Harper's War On The Middle Class

Continues apace.

A shortage of skilled workers is the biggest challenge many Canadian businesses face today, Employment Minister Jason Kenney told a skills summit Wednesday, warning it could also jeopardize Canada's economic development in the future. 

The problem would continue to grow as the population ages, Kenney told the one-day conference, which brought together stakeholders to discuss the labour market, employee training and those under-represented in the labour force. 

Currently 30 per cent of the skilled trade workers in Canada are baby boomers, Kenney said, adding that they will soon retire. 

"They are going to take with them a lifetime of knowledge and skill," he said. 

It's necessary that an "informed national discussion" take place about the condition of Canada's labour market, in order to address future skills gaps, Kenney said. 

"We can acknowledge that we have inadequate labour market information and we need to do a fundamentally better job of getting granular information by region and industry," he said.

Coming from a minister of the government that has dismantled the ability of Statistics Canada to even perform an accurate, useful census of Canadians, that's almost funny - if it wasn't so tragic.

Of course, the Harper Conservatives don't like university educated people as a whole.  There's a reason for this:  people with a liberal arts based education don't typically vote conservative.  So, they've been quietly rejigging the funding for federal research grants (which are an important part of university funding) for several years.

Adjusted for inflation, granting council funding has been in serious decline since 2007-08. Funding for SSHRC has fallen by over 10 per cent in real dollars, while core support for NSERC and CIHR are down 6.4 per cent and 7.5 per cent respectively. Support for the indirect costs of research has declined by 7.9 per cent. Overall federal support for the granting councils is down 7.5 per cent in inflation-adjusted dollars since 2007-08. 

There's more.  Not only has the government been quietly reducing the amount of funding it makes available for basic research, they have been changing NSERC's focus to "applied research":

"Collaboration between government, applied researchers and the private sector is vital to building an innovative economy," said Minister Goodyear. "The College and Community Innovation Program supports research collaborations between companies and colleges. It illustrates the importance our government places on creating the conditions for innovation and entrepreneurship to thrive in this country."

What does this have to do with Harper's war on Canada's middle class?  A lot.

First of all, it has fundamentally undermined the core of the concept of University.  If you are taking a degree in disciplines like Engineering, Business or Law, it's great.  You're seeing money poured into your department hand over fist.  If you're interests are in other areas - the social sciences, the liberal arts, not so much.  In fact, the government has been actively discouraging research in these areas and enrolment in those fields of study.  Want to study something that is "politically sensitive" (like gender and sexuality issues for example)? Good luck getting funding.  It isn't going to happen.

The consequence?  First of all, when you hollow out the liberal arts programs, you effectively turn the university into a technical college.  It might be one with the right to confer degrees, but I can guarantee you that the people coming out of those programs are not the well rounded thinkers that should be coming out of universities.  

This suits Harper quite nicely.  He and his "base" have long been critical of "intellectual elites" (you know conservaspeak for people who think about things rather than simply accepting the sound bite du jour).  So turning universities into institutions which turn out highly focused specialists in various domains suits them just fine.  If you don't think too much about any one part of his government, he doesn't seem too bad.  Start to analyze his government in more detail, and the picture rapidly becomes quite horrifying.

Further, by limiting funding to universities, Harper has made the cost of attending so excessive that only the wealthy can really afford it.  So much the better, it reduces the number of people who are likely to be critical of his government (or his ideological successors' governments).

But this is only one facet of Harper's war on Canada's middle class.  Through a series of other actions - mostly by policy fiat - Harper has gone after Canadians even more blatantly.

Front and centre in this has been the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP).  This has been used as a tool to undermine the balance of the Canadian labour economy.  Especially since the government started allowing all and sundry to come in under this program.  Historically, the TFWP existed quite explicitly for importing people with skillsets that are unique, rare and virtually impossible to find locally.  Generally, that meant only a relative handful of specialists came into Canada in any given year, certainly not enough to impact the local labour market.  Then the government started to open it up to general labour.  

Run a restaurant?  Having difficulty "finding qualified help"?  Oh, well now you can solve this problem by bringing in a bunch of labour from another country.  The effect?  Employers could suddenly refuse to pay reasonable wages in areas where there is a labour shortage.  (after all, if you lived in the Phillipines for example, how are you going to know that Calgary's cost of living is high and labour market is tight?)  Further, a foreign worker won't know their rights as a worker in Canada, much less are they going to be willing to "rock the boat" when their employer effectively holds the keys to their continued residence in Canada (especially important if they are considering moving to Canada permanently).  

