Note: Joe Gunn is executive director of Citizens for Public Justice, an Ottawa-based ecumenical group advocating for social justice. He has worked for churches and church organizations, mainly Catholics, in Canada and Latin America, and he was director for the Social Affairs office of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB). In March 2010, he delivered the Sommerville lecture in Christianity and Communications at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario. I am, with Gunn’s permission, providing here an excerpt from that speech.

On October 17th, 1996, Canadians turned on their evening newscast to hear CBC anchor Peter Mansbridge begin with these words: “Good evening. A blistering attack on governments across the country today, from Canada’s Roman Catholic bishops. The issue is poverty. The bishops accuse governments of using the most vulnerable people in society as human fodder in the battle against deficits. And the bishops weren’t the only ones speaking out…”

The bishops were holding their annual plenary gathering in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Before they began the meeting, however, the bishops of the Social Affairs Commission gathered with a roomful of local activists, including the president of the National Anti-Poverty Organization. To the assembled media, the bishops released their pastoral letter at Hope Cottage, a church-run soup kitchen in the downtown core. People living in poverty spoke, so it wasn’t only the bishops who got the microphone. And after the press conference, the media accompanied the men in black to serve lunch and eat together at the soup kitchen.

Today there seems to be a big change in terms of the public voice of the churches. The Catholic Church has not been totally silent, but if you go to the “Documents” section of the website of the Social Affairs Commission of the bishops, only one text has appeared since March 2008. Today, the capacity and determination of the churches to work for social and ecological justice seems weak. Service to the world now seems less of a concern than doctrine and maintenance of a shrinking membership base among the largest, historical denominations. Economically, the mainline churches are suffering, with unfortunate cuts to church staff and budgets becoming widespread. Is this change happening in all the Christian churches? Is there still a role for conscientious Christian leadership in public justice in Canadian society today? And if so, how might it best be done?

Should Christians be engaged?

Citizens for Public Justice [the organization that Gunn leads] believes that “if religion is understood to be one’s ultimate commitment or life orientation, then it cannot be confined to private life, particular rituals or institutions.” After all, why argue for keeping Christianity or Islam out of public life, when other “religious” value systems like capitalism, liberalism or humanism are not restricted? To ask a person of faith to leave their beliefs behind as soon as a political discussion begins is like asking a lung to refuse to breathe in air. The real issue is how people of faith can and should contribute to a hopeful citizenship.

Not only do Christians have to get involved in public justice, then, but the proper way to advance on this path to holiness is by addressing the causes of suffering of the poor, the disadvantaged, and the Earth community.

Status of faith-based work for justice

A month ago I contacted the social ministry offices of Canada’s nine largest Christian churches and asked if they’d answer a few questions about their social ministries. Eight of the nine were more than pleased to do so: only the CCCB refused to respond. I received helpful replies from the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada, the United Church in Canada, the Christian Reformed Church, Mennonite Central Committee, the Canadian Religious Conference, and the Canadian Council of Churches (CCC).

Among the nine church groupings in the survey, more than two-thirds have fewer staff resources today as compared to five years ago. Several organizations now use short-term internships filled especially by students. Increasingly, volunteers are mandated to serve on committees where staff once served. One respondent expressed disappointment that there were “few, if any” justice educational resources for church use in congregations, and expressed disappointment that there is “no capacity to draft briefs or make presentations to government committees.” When asked what had happened to budgets for this work of social ministry over the past five years, five of the groups reported that they had suffered decreases (some of even up to half), and two had no increase.

When asked about future expectations, six of eight churches that responded to this question expect decreased budgets in the short term future, with the larger groups at reductions of 9-10%, which are levels that could mean losing staff. One church office gave staff a week off without pay as a cost saving measure.

Finally, I asked the most difficult question: “Do you feel that your church office has increased, decreased or enhanced effectiveness in social justice ministries over the past five years?” Seven respondents answered. Three mentioned greatly decreased effectiveness, while two said things remained about the same. One respondent felt his church had “in practice, essentially abandoned its work on social justice” spending most of its time on internal issues and sexuality. This person added, “I suspect those who are passionate are working outside the formal church structures.”

Another revealing commentary was that, “With the sequential decimations of church office staff in all the important member churches of the CCC, there is nothing like the capacity there used to be to undertake substantial joint work compared to five years ago. We continue to rely on sister organizations for substantial policy work: Project Ploughshares, Citizens for Public Justice, KAIROS. . . but unfortunately, those partners are also vulnerable.”

