadow over those ordinary citizens who were deservedly appointed over the years.

Although Tieleman, one of Campbell's most vociferous critics, complains of the hastiness and overtly political appearance of appointing Campbell to the Order, he does note that, "Regardless of Campbell's failings, he has made a long contribution to public service as a Vancouver councillor, mayor, MLA and premier." That may be accurate, but is a long contribution to public service enough on its own to be appointed to the Order? According to the legislation, appointees must "... have served with the greatest distinction and excelled in any field of endeavour benefiting the people of British Columbia or elsewhere." There is no doubt that Campbell has greatly benefited personally from his public service, but has his long public service benefited the people of B.C.? It all depends on who you ask.

It is difficult to imagine any poor person agreeing that Campbell's public service has benefited them. British Columbia has the lowest minimum wage in Canada, and for seven straight years had the worst child poverty rates in Canada, all thanks to Campbell's policies. Shortly after he took office, he began to wage a war, not against poverty, but against poor people. His government tightened the rules for social welfare eligibility, denying benefits to thousands of people and putting thousands of disabled people already receiving benefits through the unnecessary stress of requalifying. I know, because I've seen the fears and tears up close. Meanwhile, as Campbell increased corporate welfare for his business friends, poverty and homelessness increased.

Go ahead, ask those many thousands of British Columbia children who live in poverty thanks to Gordon Campbell if they think he deserves to be appointed to the Order, or if he deserves his appointment to the prestigious, cushy, lucrative post of High Commissioner to the United Kingdom. Ask the thousands of homeless and almost homeless people in B.C. what they think of the fact that Campbell will receive a government pension of around $100,000 on top of the nearly $200,000 plus free home and personal servants he will receive as Commissioner to the UK.  On the other hand, a single disabled person in B.C. receives only around $11,000 a year, (non-disabled get far less) with the housing portion of that amounting to just $375 a month. It is nearly impossible to find decent accommodation anywhere in the province for that amount. That means everyone receiving social assistance must either spend part of the money meant for food and other essentials to get a decent place to live, or live in sub-standard housing. Some choose or are forced to live on the street.

Instead of reducing poverty in B.C., Gordon Campbell's policies directly increased poverty causing untold misery for the very people he supposedly was serving. With service like that he shouldn't get a lucrative tip, like double-dipping into taxpayers pockets. I suppose the advisory council considers that serving with distinction and excelling in his field of endeavour. According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the status quo regarding poverty in British Columbia costs the government between 8 and 9 billion dollars a year, whereas a comprehensive poverty-reduction plan would cost between 3 and 4 billion dollars. So, not only did Campbell cause great harm to many thousands of poor people and their children, his neglect of those citizens cost the taxpayers of B.C. several billions of dollars each year he was Premier.

The advisory council who appointed Campbell to the Order ignored the facts of his dismal failure to help the most vulnerable citizens and lift them out of poverty during his public service, which in turn would have benefited all citizens. That ignorance gives credence to the claims of political bias in the appointment. But the council was not alone in rewarding Campbell despite his war against the poor. So too did the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, who appointed Campbell to his UK post. That is really no surprise since Harper also ignores the poor. Around four million Canadians, including more than one in seven children,  live in poverty yet the Harper government recently refused to accept the evidence-based recommendations of a Parliamentary committee to develop and implement a poverty-reduction plan.  One in seven Canadian children  in poverty amounts to over one million poor children. It is a national disgrace for one of the richest countries in the world, yet Prime Minister Harper shows more compassion and concern for the welfare of cats  than children. His official website  demonstrates that clearly. The home page under Family Center provides information on how to foster or adopt pets, but nowhere can you find any concern for the welfare of a million children suffering the indignity of poverty.

The Order of British Columbia is awarded to any British Columbian (or former long-term resident) who has demonstrated outstanding achievement, excellence or distinction in any field. However, there does not appear to be any consideration of the moral and ethical standing of a nominee. At least no such consideration is set out in the legislation, and no relevant question is asked on the nomination form. If such things are considered, they are left to the discretion of the advisory council, chaired by the Chief Justice of the Province. Apparently, no one on the council objected to the facts surrounding the immoral, unethical, and at times illegal actions of Campbell, Emerson and Dobell. Nor did they see the apparent irony of appointing a homelessness activist in the same year as Campbell who helped create much of that homelessness. Of the fourteen people appointed to the Order of British Columbia this year,  only the three conservative politicians on the list had the ability to both benefit and harm the people of British Columbia. It is hard to see, for example, how Karen O'Shannacery of Vancouver, a tireless advocate for homeless people who was also appointed to the Order this year, could cause any harm to British Columbians in the way that Gordon Campbell and his political and corporate cronies did.

If ordinary citizens of British Columbia, not corrupt political, legal, or corporate elitists, could choose appointees to the Order, it is possible that they would still select Gordon Campbell, but I think it would be for the following reason.




UPDATE October 7, 2011


The induction ceremony for the Order of B.C. took place on October 4, and guess who didn't show up. Gordon Campbell not only didn't attend the ceremony, he refused to explain his absence. What does this mean? Does Campbell recognize that he doesn't deserve the honour, has declined his induction into the Order, and will return any medal or benefit that accompanies the award? Or does Campbell's absence and silence indicate he recognizes the controversy over his appointment, and fears attending the ceremony would do more to reignite that controversy than simply ignoring it would? If the reason he couldn't attend was a matter of an unavoidable scheduling conflict, then why didn't he simply instruct his office staff to respond with that excuse to inquiries? Whatever this snub and silence means, it is typical of how Campbell governed, so considering the source I suppose it is a  response we should have expected.