Although the government has recently announced changes to the program, the damage to Canada's labour market has been done.  Many traditional entry level jobs are no longer available to Canadian youth.  There are many stories out there of youth applying at the local Tim Horton's or other fast food restaurant and being told that they are "overqualified".  Another friend of mine who is a plumber's apprentice has been finding job postings for "entry level" positions demanding 3+ years of experience.  This is a posting which is obviously aimed at a TFW coming into Canada who is looking to get into the same trade in Canada that they were doing previously.  

Businesses are running about wringing their hands about the changes to the TFWP.  Oh goodness, how will they keep their doors open?  Well, the short answer is by offering reasonable wages and working conditions that are somewhat better than slavery.  

Regardless, Harper is working his ass off to create an economic environment where the oligarchy has all the marbles.  (a $600bn "dead money" fund lying around - now tell me why these businesses cannot pay a reasonable wage?)  Make no mistake, there is an active war on Canada's middle class and Harper's government is spearheading it.

Oh The Dumbf ...

Over at "Crosswalk.com" (no, it's not a site about crossing roads), we find a Dr. White going off on gender identity in the wake of Time's June 9 article "America's Transition"  (hiding behind a paywall, a copy has appeared on Scribd here).

It's a somewhat appalling excuse for writing, especially considering that Dr. White holds a PhD.

Not surprisingly for Time, the author’s bias was thinly veiled:  “Almost one year after the Supreme court ruled that Americans were free to marry the person they loved, no matter their sex, another civil rights movement is poised to challenge long-held cultural norms and beliefs.” 

That certainly sets a tone. 

But she’s right.  Mainstream acceptance of homosexuality and the legalization of gay marriage virtually demand the acceptance of almost any other lifestyle. 

Why yes, being trans is something that people wake up and decide to be one morning for giggles.

In 1980 the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association listed transsexualism as a mental disorder. That entry was later replaced by what psychiatrists called “gender identity disorder. In 2013, it was later modified to mere “gender dysphoria,” which is simply discomfort with the gender a person is living in. Quite a progression in just over three decades, moving from something to be cured to something to be enabled.

Wow... just wow.  In one paragraph, Mr. White has completely misunderstood the DSM, the purpose of it and the evolution of the diagnostic categories in it with respect to transgender people.  First, one has to recognize that the DSM is a descriptive document.  It describes a series of recognizable psychological conditions.  It does not provide any kind of statement as to what objectives treatment should pursue.

Second, Mr. White quite ignoring the work of WPATH over that time, which has evolved considerably from dealing with the polar extremities of masculine and feminine identities, having learned that a simple "transsexual / not transsexual" model simply did not describe the breadth and depth of this tiny community of people.

However, White's argument rests quite firmly on a more serious misunderstanding, and one which depends on a particular understanding of gender identity.

All seemed to be well. 

Time magazine called the case “strong support” for the view that masculine and feminine behavior can be altered.  A 1979 textbook used the case to discuss how human gender identity was flexible and plastic, and how being male or female was the product of social learning and conditioning.  Numerous psychology and sociology texts cited the case as proof that sex roles are basically learned. 

But people didn’t follow the case through to the end.  

Even with the injection of female hormones, the absence of male hormones coming from testicles, and being raised as a female, Brenda did not turn out as Brenda.  In the early 1990’s, a team of researchers caught up with the boy who had been turned into a girl to see how “she” was doing.They found that “she” was no longer Brenda.  “She” was now David – working in a slaughterhouse, married to a woman, and the adoptive father of three children. 

At the age of 14, Brenda decided to start living as a male, and at 15, was told that was indeed what “she” had been born as.  She then announced that “she” had always felt like a male and wanted to become one again.  Brenda was given a mastectomy, male hormones, and constructed genitalia.When researchers dug further, they found that the first time Brenda had been put in a dress, he pulled it off.  

When given a jump rope, he wanted to tie people up with it or whip them with it. 

At nine, he bought a toy machine gun when he was supposed to buy an umbrella. 

His toy sewing machine went untouched because he preferred to build forts and play with dump-trucks. 

He was never interested in make-up, but instead wanted to shave with his father. 