The case of KAIROS

The situation of KAIROS having its funding cut by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) has been in the news recently. What has not been well-covered is that official Catholic support for ecumenical social justice work through KAIROS has been curiously muted. Although both Development and Peace (D&P) and the Catholic bishops serve on KAIROS’ board, their financial commitment to the organization has diminished over the years. The Catholic bishops now give KAIROS $100,000, and all of that comes from D&P. Six years ago, they gave over $250,000. It is the faithful and generous contributions from religious sisters that maintain the Catholic contribution to this ecumenical social justice ministry today.

Not only financial support, but also political support has been waning. In early December, a memo sent to all the bishops reported, “the CCCB executive committee unanimously agreed that the Conference of Bishops will not embark on a campaign to pressure the government of Canada to reconsider its funding decision” concerning the cuts to KAIROS. The executive gave two reasons for inaction: “The international program of KAIROS has always been secondary for the CCCB,” and “The CCCB is not convinced that such a campaign will result in success.”

Contrast this response with that of South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who stated on December 9 that, “The world needs more of KAIROS Canada. It would be an unparalleled setback for the poor, vulnerable and disenfranchised if the voice and work of KAIROS in the global South is muted.” The board of Citizens for Public Justice echoed this concern in their letter to the prime minister, stating “CPJ is concerned that this decision may be another in the trend to discontinue funding of groups who raise questions about current policies, thereby silencing some of the diverse voices that are essential for a healthy public debate about international issues of justice and stewardship.”

New tone needed

While the recent voices of the Christian churches in Canada have been muted and maligned when they have engaged in the public sphere, public dialogue and political advocacy are still constitutive elements of what it means to be a person of faith. But it seems clear that this must now be done differently than in the past.

First, there is still a role to play in defending ecumenical social justice ministry in the churches – I see no reason to cede hard won ground now occupied by the organizations like KAIROS that represent almost 40 years of struggling to live the Gospel faithfully in action. We cannot spend all our strength in attempting to maintain church structures for social ministry if these efforts make such demands upon our energy that we are not free to address the real social and ecological challenges that history places before us.

Secondly, lay people will have to lead the way in defending ecumenical social justice ministry in the Canadian churches, and even start new movements. We should get over any assumption that the churches’ social witness has to be further clericalized in order to be valid. Laypeople of all sexes should be able to reclaim their social mission as well as their contribution to the emerging non-white church’s more inclusive voice.

Thirdly, the way we’ve designed the process of preparing and delivering church statements must change. Have you ever been asked your opinion on an issue, or invited to help develop an opinion in dialogue, study and debate with your church leadership? If we don’t involve more people in these processes, we can’t expect them to fully accept any eventual stances as their own.

Fourthly, we need to walk the talk before we squawk. The example of the 1996 pastoral letter on poverty suggests how a process was developed to draft a message with others, and deliver this text with the only people who could be the architects of their own liberation: people with a lived experience of poverty. Otherwise, the message would have lacked authenticity and credibility.

Fifth, it is important to ensure that the spoken word of the churches is delivered to defend the poor and vulnerable. It is crucial and not always easy to ensure that these words do not arise in order to promote the churches’ own interests and reputations, instead.

Sixth, any pronouncement has to be delivered with appropriate humility. Polls tell us that Christianity is the affiliation of 77% of Canadians, but only 17% attended a place of worship in the previous week. As some say, “Canada is a nation of believers, but not belongers.” A Christendom view of the world is no longer prevalent. A whole new role, perhaps a smaller role, for organized Christian religions is emerging.

Perhaps the situation offers possibilities for groups like Citizens for Public Justice and other lay associations to be more collaborative and helpful to churches that are desirous of recovering their voice on public justice issues. And perhaps we need to remind ourselves that large, unwieldy institutions don’t always have the genetic make-up to be prophetic. The cutting edge seems to flourish more easily on the margins, in smaller groupings that are more nimble, responsive, and enjoy fewer organizational constraints. Perhaps the Christian voice in public affairs today should best be presented in new tones – but we should not accept that voice being either muted or maligned.

By Dennis Gruending

I have spent much of my time in the past months working on a book with an old friend, and I have been less active in the blogosphere as a result. The book will be called Truth to Power, and it presents the best from 21 years of journalism by Father Andrew Britz, a Benedictine monk at St. Peter’s Abbey in the hinterland of rural Saskatchewan, far from the centres of ecclesiastical and political influence. Kingsley Publishing of Calgary will release it in the fall of 2010.

