Fellow non-partisan James Bow writes an important article on The Forgotten Bloc - the 40 percent of the electorate who are non-voters in this country. I wrote the following response in the comments section:
James Bow’s comments are bang on, including the one to Robert McClelland.
[To Bow's question "Why is no party leader or policy maker going out and talking to the 9.5 million Canadians to ask them why they don’t vote?," McClelland responded: "Because non voters are generally imbeciles that are impossible to placate. So it’s simply not worth the effort."]
After voting at municipal, provincial and federal elections throughout my eligible years, the last straw for me federally was the election of Oct 2008 and provincially, the May 2009 election and failed referendum for electoral reform in BC.
I declared myself [at 58 years of age] henceforth to be a non-voter until substantive democratic reform took place. Having done so, I was surprised and sadly gratified to discover others coming out of the woodwork.
Let’s face it, if you’re a non-voter, the arrogance, derision and hostility of many members of the still voting public do nothing to encourage non-voters to self-identify. Attempts to explain why we don’t vote are brushed off as irrelevant because “if you don’t vote, you have no right to be heard or complain.”
We are labelled ‘apathetic’ when, for the majority of us, apathy is the antithesis of what we feel in terms of the state of politics in this country or the options provided at ballot box.
Many non-voters, including those among youth, are more, not less, involved in their communities and globally, working to effect change, than are most voters. This participation and engagement is discounted, yet is more meaningful given the state of our politics than a 15-minute act every four years. For some voters, that act may be the only participation in civil life they engage in. Yet it is non-voters who, as a bloc, are labelled ‘lazy’.
With all this and media types perpetuating the myths, no wonder this huge minority - which threatens to become the majority - remains largely silent.
[Cross-posted at NADER]
Recommend this post
Showing posts with label Those Crazy Feds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Those Crazy Feds. Show all posts
20 December 2010
03 December 2010
UPDATE: Alberta, look behind your back
Alberta, your buddy Steve has done another number on you. He's done it to British Columbia and Ontario too, this time with plenty of company:
Sounds good, although this was only a start to correcting that "severe underrepresentation." But what sounded reasonable, equitable and fair, rang alarm bells among certain folks who have benefited from that unfairness, most notably MPs who representtheir parties constituents in the Maritimes and Quebec.
One can only suppose that Albertans, British Columbians and Ontarians don't matter as much to the leaders of Canada's political parties as do the voters in other parts of the country.
What other reason could there be for the leaders of all parties having "agreed to quietly sink" the legislation?
There is nowhere for (certain) Canadians to turn. Every one of Canada's rotten political parties have allowed the travesty of unequal representation to continue for decades. Now, in refusing to begin to correct it, they have tacitly agreed that all Canadians votes should NOT be treated equally.
Why am I surprised? Whenever parties have been in or near power they have resisted electoral reform; once relegated to the political wasteland, they have been in favour of it.
It's Shamocracy 2.0.
ETA: Desperate denials are now shooting forth from the PMO.
Tweeted from Althia Raj of Sun Media: "PMO sends out info alert denying Globe story on C-12 saying govt no intention to kill. But is silent on how they'll push it forward."
A few minutes later, Raj writes: Reality check on #C-12. There have been precisely 0 speeches on this bill. http://bit.ly/eZ4tLm
That aligns with Rosie Barton's sardonic comment of the bill appearing to be "at a molasses like pace."
In my view, if no action is taken on a Bill, it's as good as dead.
Recommend this post
In April, the Conservatives announced with great fanfare Bill C-12, which would add 30 seats to the House of Commons, taking it to 338 from 308, to address severe underrepresentation among Canada's fastest-growing provinces.
Sounds good, although this was only a start to correcting that "severe underrepresentation." But what sounded reasonable, equitable and fair, rang alarm bells among certain folks who have benefited from that unfairness, most notably MPs who represent
One can only suppose that Albertans, British Columbians and Ontarians don't matter as much to the leaders of Canada's political parties as do the voters in other parts of the country.
What other reason could there be for the leaders of all parties having "agreed to quietly sink" the legislation?
There is nowhere for (certain) Canadians to turn. Every one of Canada's rotten political parties have allowed the travesty of unequal representation to continue for decades. Now, in refusing to begin to correct it, they have tacitly agreed that all Canadians votes should NOT be treated equally.