On a trip to New York, he found himself attracted to the Rockettes. 

He even felt the urge to urinate standing up. 

From this, researchers at Johns Hopkins felt they should go back and study other children who had undergone similar operations; boys who, for whatever reason, were born without full male organs, had then been fully castrated, and raised as girls.  Of the twenty-five they were able to locate, ranging in age from five to 16, every single one exhibited the rough-and-tumble play more characteristic of boys than girls. 

Every single one. 

Even at their early age, fourteen of them had already declared themselves to be, in fact, boys – against everything in how they had been raised.  

From this, and scores of other studies, Rhoads concludes that instead of thinking that the difference between the sexes is something learned, or imposed by society, it is rather something larger, something deeply rooted, in our very nature.  It’s part of who we are. It’s not a role that we take on; it’s the very nature of our being.

I get quite angry when I see these people attempting exploit the tragedy of John Reimer's life story to make claims that the case simply does not represent.  Reimer's story is a tragedy on many levels, not just its conclusions, and it offends me deeply that the religious right wing keep dredging it up to imply that transgender people are "deluded" or outright "wrong" in their self-perception.  I have addressed this in considerable detail in past posts here and here.

What the argument Dr. White is making fails to recognize is that during development, the differentiation of the body between male and female physiologies is not a singular event.  We know that genital differentiation takes place quite early in gestation but the brain differentiates takes place at a different time.

However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in transsexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no proof that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

Knowing this well established fact, the wrap-up of Mr. White's argument is almost laughably sloppy reasoning:

This isn’t about what might truly be, to use the term no longer in vogue, true Gender Identity Disorder.  That would be something to be treated.  It is about maintaining that gender and sex, in a healthy psychology, is not something simply between our ears, but between our legs.  Sexuality is not like a favorite color – something to be chosen, or a preference – it is hardwired into our being.  

But that is precisely what our culture wishes to ignore. 

One of the great questions in all of human thought is “who am I?”  The answer is fast becoming, “I don’t know.”  It is as if our embrace of plastic surgery has led to a sense of being plastic ourselves, stripped of any sense of innate worth or identity.  If human beings have no fixed or permanent essence, if we are “plastic” – subject through technology to alteration, enhancement, mutation, control - then we may do what we will with ourselves. 

It's funny that with all of the evidence we have that White fails to see that it is entirely conceivable that someone may well be born with a feminized brain even if their genitalia appears to be perfectly normal.   In fact, I would go so far as to argue that in fact the transsexual is doing everything possible to maintain a healthy psychological state.

Too Little, Too Late

So, Jason Kenney has applied some bandages to the hemorrhaging Temporary Foreign Workers program.  

The changes prevent employers in places with high unemployment rates from applying for temporary foreign workers in the lowest wage and skill groups in the accommodation, food service and retail sectors. 

A cap is also being placed on the number of low-wage temporary foreign workers an employer can hire at each worksite: 30 per cent of a worksite's employees starting immediately, dropping to 10 per cent by July 2016. 

Companies will also be required to re-apply each year to hire low-wage temporary foreign workers, instead of every two years. They'll pay more for the privilege, too: $1,000 per employee, up from $275.

Frankly, this isn't much more than a bit of window dressing.  It won't make any significant difference to the impact of this program - the damage is already done.  At most it will force businesses to start the process of weaning themselves off the program.

I see Alberta is already bleating about how awful these changes are.  I'd be sympathetic, but frankly this crying is nothing more than a bunch of bleating about money from a group of people who seem to think that hiring people is an unnecessary expense.

Business needs to wake up to the reality that running a business requires people.  Not automatons.  Looking at your people as "an expense" is a piece of 1990s MBA-speak that we need to shed.  People are an investment, not an expense.  Any business which views its staff as "an expense" is doomed to fail.  

Cue The Persecution Complex 3...2...1...

... here we go.

Concerned Christians Canada was one of Craig Chandler's creations ... until he sold it to its current owner when the political heat got a little to much.

To nobody's surprise, according to CCC's Jim Blake, Ric McIver has been done a grave injustice by the National Post (and other media outlets) for talking about his participation in Pawlowski's "March for Christ" event.

Jen Gerson, with the National Post, wrote an article a couple of days ago stating that Ric McIver has ties to an “anti-gay” evangelical named Artur Pawlowski. 