Andrew was editor of the Prairie Messenger, a Catholic weekly newspaper that has been published by the monks since 1904. He was fearless in speaking truth to the powerful in church and society – to popes and prime ministers, capitalists and clerics. “It is not easy producing a prophetic paper year in and year out,” he writes in one of the editorials published in this book. “Prophets call us to a new age.”

The new age for him is one that resists an imperial papacy, one in which his church honours and takes seriously the gifts of all the baptized – lay people as well as clerics, women as well as men, and the poor, especially the poor. Andrew’s world is also one where the abuses of liberal capitalism are held in check, where militarizartion is curtailed, where the earth and all of its peoples are treated with respect, and one where all religions act in unity for the common good. Although he is best known for his provacative editorials, there is also a deeply contempaltive dimension to his writing, the legacy of his life as a monk and a trained liturgist who is deeply steeped in church history.

In his 21 years as an editor, Andrew wrote close to 2000 editorials. With some expert help from two associate editors, one former and one current, Andrew delved into the archive and sent me his first cut. We have worked from there and have chosen about 150 pieces.  In Truth to Power, Andrew confronts honestly and with clarity many of the issues that confront the church and the world. Here is a sampling:

The papacy: “Nothing that Christ said can be used to underpin the church’s hierarchical model of authority.”

The bishops: “The church needs some mavericks, even maverick bishops who do not hold exactly the ‘right’ position on celibacy, nuclear weapons, condoms and homosexuals.”

Lay people: “The laity is not present in the church for the clergy; the priesthood is for the people.”

Women in the church: “It is embarrassing to read what the great bishops and theologians of age after age in the church have had to say about women.”

Social justice: “The church seldom gets in trouble for proclaiming the importance of charity. Resentment mounts quickly, however, when the Gospel prompts its followers to strengthen the call for justice. ”

Economic development:  “Liberal capitalism, according to [Pope John Paul] cannot be trusted. It is not to be chosen as the model for socio-economic development.”

The environment: “A church based on sacraments should quite naturally be ecological.”

Abortion: “We like many Catholics have refused to see abortion as a single issue. We insist on keeping all the life issues [capital punishment, mindless militarization, nuclear war and terrorism] together in one ‘seamless garment’”.

Birth Control: “To shore up teaching contained in the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae (On human life), the church has centralized authority as it has never been previously exercised in the church.”

Ecumenism: “Gone – forever we hope – is the day in which we can boast that the Catholic church alone has the whole truth.”

Fundamentalism:  “[This] is about simple answers, answers freed from all humanization that comes from involvement in time and space, from dealing with life’s inevitable struggles.”

Christmas: “Jesus became flesh. That is what Christmas is all about. In doing so he gave infinite value to the lives real people live.”

Easter: “It is the celebration of community. The community itself is our sign (sacrament) of the Lord’s resurrection.”

Vatican II: “Brilliantly conceived but abysmally executed”

I first met Andrew in 1965. I was a student at St. Peter’s College, a boys’ boarding school that coexisted with the monastery at Muenster, about an hour to the north and east of Saskatoon — and he was a seminarian. I have been a reader of the Prairie Messenger for all of my adult life and have also contributed news stories and columns to the paper. So it was perhaps not surprising that Andrew and I are cooperating on this project. The wonderful and courageous writing is his. I am the book’s editor and will write an introduction provide biographical information about Andrew and background about the rich progressive tradition of the Prairie Messenger.

In addition, two prominent and knowledgeable Canadians will contribute their insights. They will comment on Andrew’s writing and why it remains important for church and society today. Dr. Mary Jo Leddy is a well-known author and activist, and Dr. John Thompson, a sociologist, is the former principal of a St. Thomas More College at the University of Saskatchewan. Thompson says this in his chapter analyzing Andrew’s work: “These editorials exhibit a powerful mind at work – informed, subtle, at home with complexity and uncertainty, compassionate and ethical, clear, and prayerful.”

Andrew was ordained a priest in 1966 and it was his fate to come of age during the Second Vatican Council. He immersed himself in that great reforming project, not yet completed, and he used his long tenure as editor to explore and promote the teachings of Vatican II. In it he finds the keys to justice and to right relationships. Stay tuned.

