It is sad for me to see a Canadian icon like Rex Murphy slip into vitriolic ranting, the likes of which Toronto has seen too much of these last few months, but that is how he has chosen to use his precious inches in the National Post. His most recent column, from Friday, is so one-sided and narrow-minded that I questioned whether it was even worth responding to.

However, a rant was requested by a dear friend, so here it is:

Rex slams the UN for allowing *bad* people like Ahmadinejad to participate, allowing the Human Rights Council to make decisions he doesn’t agree with, and, generally, not bowing down and licking the ass of western leaders. He claims it is inefficient, that it has failed, and that we, as a country, are foolish to seek a Security Council seat because we should just walk away.

How ridiculous.

The United Nations is a grand experiment the likes of which humanity has never before attempted. It envisions a world where we talk instead of fight, where we have a neutral forum for diplomacy, and where even the smallest country has as much power as the mightiest.

The General Assembly comes close to this ideal – it has passed landmark resolutions through the decades that have helped to create a new standard for humane behaviour. It has called for acknowledgment of the Rights of Children, the Indigenous, the Disabled (Differently Abled), Women, and many other groups. Which is pretty amazing considering it has representatives from almost every recognized country in the world.

After two horrific world wars in the first half of the 20th century, the UN has played a key role in raising living standards and reducing violence the world over. It has provided a moral voice that provides light to those living in darkness and it has not shied away from calling to account the powerful who act in selfish ways. Sometimes it is the U.S., sometimes China or Russia, and sometimes, especially lately, it has reprimanded us.

With our current government, we have, more and more, become outsiders at the UN as our representatives continue to act in selfish, greedy, ignorant ways that are only concerned with power and not at all with the concerns of humanity.

Our leader pretends to care about maternal health, but I don’t buy it. When he begins to listen to science, or his own International Co-operation Minister, and act in ways that are up to the world’s standards, then maybe I’ll believe. But as long as he is driven by a radical religious ideology and the tenets of neoconservatism, his compassion is illusory if not altogether absent.

Is the UN perfect? Absolutely not. The first, and I believe most beneficial change, would be to reform the Security Council and eliminate the veto for the World War II victors. If you want to know why the UN is inefficient, why it cannot respond quickly in the face of crisis, you need look no further than the VETO of the Security Council. It is a shame, and one that desperately needs changing.

Has it had scandals? Absolutely yes. But, then again, if we got rid of every institution that had scandals we’d have very few left. The problem with the UN is that it lacks accountability and auditing. Systems need to be put in place to ensure that its branches are audited, its workers are given exit-interviews and that there is some coherent and understandable mechanism transparent to the public.

Why is the UN worthwhile?

The UN provides food assistance, through the World Food Programme (just one of its many programmes) to over 100 million people each year, including 62 million children. It is one of the first aid agencies to arrive when there is famine, natural disaster, or war.

The UN calls us to a higher standard of behaviour, urges compassion for those in need, and aims to move beyond simplistic power politics. It provides a vision for the future and hope to those who live in terror.

The UN opens our eyes to the world around us. It makes it harder to believe that our actions do not have global implications and tears our eyes away from consumerism and reality TV.

Finally, the members of the UN developed and agreed to the Millennium Development Goals, incredibly inspiring statements of purpose for a more just world. That they have not been fulfilled is a matter for Western leaders, like ours, who have paid lip service to them, but don’t really give a shit.

But, as citizens, we can care, we can care a lot, and we can call our leaders to account and demand that they donate the funds necessary to change the world for the better by empowering women, and improving health care, literacy, and the economic position of the world’s poorest.

We can care. We can transition from selfish consumers to aware citizens. We can pick one of the MDGs and run with it, call attention to it, and campaign to get it done. We can do this.

We can.

And, as for Rex Murphy. . I’ve had enough of loud-mouthed, narrow-minded drivel to last me a lifetime.

I choose a positive vision of the future. One filled with peace and compassion and understanding.

I can.

And so can you.

… oh! Wait. It’s just our uterus’ that he cares about. Okay, no change there.

A funny thing happened a couple of weeks ago. In his inaugural speech as 2010 President of the G8, Mr. Harper proclaimed that he was very, very concerned about maternal and infant health and that, during his term, he was going to champion these two causes (Millennium Development Goals #4 and #5) and bring much needed attention and funding to them – on a global basis. No. Really. He said it.

Immediately, other commentators began to question his good intentions. Mr. Ignatieff, for one, thought it a bit odd and discussed how “Harper has made cuts to the status of women and equality programs, while salary gaps between men and women are increasing in Canada” and that, perhaps, Mr. Harper could “start showing at home in Canada the same commitment to women.”

And this is all well and good. I expect certain people to have problems with everything that Mr. Harper announces.

But when Stephen Lewis has problems with the same announcements, then my ears prick up. Why? Because I have seen no evidence that he is anything other than a profoundly humane and compassionate man in a very challenging and frustrating position, exposed to the most heart-breaking conditions on Earth and managing to carry on year after year. To him I listen.

His critique is that it seems odd that Mr. Harper would trumpet Canada’s burgeoning awareness of the issues of maternal and infant health when the G8 has been working on securing funding for the past year. Note that the MDGs were first developed leading up to 2000 with a due date of 2015 – sometimes it just takes a while to get the ball rolling, y’know.

In addition, Mr. Lewis noted that none of the other MDGs were mentioned and that it didn’t “include sexual violence, child marriage, sexual trafficking, female genital mutilation, economic autonomy, political representation, land rights or inheritance rights. It include[d] none of the panoply of women’s issues which consign women to subordinate positions around the world.”

Anyway, I’m sure that members of the G8 hope that Canada will stop actively opposing humanitarian causes and denying human rights and freedoms to as many groups as they possibly can. I wish I could believe Mr. Harper but I have seen no evidence that he cares about anyone except for white, straight males, and preferably corporate oil executives at that.

Especially since he considers women to be a ‘left-wing fringe group’.

The audacity of Mr. Harper is threatening to make my brain explode – is this his attempt at a kinder, gentler Harper to try and make us forget that he is a cynical, arrogant, autocratic leader who has shown only contempt for Canadian citizens and our democracy. Is this a reaction to the pro-democracy, anti-prorogue rallies that occurred all across Canada last month?

Probably. He honestly seems to believe that we will be easily lulled back to sleep with the belief that he is going to take care of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable citizens. When he doesn’t care about those same people right here.

How about raising the quality of life, or, heck, even the standard of living for our own aboriginal populations? How about taking care of the poorest and most vulnerable right here?

How about that Mr. Harper?