Why am I surprised? Whenever parties have been in or near power they have resisted electoral reform; once relegated to the political wasteland, they have been in favour of it.
It's Shamocracy 2.0.
ETA: Desperate denials are now shooting forth from the PMO.
Tweeted from Althia Raj of Sun Media: "PMO sends out info alert denying Globe story on C-12 saying govt no intention to kill. But is silent on how they'll push it forward."
A few minutes later, Raj writes: Reality check on #C-12. There have been precisely 0 speeches on this bill. http://bit.ly/eZ4tLm
That aligns with Rosie Barton's sardonic comment of the bill appearing to be "at a molasses like pace."
In my view, if no action is taken on a Bill, it's as good as dead.
Recommend this post
Post Revival 2.0: We are Separatists
This is starting to become an annual event!
What is it about this time of year that makes Canada's federal parties suppose they can write off citizens' rights, in the service of their own self-interests? Perhaps they think we won't notice.
The prompt for this reprise of a reprise of an original post written two years ago is another collective, self-interested act by all parties, done in full knowledge of its result being further erosion of the democratic rights of a large swath of the electorate.
***
January 2009
For a long time, I've pondered the benefit of my community, now Vancouver Island, being part of the political entity that is the Dominion of Canada. Not because of any dislike for Canada's land, waters or people - that aspect of being Canadian makes me go all mushy inside - but because I can't see how a nation so large, structured as Canada is politically, can fairly represent and administer and distribute justice to all of its people.
As long as Canada maintains the power structure that it has now, then I would prefer that British Columbia be a nation unto itself - i.e., separate from Canada. Even better, that Vancouver Island go it alone.
Our top-tier government has only grown more powerful over the decades, not less. It has been steadily sucking political power from the nation's provinces, territories, regions and municipalities. Thus the federal government, together with its puppet masters, has steadily been eroding the ability of citizens in their communities to directly influence change.
More and more, citizens are taken as irrelevant by our politicians. The support of the federal government by large corporations powers the agenda of Canada's politicos. Their concern for the people functions only as an electoral device to "win" a mandate to govern, one that is rigged by our outdated voting system. And then the winning party governs for the CEOs. For "ordinary" Canadians (to which our political parties so fondly refer), to think otherwise is to be delusional.
Recently, I emailed these reflections to Daphne, and asked: Have you ever thought about things like this?
We don't always agree and I wasn't expecting agreement here.
"Yes," replied Daphne, "have pondered this and have talked to others over the years... At one time, I printed T-shirts which depicted Vancouver Island as forming the Vancouver Island Liberation Organization, hence breaking away from the rest of Canada."
Vancouver Island Liberation Organization T-shirts, anyone?
We are not alone in wanting to detach ourselves from the rest of Canada, friend Daphne explained. An emerging notion is that of Cascadia. The boundaries of Cascadia vary but in most proposals, all or part of British Columbia, Oregon and Washington state are included.
While some notion of Cascadia might be workable in the future, Daphne and I prefer thinking only in terms of BC or Vancouver Island separating from Canada.
Seriously, we're fed up with successive governments which are supposed to be OF, FOR and BY the people being instead OF, FOR, and BY Canada's CEOs. And a heckuva job those CEOs have been doing lately!
Consider one example which exemplifies the joined-at-the-hip relation between Canada's government and big business.
Successive governments have been selling off our1 resources under the guise of the Security and Prosperity Partnership "agreement" endorsed by the leaders of Canada, Mexico and the USA. (Don't be fooled. The name keeps changing, but the agenda remains the same.)2
Instrumental to the SPP is our very own Grand Ayatollah, one Tom d'Aquino, president and CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Mr. d'Aquino is one busy guy! Read the article. You'll understand why we two, having trashed our rose-coloured glasses long ago, prefer to divorce ourselves from Canada Inc.
1 A sizeable chunk of "our" natural resources are on and in traditional native land and water.
2 Excellent Canadian sites for information on the SPP include Global Research and the Council of Canadians.
[This post was co-written by Daphne Moldowin and Chrystal Ocean.]