Firstly, I worked closely with Artur Pawlowski on various Christian events (including the Night on the Street for the Poor, March for Jesus, public youth worship events, various Christian festivals, etc) and acted as a mediator between he and various officials on several occasions. I came to know Artur very well and can attest to the fact that I witnessed, on many occasions, Artur inviting people of all backgrounds and persuasions to various events he was involved in, or events that Street Church itself had hosted. I dare say that they would likely not have invited him to their events, by the way. 

Many people have accused him of being “anti-gay”, merely because he stands on the Bible as the truth, and stands for sexual relationships that align with it. But just because Artur is very vocal about the fact that he stands firmly against homosexual relationships and acts, and against the public promotion of that lifestyle, does not mean that he does not show compassion and a willingness to serve those practicing homosexuality at the table his ministry sets up. Week after week, I would see Mr. Pawlowski serve many of Calgary’s most downtrodden people and always showed a heart of service that is unparalleled in any community. Among those who came out, were people involved in homosexual relationships whom he would serve. He would talk with them, and pray with them, and for them, when they would allow him to. By doing so, he repeatedly and consistently demonstrated that he does not hate people because they identify themselves as homosexuals, rather he sees the homosexual lifestyle as a destructive force in a person’s life, whom he would say was created in the image and likeness of God.

Well yes, I'm sure Pawlowski likes to make a big show of all the "good" he is doing.  That is irrelevant here.  The issue is not even Pawlowski's event, or even the philosophical stance that Pawlowskis (or Blake's) understanding of Christianity take with respect to homosexuality as it is about the sincerity of McIver's damage control apology.

Secondly, I find it sickening that people like Jen Gerson are still writing such intolerant articles against Traditional Christian values. After all, we are told that Canadian society is a “tolerant” one, yet Jen in the clear tone of the article, would have us believe that since Ric McIver is merely associated to the likes of homeless advocate Artur Pawlowski, his leadership ability should be questioned and his candidacy denied. What seems clear from her June 14, 2014 article is the real truth of the matter, which is that she does not like social conservatives or social conservative values, and that she is willing to smear and defame any public figure that would hold those values, or who would in any way be associated with those who do.

Nobody is "persecuting" McIver for his beliefs here.  Calling out hypocrisy, perhaps.  Disingenuity?  Definitely.

Pawlowski is not just a "homeless advocate".  He is a man who wants to ram his religiosity down everybody's throat ... and does so regularly.  Don't believe as he does?  You're on the wrong side of his god.  He's well known for preaching against homosexuals, and we're supposed to ignore that because he helps the homeless?  Uh no.  It doesn't work that way.

Where McIver is concerned, the real question isn't just his association which Street Church and March for Jesus, but rather what are his sincere views.  Does he believe that GLBT people are lesser citizens?  Does he support Pawlowski's anti-abortion, anti-divorce stances?  Where does McIver stand?

Blake then moves on to try and give us a lesson in civics:

Perhaps Jen Gerson, and those like her, should take some lessons from the “real” Charter of Rights and freedoms that clearly states the following: 

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: 

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. 

Then under the section following called FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS: 

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: 

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and(d) freedom of association. 

As seen above, the charter doesn’t just allow those identifying themselves as homosexuals or “gay” the liberty to live in sexually immoral lifestyles, Biblically speaking, it also allows perfectly reasonable and loving people to believe that the choices that these people are making are detrimental to them and to society as a whole. Similarly, there are those who believe that it is not compassionate to speak against abortion, or divorce, or premarital sex, or gambling, or drug addiction, or pornography addiction, or alcohol abuse, or drunk driving, or any such thing, and they are entitled to hold that opinion and to debate their viewpoint vigorously and even advocate for it. The same can be said, in a free and democratic society, for those who want to see the word “sin” restored to society, and who want to see traditional family values, virtue, integrity, honesty and morality to be promoted in society due to their merits.

Well, Mr. Blake.  Let me bring a few more details of interpreting the Constitution to your attention.  First of all, the premise statement about the "supremacy of God" is in the preamble, and mysteriously does not stipulate which particular notion of God is held to be "supreme", nor does any other part of the Constitution of this country stipulate any particular faith as having supremacy.  This is important, especially in a society where there are so many faiths practiced (and no small number of people who consciously choose not to practice any religion at all).