By Dennis Gruending

 A group of the world’s most respected Elders says that religions frequently oppress women and that it’s time for faith groups to change their ways. “Religion and tradition are a great force for peace and progress around the world,” the group said in a statement issued in July 2009. “However, as Elders, we believe that the justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a higher authority, is unacceptable . . . We especially call on religious and traditional leaders to set an example and change all discriminatory practices within their own religions and traditions.”

The Elders include Nelson Mandela, former Irish president Mary Robinson, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi, Kofi Annan, Graca Machel, Gro Brundtland, and former U.S. president Jimmy Carter. Mandela brought the group together in 2007. He said that as former leaders no longer in office they could “speak freely and boldy” to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity. They have visited and supported peace initiatives in Cyprus, the Middle East, Zimbabwe and Sudan, but now they have turned their attention to equality for women and girls – and upon the role that religions play in prolonging the injustice.

Carter quits Baptists over women’s ‘subservience’

Jimmy Carter is among the most outspoken of the Elders on this point. A lifelong Baptist who continued to teach Sunday school even while he was president, Carter made a painful decision to leave the Southern Baptist Convention in July 2009. He said that his action became unavoidable when the convention’s leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses, decided that women must be “subservient” to their husbands and prohibited from holding most church positions. Carter wrote at the time that, “Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God.”

Carter developed his theme further in December 2009 when he spoke, via teleconference, to a gathering called the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Melbourne, Australia. “The plight of abused women is made more acceptable by the mandated subservience of women by religious leaders,” Carter said. He reminded his audience that in the Christian scripture, St. Paul wrote (in his letter to the Corinthians) that “there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Carter took another swipe at the Baptist convention and also at the Catholic church, the two largest religious groups in the U.S. “The Roman Catholic Church and many others revere the Virgin Mary but consider women unqualified to serve as priests,” he said.

Dueling philosophies

There is a philosophy called complementarianism, which holds that God has ordained some forms of leadership (such as being a priest, pastor or elder) as exclusive to men. The counter concept is known as egalitarianism, or biblical equality, which holds that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth and moral status. The logical conclusion here is that both men and women are fit to hold any and all offices within their churches, not to mention their role in secular society. The debate often centres around the interpretation of certain Biblical passages. The complementarians like to quote portions of Genesis, where Adam was allegedly created first. Those who hold this philosophy justify the exclusion of females from leadership due to the deception of Eve by Satan, which resulted in the fall. There are also New Testament passages, including some by St. Paul, about women covering their heads, or wives being submissive to their husbands. These time-limited passages are read to restrict leadership to men.

Carter and his fellow Elders will have none of it. The Scriptures, Carter said in his Melbourne speech, were written when male dominance prevailed in every aspect of life and so it is not surprising that they reflect a dominantly male point of view. “I realize that devout Christians can find adequate scripture to justify either side in this debate,” he said, “but there is one incontrovertible fact concerning the relationship between Jesus Christ and women: he never condoned sexual discrimination or the implied subservience of women.”

Women and the church

The Catholic church is perhaps the most prominent example of complementarianism. Its leadership also clings to the position that because there were no women among the first apostles there can never be female priests. In a church whose decision-making is dominated by clerics, that means women are forever excluded from leadership. The last two popes have said the matter is closed and cannot be discussed. Pope John Paul II was not amused when, on his visit to the United States in 1979, Sister Teresa Kane, president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, challenged him publicly on the church’s treatment of women. The Vatican continues to rail against feminism and in July 2009 it announced a sweeping review of congregations of religious sisters in the United States. Some sisters fear that the Vatican is trying to shunt them back into the old ways.

Catholics and Southern Baptists have plenty of company in their opposition to having women participate in leadership. Pope Benedict recently agreed to welcome as Catholics those traditionalist Anglican priests who are disgruntled with their church. I had assumed their greatest objection would be that some Anglican congregations support same sex marriage or are willing to consecrate gay bishops. I have been surprised to read how often the unhappiness of disaffected Anglican priests is based on their opposition to the ordination of women.

In Canada, the United Church had its debate about women’s ordination in 1936. Yet, as recently as 2006, the Canadian Mennonite Brethren spent much of its national conference debating whether member churches should be free to call women to serve as ministers and pastoral leaders. The resolution was finally carried with 77% voting in favour. The Christian and Missionary Alliance (Prime Minister Harper is a member) will not ordain women and has had an on-again-off-again debate for more than 20 years about whether women should be allowed to serve as Elders in the church.