Recommend this post
What is it about this time of year that makes Canada's federal parties suppose they can write off citizens' rights, in the service of their own self-interests? Perhaps they think we won't notice.
The prompt for this reprise of a reprise of an original post written two years ago is another collective, self-interested act by all parties, done in full knowledge of its result being further erosion of the democratic rights of a large swath of the electorate.
***
January 2009
For a long time, I've pondered the benefit of my community, now Vancouver Island, being part of the political entity that is the Dominion of Canada. Not because of any dislike for Canada's land, waters or people - that aspect of being Canadian makes me go all mushy inside - but because I can't see how a nation so large, structured as Canada is politically, can fairly represent and administer and distribute justice to all of its people.
As long as Canada maintains the power structure that it has now, then I would prefer that British Columbia be a nation unto itself - i.e., separate from Canada. Even better, that Vancouver Island go it alone.
Our top-tier government has only grown more powerful over the decades, not less. It has been steadily sucking political power from the nation's provinces, territories, regions and municipalities. Thus the federal government, together with its puppet masters, has steadily been eroding the ability of citizens in their communities to directly influence change.
More and more, citizens are taken as irrelevant by our politicians. The support of the federal government by large corporations powers the agenda of Canada's politicos. Their concern for the people functions only as an electoral device to "win" a mandate to govern, one that is rigged by our outdated voting system. And then the winning party governs for the CEOs. For "ordinary" Canadians (to which our political parties so fondly refer), to think otherwise is to be delusional.
Recently, I emailed these reflections to Daphne, and asked: Have you ever thought about things like this?
We don't always agree and I wasn't expecting agreement here.
"Yes," replied Daphne, "have pondered this and have talked to others over the years... At one time, I printed T-shirts which depicted Vancouver Island as forming the Vancouver Island Liberation Organization, hence breaking away from the rest of Canada."
Vancouver Island Liberation Organization T-shirts, anyone?
We are not alone in wanting to detach ourselves from the rest of Canada, friend Daphne explained. An emerging notion is that of Cascadia. The boundaries of Cascadia vary but in most proposals, all or part of British Columbia, Oregon and Washington state are included.
While some notion of Cascadia might be workable in the future, Daphne and I prefer thinking only in terms of BC or Vancouver Island separating from Canada.
Seriously, we're fed up with successive governments which are supposed to be OF, FOR and BY the people being instead OF, FOR, and BY Canada's CEOs. And a heckuva job those CEOs have been doing lately!
Consider one example which exemplifies the joined-at-the-hip relation between Canada's government and big business.
Successive governments have been selling off our1 resources under the guise of the Security and Prosperity Partnership "agreement" endorsed by the leaders of Canada, Mexico and the USA. (Don't be fooled. The name keeps changing, but the agenda remains the same.)2
Instrumental to the SPP is our very own Grand Ayatollah, one Tom d'Aquino, president and CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Mr. d'Aquino is one busy guy! Read the article. You'll understand why we two, having trashed our rose-coloured glasses long ago, prefer to divorce ourselves from Canada Inc.
1 A sizeable chunk of "our" natural resources are on and in traditional native land and water.
2 Excellent Canadian sites for information on the SPP include Global Research and the Council of Canadians.
[This post was co-written by Daphne Moldowin and Chrystal Ocean.]
Recommend this post
25 November 2010
Interest Rate Policy Increasing Poverty Among Seniors
According to a new report, the number of seniors living in poverty soared almost 25 percent between the years 2007 and 2008.
Women have been the most affected. Up to 80 percent, suggests the report.
Daphne and I are, or soon will be, counted among those women.
At 60 years of age we don't yet officially qualify as seniors. However, with the Bank of Canada having kept interest rates ridiculously low over the past several years, we will be among the poverty statistics for seniors in future reports. Many of our friends already are or soon will be.
We are the women who worked for decades in low-paying 'female' jobs while child-rearing. We are the women who, out of our low incomes, scrimped and saved knowing that nothing was sure for tomorrow.
Now we are punished for saving because of an interest rate policy that values consumption, debt and a head-in-the-sand mentality over thrift, responsibility and the urge to maintain self-reliance.
The following is an excerpt from one woman's story. It could be duplicated many times over, by many other women:
When will the Bank of Canada stop its insane interest rate policy? The result has been consumer interest rates so low that they don't even keep up with inflation. No surprise, then, that the people most dependent on hard-earned savings, largely senior women, are falling behind.