Second, Mr. Blake seems to misunderstand the fundamental freedoms in S2.  All of those are indisputably individual freedoms.  They do not extend beyond the individual per se.  Mr. McIver, Mr. Blake and everybody else in Canada all bear those freedoms without question.  That does not grant any of them the right to impose their beliefs upon others either directly or indirectly.

Further, Mr. Blake fails to understand one additional point.  Nothing in those freedoms shields anyone from the consequences of their exercise of those rights.  Mr. McIver is absolutely free to associate with Mr. Pawlowski's church, or whatever else he wishes.  Nobody will charge him with anything for it.

That said, Mr. McIver is a politician - a public figure - and one who is angling to become this province's next premier, and possibly the premier for the next four years after an expected 2016 election.  Mr. Pawlowski's preachings may well carry with it a price when it is put in front of the electorate.  Mr. McIver knew that when he started participating in Street Church events, and he knows it now.  When it comes to political figures, the public has a right to know what a candidate believes, and whether or not he would act on those beliefs legislatively.  McIver now has the unfortunately difficult job of convincing a public that has come to see homophobia as electoral poison that his association with Street Church doesn't influence his legislative beliefs.

Sincerity Is Hard In Politics

Apparently, PC Leadership Candidate Ric McIver hasn't learned that lesson.

After getting caught in a firestorm over ribbon cutting the "March For Jesus" event the same weekend that others were at the Edmonton Mayor's Pride Brunch, he issues the following rather flaccid retraction:

He says he blames himself for not doing his homework and calls the group’s rhetoric — quote — “ugly, nasty and mean-spirited.” 

He says he doesn’t believe in or support the Street Church anymore and his relationship with it is over. 

McIver plans to continue his run to become Alberta’s next premier and wants the group to remove his name and photos from its website.

Considering that McIver has appeared at these events for multiple years, it seems just a trifle implausible that he didn't know what the group represented.  In fact, given the known links between McIver and Craig Chandler (Chandler managed McIver's campaigns for Alderman in the 1990s, although publicly McIver distanced himself from Chandler after getting elected), and Pawlowski (the organizer of this march), it seems more than just a little unlikely that McIver didn't know what Pawlowski represented and believed.

More to the point, according to the National Post, McIver considers Pawlowski a friend:

Ric McIver is a regular at this city’s March for Jesus: In 2013, he cut the ribbon for the parade. Mr. McIver has said he considers the march’s organizer, well-known local evangelical Artur Pawlowski, a friend.

Let's be clear here, in the light of the long time connections between McIver and Pawlowski, McIver's dodges and attempts to minimize the meaning of what attending Pawlowski's march really means ring hollow.

Time To Dissolve The Harper Government

Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a warrant is required to gather evidence from a suspect's online activities.  

Police need a search warrant to get information from Internet service providers about their subscribers' identities when they are under investigation, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday. 

The high court's landmark 8-0 ruling on online privacy issues came in the appeal of a Saskatchewan man facing child pornography charges. 

The case has implications for the federal government's current cyber-bullying bill, setting the stage for another political clash between the Harper government and the Supreme Court.

One would have thought that this ruling would have led to a little bit of rethinking and revision of the Government's Bill C-13 and S-4.

The Senate on Monday passed Bill S-4, known as the Digital Privacy Act, Geist reported on his blog. The bill, which has yet to pass the House of Commons, is meant to enhance privacy online, but privacy experts say it could end up doing the opposite. 

S-4 is being sold as “protection for Canadians when they surf the web and shop online,” and critics have lauded certain parts of the bill, such as those that would give the privacy commissioner greater powers and establish new penalties for privacy breaches. 

But critics say corporations would gain access to the private data of telecommunications users. The law would allow internet service providers to share subscriber information with any organization that is investigating a possible breach of contract, such as a copyright violation, or illegal activity. 

Telecoms would be allowed to keep the sharing of data secret from the affected customers. 

The bill could also remove court oversight of copyright lawsuits against Canadian consumers, potentially setting up the sort of “copyright trolling” seen in the U.S., in which music and movie rights holders often demand tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars from individual downloaders.

Instead, we get the Idiot-In-Charge, Justice Minister Peter MacKay, feeding us the following bit of sophomoric semantics:

Justice Minister Peter MacKay stunned critics Tuesday by suggesting the Supreme Court’s landmark privacy ruling last week upheld the government’s position all along. 

On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that police cannot ask telecoms for customer data without a warrant. 