High stakes

There is more at stake here than another odd quarrel among church members that has little to do with the secular world. Every society has its creation myths and often they are powerful in ordering social and personal behaviour. Catholicism is the world’s largest Christian religion and wields considerable power and influence. The Vatican even has permanent observer status at the United Nations. Catholics compromise the largest church in the U.S. with 70 million adherents. The Southern Baptist Convention, with 16 million members, is the second largest religious group, and is growing rapidly. The leadership of both churches has veered to the right in recent years. Both, for example, opposed President Obama’s 2009 health care reform on the basis that it might lead to the state paying for abortions.

Church leaders are saying that women are not welcome to participate at all levels in their churches, or that women must be subservient to their husbands. That sends a strong signal to all of society’s institutions, from home to school, to boardroom and legislature. The message that women must be subservient and cannot lead is potentially of enormous consequence in the secular world. It is there, Carter said, that progress is being made and he fears that gains could be reversed. “It is ironic,” he added, “that women are now welcomed into all major professions and other positions of authority, but are branded as inferior and deprived of the equal right to serve God in positions of religious leadership.”
In fact, Carter fears that religious discrimination against women helps to create a general environment “in which violations against women are justified.”

These violations include widespread physical assault and the sexual abuse of women and girls; the use of rape by soldiers as a tactic of warfare; the recruitment of an estimated four million women and girls each year into the sex trade; restriction (mainly in Muslim countries) placed on the movement, education and social interaction of girls and women. We are mistaken if we believe that violations exist in faraway countries but not in our own. Carter could have said that 520 Aboriginal women have been murdered or gone missing in Canada, half of them since the year 2000, or that men with guns murder about 30 women each year in our country.

So the Elders have spoken. Carter, Mandela, Tutu, Robinson and the others present a formidable counterweight to blind tradition. They are immensely respected for their achievements and their integrity. They say that they are fully committed to the realization of equality and empowerment for all women and girls. They call upon all leaders, religious and secular, to promote and protect those inalienable rights. Theirs is a powerful message.

By Dennis Gruending

I reported earlier in December that the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) had cut off all funding to the ecumenical justice group KAIROS. I speculated that likely it happened because KAIROS was challenging the government’s support for rapid development in the heavily polluting oil sands in Western Canada. But alert readers raised another possibility for the government’s action. Emily Dee wrote to the Comments section of Pulpit and Politics on December 12: “I agree that the criticism of the tar sands was no doubt a factor, but I think there was another reason — both Jason Kenney and Stockwell Day claim that KAIROS was anti-Semitic because they criticized Israel.” In fact, on December 16, Kenney, the Immigration Minister, was to level just such charges against KAIROS in a speech that he made in Jerusalem at a global forum for combating anti-Semitism.

Kenney is now denying that he said KAIROS was anti-Semitic, but says he made the more limited accusation that KAIROS was supporting efforts to apply economic sanctions against Israel. But for the record, here is what  the Conservative-friendly National Post quotes Kenney as saying in Jerusalem: “We have articulated and implemented a zero tolerance approach to anti-Semitism. What does this mean? It means that we eliminated the government funding relationship with organizations like for example, the Canadian Arab Federation, whose leadership apologized for terrorism or extremism, or who promote hatred, in particular anti-Semitism. We have ended government contact with like-minded organizations like the Canadian Islamic Congress, whose President notoriously said that all Israelis over the age of 18 are legitimate targets for assassination. We have defunded organizations, most recently like KAIROS, who are taking a leadership role in the boycott.” A videotaped version of Kenney’s remarks is also available. Obviously, one must assume that Kenney meant what he said and knew that it would be reported, even though he is now backpedalling.

Bullying KAIROS

KAIROS was surprised when its funding for international projects was cut off but now the organization and its church sponsors are outraged at having Kenney accuse them of being anti-Semitic, a heavily-loaded phrase that carries with it the dark resonance of the holocaust. “Minister Kenney’s charge against KAIROS is false,” KAIROS said in a statement released on December 18. “Two points need to be made: Criticism of Israel does not constitute anti-Semitism; and CIDA was developed to fund international aid and not to serve political agendas”.

Many organizations and governments have criticized the state of Israel for its long-standing and illegal occupation of Palestinian land and its continued harsh treatment of Palestinians. However, for Kenney and others any criticism of Israeli government policies is quickly branded as anti-Semitism. Ironically, there is a freer and much more robust debate within Israel’s own media and among its citizens than is possible in North America with its active pro-Israel lobby.