[Cross-posted at economicus ridiculous]
Recommend this post
Women have been the most affected. Up to 80 percent, suggests the report.
Daphne and I are, or soon will be, counted among those women.
At 60 years of age we don't yet officially qualify as seniors. However, with the Bank of Canada having kept interest rates ridiculously low over the past several years, we will be among the poverty statistics for seniors in future reports. Many of our friends already are or soon will be.
We are the women who worked for decades in low-paying 'female' jobs while child-rearing. We are the women who, out of our low incomes, scrimped and saved knowing that nothing was sure for tomorrow.
Now we are punished for saving because of an interest rate policy that values consumption, debt and a head-in-the-sand mentality over thrift, responsibility and the urge to maintain self-reliance.
The following is an excerpt from one woman's story. It could be duplicated many times over, by many other women:
I am tired. I have been working since I was 14. When I retire at 65, I’m going to have this little tiny government handout. It won’t matter how resourceful I’ve been. There’s no financial reward for that...
I am one of the working poor. The reward for that is more poorness. It's, "Sorry lady, you did a really good job. You raised those kids. You were only on Welfare for eleven months. Good for you, good for you - here are your pennies" (p47).
When will the Bank of Canada stop its insane interest rate policy? The result has been consumer interest rates so low that they don't even keep up with inflation. No surprise, then, that the people most dependent on hard-earned savings, largely senior women, are falling behind.
[Cross-posted at economicus ridiculous]
Recommend this post
24 November 2010
IggyLibs and HarperCons: Ottawa's sabre rattlers
Bob Rae says, "You can't promote peace unless you put force behind the law and behind the collective will of the international community."
First, times have been when the "international community" has been wrong.
Second, right or wrong depends on whose interests shape the agenda.
Military superpowers head the so-called international community. Such powers, rather than promoting peace through example, prefer instead to use violence topromote more quell violence. They have found this useful for boosting their own economies.
Recommend this post
First, times have been when the "international community" has been wrong.
Second, right or wrong depends on whose interests shape the agenda.
Military superpowers head the so-called international community. Such powers, rather than promoting peace through example, prefer instead to use violence to
Recommend this post
Sometimes They Get It Right
The nature, ideology or beliefs of the people who govern matter less than the actions of those people; and, logically, if such people get it wrong the majority of the time, they sometimes get it right.
John Flaherty's refusal to extend the stimulus deadline exhibits a case of getting it right. Yes, the government dragged its feet getting the stimulus out the door. Anyone but the credulous would suspect that to have been deliberate.
That aside, if the large number of polls are to be believed (sometimes they get it right too), most Canadians other than those working in the construction industry, would have preferred no stimulus - and no bailouts, the worst form of 'stimulus' -, rather than incur a federal deficit.
These Canadians, the majority, would have preferred that the corporations and industries that over-extended themselves in the (correct) belief that governments would cover their asses, should have been allowed to perish if such was their natural course.
The majority of Canadians would have preferred that people who consumed and spent like there was no tomorrow, all the while aware of circumstances strongly suggesting they should make changes, not be rewarded for their gluttony and intentional denial through emergency government programs.
The majority of Canadians think that no person, bank, corporation or industry will correct his/her/its behaviour toward survival if Big Daddy is always there for his/her/its rescue.
Enough is enough. End the stimulus.
Also end the bailouts.
Oops, too late on the bailouts.
Witness yesterday's vote in the House of Commons on the flawed F-35 contract. The gullible will suppose that the motion passed in aid of supporting Quebec's economy. Others will nod knowingly that the true reason for all those Yes votes yesterday was to save the necks of certain Conservative and Bloc politicians.
Recommend this post
John Flaherty's refusal to extend the stimulus deadline exhibits a case of getting it right. Yes, the government dragged its feet getting the stimulus out the door. Anyone but the credulous would suspect that to have been deliberate.
That aside, if the large number of polls are to be believed (sometimes they get it right too), most Canadians other than those working in the construction industry, would have preferred no stimulus - and no bailouts, the worst form of 'stimulus' -, rather than incur a federal deficit.