MacKay had defended this practice as legal. One government bill, C-13, would have given telecoms legal immunity for the volunteering of information to police. Another, S-4, would allow companies to share customer information with other companies without telling the customer. 

Despite the apparent contradiction, MacKay said in the House of Commons that the Supreme Court agreed with government because C-13 would not let police demand information without a warrant; they could only ask for it. 

“The Supreme Court’s decision actually confirms what the government has said all along, that Bill C-13’s proposals regarding voluntary disclosures do not, I repeat, provide legal authority for access to information without a warrant,” said MacKay. 

Asked for his response, Liberal justice critic Sean Casey broke into laughter for several seconds before saying, “You can quote me on that.” 

NDP ethics critic Charlie Angus said MacKay brought his own credibility into question by twisting the meaning of the court’s decision.

Had MacKay made such a claim in law school paper, I have the distinct feeling he would have been laughed out of the school ... the class at the very least.

The arrogance of this government has reached beyond all credibility.  We aren't talking about subtle misunderstandings here, but blatant twisting of the court's rulings.  This is not a government which understands and respects the legal frameworks of Canada's legal traditions, but rather a government which views the Constitution and in particular the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as an impediment to its legislative agenda.

I am beginning to think that it is time for the people of Canada to demand that the Crown dissolve a government which is so clearly operating in contravention of the fundamental principles of law and the Constitution of this country.

That Was Predictable

Way back in 2003 when the United States invaded Iraq (long before the Afghanistan mess had been anything close to resolved), I remember having a conversation in which I said that within 5 years of the US withdrawal from Iraq, that the country would founder in civil war.  (I believe much the same thing will inevitably happen in Afghanistan as well)

This week, we have seen the "insurgency" in Iraq transform from a few disorganized groups into a coherent military force not to be trifled with.

Anybody who is surprised by this hasn't been paying close attention since 2001.  The US military may have overthrown the local governments, but groups like al Qaeda, the Taliban and others still exist.  They may have "gone to ground", but make no mistake, they continue to operate and organize. These groups don't disappear magically because of a 5 year long military occupation.  (or even a decade)

If there is a single lesson to be taken from the last decade's worth of interventions in the Middle East it is this:  There are no short term interventions which will create a stable, long lasting democracy in that region.

There are thousands of reasons for this.  The Roman Empire is filled with examples of how even relatively long term direct interventions can fail to instil the sense of cultural trust required for a foreign culture to be willing to adopt the occupiers' desired form of government.  It takes decades, if not longer to build that kind of trust - especially when you arrived with hell at your back to begin with.

Second, where a western styled democracy is concerned, there is an enormous amount of cultural structures that must be in place before it has any chance of long term success.  The people must trust the idea of law as a just and reasonable thing, that justice is somehow apart from the notion of revenge, that the government will respect the rights of individuals and so on.  (I will, for the sake of this essay ignore the egregious violations of this trust in the last decade by governments in the western world ... that is another discussion for another day)

A people that has been subjugated by iron-fisted dictators like Saddam Hussein, or religious fanatics like the Taliban, will not have this trust.  The idea of walking down the street and being safe from the intrusion of government authority cannot exist under these circumstances.  Military occupation is similarly troublesome for similar reasons.  The authority is held not at the will of the people but by the force of arms and the threat of violence to the person.

For those of us who live in Canada, we can trace the evolution of our understanding of law as apart from politics, government as an agent good overall back through the history of England, from the retreat of the Roman Empire from the region, through the Dark Ages and the signing of the Magna Carta to the modern era in which the Monarchy exists more as a figurehead than anything else.

There is a long, gradual process of change that took place, during which the powers of the monarchy grew at first, and gradually ebbed away over time.  The Magna Carta represents the beginning of the real limits on the Monarchy, taking away the ability of England's Monarchs to act as capriciously as they had previously.  It created the idea of the Monarchy as limited in its powers and authority, and the idea of parliament as a guide to the Monarch.

Over the next several hundred years, the powers held by the Monarchy gradually devolved to the parliament, and in particular to the House of Commons.

If it took western societies the better part of a full millennia to evolve into the stable democracies we have today, we must recognize that the process did not take place in a vacuum of changing government, but rather the entire fabric of society changed along with it, enabling the government to become what was needed.  It would be foolish indeed to believe that a similar government can be created and imposed at gunpoint over the course of a little more than a decade.