By Michael Nabert

The difference between conspiracy theory and conspiracy fact is evidence, so, let’s look at some. We can start with some detailed and damning analysis of Bill C-51 from some legal experts. And there’s an open letter condemning the bill from more Canadian legal expertise than you can shake a stick at.

A former CSIS officer is telling us it’s a problem, and four different Prime Ministers stand against it, with some Supreme Court justices thrown in. There there’s Ed Broadbent and Roy Romanow.

Edward Snowden, who has already revealed that Canada is breaching all kinds of privacy boundaries in the most discomforting ways, calls it what it is. Even Ralph Nader jumped in on this one. Let’s not forget to mention that every prominent voice raised here has stated clearly that this is a really terrible idea.

It’s not like there are also other experts coming forward to congratulate us for it.

But it’s not just the left, conservative sources hate it too.

Then there’s the press. Canada’s press, despite conservative talking points about ‘liberal media,’ almost universally stand in Harper’s corner on darned near everything. Consider the way they responded to his being found in contempt of Parliament by almost universally endorsing returning him to power.

But this bill is too much even for them. The Toronto Star, The National Post and the The Globe and Mail all hate it.

There’s U of T paper acknowledging it threatens academic freedom.

Even the international press is paying attention.



And concerns about the bill go much farther than lack of oversight.

So, what does Stephen Harper have to say about it? He calls questions about the bill doing exactly what virtually every expert that’s taken a look at it tells us it can be misused to do as “conspiracy theory,” while trying to limit debate, and not even showing up.

I think the not showing up part is our real clue here as to how much Stephen Harper cares about expert opinion or the will of the people. A token effort to include a couple more days of expert testimony is pure window dressing as long as this government stays committed to making this thing happen no matter what the experts say about it.

But when Stephen Harper can’t even be bothered to sit through some testimony, that’s the slap in the face that tells us all that we need to know.

About Michael Nabert: During the last Federal election, I was naive enough to think that this was as bad as the Harper impact on Canada could get.

Boy, was I wrong. Now all I want is an opportunity to dedicate myself full time for a couple of months to trying to bring his regime to an end while there’s still bits of Canada I find recognizable. Can you spare a buck towards unleashing me on them?

I also hope to organize a bunch of people to politely reach across the political divide to speak words of reason to supporters of my political opponents. Join me/find out more here.

I’m also on Twitter: @SustainableSong

“The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.”

― H.L. Mencken