Church leaders speaking on behalf of faith groups that belong to KAIROS have denounced the government cuts of $7 million. Writing in The Globe and Mail, Michael Valpy reports that, in protest, members of congregations in 250 church groups across Canada “banged bells and pots and pans at their gathering for worship [on December 13].” Valpy also reports church leaders are telling him off the record that they are worried that the controversy will endanger harmony between Christians and Jewish groups.

KAIROS acts on behalf of 13 of Canada’s major churches or church-based organizations, and it includes under its umbrella the Anglican, Catholic, Christian Reformed, Lutheran, Presbyterian and United Churches, as well as the Mennonite Central Committee, the Quakers and others. KAIROS, or its predecessor groups, have received money from CIDA for 35 years to support partners working in some of the world’s difficult trouble spots, including the Middle East. When KAIROS was told on November 30 that it had been cut off, no detailed explanation was given. CIDA’s minister Bev Oda, when questioned in the House of Commons, said KAIROS lost its funding because of shifting priorities at CIDA. She said nothing then, or later, that would indicate that she believes KAIROS is anti-Semitic.

Kenney, however, is a more powerful and rigidly ideological minister. He worked in 2000 to organize the religious right on behalf of Stockwell Day in his campaign against Preston Manning for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance party.  Day won but when his leadership imploded and Stephen Harper succeeded him in 2002, Kenney became a trusted operative. When the Harper-led Conservatives became the government, Kenney was given a key responsibility in winning over new Canadians and certain religiously identified groups to support the Conservatives. One imperative has been to woo Jewish voters and their financial support. Kenney and the Conservatives have clearly chosen sides – supporting Israeli no matter what actions it undertakes. This unflinching support also plays to the fringe elements of the Christian right – who believe that Armageddon in the Middle East would fulfill what they believe is a biblical prophecy that End Times and the rapture are drawing near. Arab and Muslim Canadians have not been amused by the Conservatives’ unwavering support for Israel, but Kenney and Harper have chosen their ground deliberately.

Wedge and conquer

One would expect a national government to promote unity rather than discord, but that faint hope does not account for how the Conservatives do politics. No party in Canada is likely to receive support from a majority of voters in a country beset by regionalism and fractured parliaments. In this context, it is seen as important to mobilize and maintain your core support. One way to do it is to use wedge issues to create division and provoke  anger.  The Conservatives have used a wedge and conquer strategy in their campaigns against same sex marriage and the gun registry to name just two issues. They are using the same tactics against KAIROS and in the way they treat any criticism of the war in Afghanistan. Personal attacks are a staple against any person or group that disagrees with the government lines on anything.

Bullying Richard Colvin

I reported on November 30 about Richard Colvin, a Canadian diplomat who served in Afghanistan, and who has blown the whistle on the government’s complicity in the torture of Afghans taken prisoner by Canadian soldiers and turned over to Afghan prison authorities. The Conservative government responded by denying Colvin’s allegations and attacking his integrity. The Prime Minister and Defence Minister Peter McKay both described Colvin as essentially a dupe of the Taliban. Those ministers and Transport Minister John Baird meet most questions from the opposition parties by accusing them of sullying the integrity and efforts of Canadian soldiers. The strategy is to attack anyone who questions the actions of the military high command or the government’s behaviour as being disloyal and unpatriotic.

Colvin was a trusted civil servant and following his tour in Afghanistan he was assigned as an intelligence officer at the Canadian embassy in Washington. He made his comments when summoned to testify before a Parliamentary committee. He is being punished by the Conservatives for his diligence and honesty and his career may well be in jeopardy as a result. A group of 133 retired Canadian ambassadors has taken the unprecedented step of circulating a petition defending Colvin from his attackers. The former ambassadors say that the Conservative government is politicizing the civil service and that Colvin’s treatment will intimidate all public servants whose job has been traditionally to provide honest advice to the government and its ministers.

Haroon Siddiqui, a Toronto Star columnist, describes the government’s action in the following way: “The extent of Harper’s misuse of power becomes clearer when you realize that the Conservatives are replicating some of the worst practices of the Republicans under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney: Consolidating executive power; eviscerating the legislative branch; operating under extreme secrecy (by keeping an iron grip on information, through endless court challenges and censoring/redacting documents); riding the coattails of the military and questioning the patriotism of political opponents; and forcing out public servants who refused to fall in line.”

KAIROS and its supporters in numerous Canadian churches have chosen not to fall in line. KAIROS is continuing with its campaign to have the CIDA funding cuts restored. See their petition here. Please consider signing it.

And Merry Christmas, happy holidays – really!