It looks like history is about to repeat itself.

Mr. Harper has announced that he wants to eliminate government subsidies for political parties. So far he’s only said that he wants to use that as a Conservative plank in the next election, but I’m betting that it will appear in bill form sometime before early March – just before a budget would have to be brought down.

Why? The first time the government tried to eliminate subsidies, the opposition parties freaked out and botched forming a coalition. This time around, instead of proroguing, Harper is going to force the vote and allow the government to fall on this handy dandy wedge issue. In the subsequent election, he can paint the other parties as pigs at a trough, and say “there are already generous credits and incentives in the tax system to encourage people to give to political parties today.” Oh wait. He just did.

I can pretend the move is antidemocratic: the subsidy means that everyone’s vote has value. In a donation-only system, only people who have spare cash can donate, so they’ll donate to parties that pander to their wants meet their needs. Poor folks (who can’t wait until tax time for their tax credits to be returned) won’t be represented as well.

But, in my heart of hearts, my main reason for supporting the subsidy is that it benefits the Green Party. The subsidy forms a substantial part of the our budget, so any reduction of the subsidy would cripple the federal party. I tend to think of that as a bad thing, but others would probably disagree.

1. At some point in the early 2000s, Canada joined the US invasion of Afghanistan. Part of our exit strategy was to say that we wanted the Afghan policy/army to become professional enough that they could handle their own detainees.
   
2. In January of 2006, a Conservative government came into power in Canada after 12 years of Liberal rule. Our Conservatives/Liberals are like a really left wing version of your Republicans/Democrats.
   
3. In early 2006, Richard Colvin (a no-name Canadian diplomat), see was sent to Afghanistan as a diplomat. He was apparently the #2ish Canadian civilian official in the country.
   
4. In a roughly 18 month period between early 2006 and late 2007, Richard Colvin saw evidence that the Afghan authorities regularly tortured prisoners. Under the Geneva conventions, a country cannot knowingly hand enemy combatants over to authorities that will torture them. That’s a war crime. Colvin sent a number of memos back to Ottawa informing them of the situation. At some point in 2007, he was told to stop writing his complaints down, and told to voice them over the phone.
   
5. In late 2006, early 2007, a Globe and Mail reporter broke the story that Afghan authorities were torturing prisoners given to them by Canadian troops. The Canadian government initially dissembled, then eventually decided to improve their procedures to ensure that detainees were being treated fairly.
   
6. At some point in 2009, Richard Colvin was subpoenaed to testify before a Parliamentry committee (like your congressional committees, with equivalent powers) to say that his superiors must have known about the torture going on in 2006-2007, but did nothing to stop it. If his allegations can be shown to be true, then members of the Canadian government may be liable to stand trial for war crimes. Note that Canadian soldiers themselves would not be guilty of war crimes – only the (civilian) policy-setting oversight bodies, since those bodies controlled what happened to detainees.
   
7. This is where things get murky. The Conservative government circled the wagons after Colvin’s testimony. They implied that anyone who cares about Afghan detainees is either woolly headed or a Taliban supporter. They didn’t supply a number of documents requested by the Parliamentry committee (which, if it’s intentional, is illegal). The conservative MPs sitting on the Parliamentry committee didn’t show up to the last meeting in December, which prevented quorum, which prevented the committee from planning its next move. Then our Prime Minister essentially dissolved Parliament on New Years’ eve.

This is where things get partisan. Folks who are generally opposed to the Conservative government are squealing that there’s a cover-up going on. Those who support the Conservatives are saying… well… they’re saying that it’s perfectly legal for a Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament at any time. Which is true.

In the wake of the prorogation (a fancy term for the dissolution of Parliament), a bunch of uppity folks which include a number of Conservative-supporters, turned out for fairly massive protests in late January. Many of the protesters feel that the prorogation served no discernible purpose other than to hit the pause button on the detainee issue until March, when the federal budget may distract the media from embarrassing questions.

Of course, there’s some context here:

• Regarding the military: In the mid 1990s, some Canadian troops were dispatched to Somalia on a peace keeping mission. Sadly, the troops in question had discipline issues and (alleged) white supremacist tendencies. Time passed, and a couple of Somali kids turned up dead in the Canadian camp, and a bunch of photos surfaced showing Canadian soldiers torturing at least one of the boys. More time passed, the government of the day (Liberal, this time) was finally coerced into calling an inquiry. Over the course of the inquiry, it appeared as if the government (or Defence Department) was executing some kind of coverup. Despite that a number of low-ranking soldiers were found guilty guilty, and the unit was disbanded. Canadians view themselves as a nation of peace keepers, so that was like an itty bitty kick to the national gonads.
  
• Regarding our Parliament: Effectively, Canada has a two-party state. Usually, one of those parties (overwhelmingly the Liberal Party) has a majority of seats in Parliament. At the moment, the Conservatives have a minority government. If all of the MPs in the House decide to pass a non-confidence vote against the government, a federal election will be forced. Which means that the Conservative government is walking a knife-edge of governing the way they want to, versus appeasing the rest of the political leaders to prevent a non-confidence vote. If any one of the parties senses political advantage (ie, pulling ahead in the polls), then they will force an election.

4000 people attending the anti-prorogation rally in Ottawa

So what?

Let’s geek out a little bit here. Why hold a protest?

1. To scare the bejesus out of your opposition. Imagine your company pays kids in Sri Lanka to chew asbestos to make iPhones. Everyone likes iPhones, nobody cares about cancer kids overseas. Life is good. Until one day when you show up at work and there are a thousand people burning you in effigy. You may start to consider other ways of making iPhones.
2. To impress the pundits. Media, commentators, bloggers, and other self-declared arbiters of importance will pooh-pooh your cause when they think it’s just you and your mom who care about it. When you and your mom organize a rally that brings a couple of thousand people out, those commentators will change their position. And if they think you’re important, that helps scare your opposition all the more, and draw more folks into your movement.
3. To attract more supporters. It’s really disheartening to feel like you’re the only person who feels something. A rally can help solve that. It’s shows potential supporters that they aren’t alone and they have a group to plug into. Hopefully, it will swell your ranks, and enable future (metaphoric) asskicking on your issue.

Harper effigy beside a protester's sign