These Canadians, the majority, would have preferred that the corporations and industries that over-extended themselves in the (correct) belief that governments would cover their asses, should have been allowed to perish if such was their natural course.
The majority of Canadians would have preferred that people who consumed and spent like there was no tomorrow, all the while aware of circumstances strongly suggesting they should make changes, not be rewarded for their gluttony and intentional denial through emergency government programs.
The majority of Canadians think that no person, bank, corporation or industry will correct his/her/its behaviour toward survival if Big Daddy is always there for his/her/its rescue.
Enough is enough. End the stimulus.
Also end the bailouts.
Oops, too late on the bailouts.
Witness yesterday's vote in the House of Commons on the flawed F-35 contract. The gullible will suppose that the motion passed in aid of supporting Quebec's economy. Others will nod knowingly that the true reason for all those Yes votes yesterday was to save the necks of certain Conservative and Bloc politicians.
Recommend this post
16 July 2010
Stephen Harper's Agenda is Showing
But that's OK. Harper has ensured that most Canadians are too overburdened, too stressed, too oblivious or too stupid to care.
His master stroke has just been played...
How to convince the gullible (whilst ensuring more of them) that Canada's federal government should not fund social programs or transfer funding to provinces for such programs and services:
1. Remove the key resource upon which evidence for the need of social programs is based - like removing a tree's roots.
2. Boast to Canadians of the responsibility of their federal government not to throw money away on programs for which there is no evidence of need.
3. Ensure Canadians' blind acceptance of #2 by dumbing-down Canada's post-secondary institutions; promoting FOX-style media and denying less-amenable media organizations information; and giving preference to the non-scientific, non-evidence-based views of crazy fundamentalists who occupy positions both inside and outside the Conservative government's cabinet and caucus.
In three words: Control all information.
Recommend this post
His master stroke has just been played...
How to convince the gullible (whilst ensuring more of them) that Canada's federal government should not fund social programs or transfer funding to provinces for such programs and services:
1. Remove the key resource upon which evidence for the need of social programs is based - like removing a tree's roots.
2. Boast to Canadians of the responsibility of their federal government not to throw money away on programs for which there is no evidence of need.
3. Ensure Canadians' blind acceptance of #2 by dumbing-down Canada's post-secondary institutions; promoting FOX-style media and denying less-amenable media organizations information; and giving preference to the non-scientific, non-evidence-based views of crazy fundamentalists who occupy positions both inside and outside the Conservative government's cabinet and caucus.
In three words: Control all information.
Recommend this post
15 July 2010
I really don't get this logic
The Young Liberal president in Yukon has written of his embarrassment in being a Liberal, citing the party's latest failure, that of allowing the omnibus budget to pass in the Senate, and stating that "it's getting really hard to support the party as a whole."
Yet Conal Slobodin also writes:
Note the tension in that one paragraph. Will Slobodin always be faithful to the party no matter what, despite his misgivings, embarrassment and thoughts about what should be, but isn't getting done?
This attitude reminds me of voters who say their family has always voted Conservative or Liberal; and that, therefore, regardless of how much they disapprove of that party's policies or actions, they'll remain loyal to it. Aren't these party loyalists, both partisans and voters, as bad as those who bow down to the opinions of certain authority figures, rather than doing their own thinking?
Shouldn't partisans and voters owe their loyalty first to CANADA and how it serves Canadians?
Recommend this post
Yet Conal Slobodin also writes:
The Liberal Party will always be my party, we have amazing MPs, hardworking volunteers, and a great legacy. I have always felt it to be a strong and loyal family representative of its members, but perhaps that is the problem. We need to start representing Canadians instead.
Note the tension in that one paragraph. Will Slobodin always be faithful to the party no matter what, despite his misgivings, embarrassment and thoughts about what should be, but isn't getting done?
This attitude reminds me of voters who say their family has always voted Conservative or Liberal; and that, therefore, regardless of how much they disapprove of that party's policies or actions, they'll remain loyal to it. Aren't these party loyalists, both partisans and voters, as bad as those who bow down to the opinions of certain authority figures, rather than doing their own thinking?
Shouldn't partisans and voters owe their loyalty first to CANADA and how it serves Canadians?
Recommend this post
13 July 2010
UPDATE - A Message from Ignatieff's Liberal Senators
"Fuck you, Canada!"
Courtesy of the following, no-show Liberal senators, on the matter of the Conservatives' 900-page omnibus 'budget' bill:
* Tommy Banks
* Sharon Carstairs
* Pierre de Bane
* Francis Fox
* Serge Joyal
* Nick Sibbeston
* David Smith
Source (of the names, not the message): the great Kady O'Malley.
Let us not forget also the Liberals in the House of Commons, who undertook their duties in similar abysmal fashion.
Given the Ignatieff Liberals' fear of Harper's Conservative bullies in government, voters are likely to suspect they'd be as fearful of said bullies in Official Opposition. On either side of the HoC, the HarperCons are more effective than the Iggy-Lib wimps currently occupying the latter position andvying to form government dreaming nostalgically of their days of former glory.
ETA: Before Liberal partisans start shouting "but it's the CONSERVATIVES who're introducing these policies!," let me remind you that the Conservatives form the government and as such are doing what they think to be right for the country. Whereas your leader and his kowtowing MPs form the Official Opposition; he and they are supposed to be OPPOSING. VIGOROUSLY. An effective Official Opposition is Canada's only defence against a tyrannical government. Which is why Canada has one right now!!!
ETA2: I've probably nixed the chance of getting a Liberal t-shirt, eh? Darn!
ETA3: "Travel commitments" prevented at five of the seven Liberal senators from their commitment to Canadians. Must be nice to have vacation time, something that many 'ordinary' Canadians don't have; they're too busy working two and more part-time jobs, just trying to survive.
Recommend this post
Courtesy of the following, no-show Liberal senators, on the matter of the Conservatives' 900-page omnibus 'budget' bill:
* Tommy Banks
* Sharon Carstairs
* Pierre de Bane
* Francis Fox
* Serge Joyal
* Nick Sibbeston
* David Smith
Source (of the names, not the message): the great Kady O'Malley.
Let us not forget also the Liberals in the House of Commons, who undertook their duties in similar abysmal fashion.
Given the Ignatieff Liberals' fear of Harper's Conservative bullies in government, voters are likely to suspect they'd be as fearful of said bullies in Official Opposition. On either side of the HoC, the HarperCons are more effective than the Iggy-Lib wimps currently occupying the latter position and
ETA: Before Liberal partisans start shouting "but it's the CONSERVATIVES who're introducing these policies!," let me remind you that the Conservatives form the government and as such are doing what they think to be right for the country. Whereas your leader and his kowtowing MPs form the Official Opposition; he and they are supposed to be OPPOSING. VIGOROUSLY. An effective Official Opposition is Canada's only defence against a tyrannical government. Which is why Canada has one right now!!!
ETA2: I've probably nixed the chance of getting a Liberal t-shirt, eh? Darn!
ETA3: "Travel commitments" prevented at five of the seven Liberal senators from their commitment to Canadians. Must be nice to have vacation time, something that many 'ordinary' Canadians don't have; they're too busy working two and more part-time jobs, just trying to survive.
Recommend this post
Free T-Shirts
There's a Twitter conversation going on amongst journalists regarding the arrival in their post boxes of opposing Iggy t-shirts, one each from the Liberal and Conservative camps. The latter, apparently, says 'Just visiting'. Dunno what the other says - perhaps some reference to a whiff of sulfur.
Anyway, Rosie Barton just complained that she hadn't received one of the Liberal t-shirts. To which I responded, Neither have I!
Why should journalists get all the freebies, eh? Why shouldn't Canadian bloggers and citizen journalists be included? I mean, my t-shirt supply has worn down (literally) to one, the others having been converted to dust rags.
I therefore submit this suggestion to Canada's political parties (including the provincial ones): send bloggers free t-shirts too!
Myself being a non-partisan and an equal-opportunity enthusiast, I assure all political parties that their t-shirts will be given equal exposure.
Recommend this post
Anyway, Rosie Barton just complained that she hadn't received one of the Liberal t-shirts. To which I responded, Neither have I!
Why should journalists get all the freebies, eh? Why shouldn't Canadian bloggers and citizen journalists be included? I mean, my t-shirt supply has worn down (literally) to one, the others having been converted to dust rags.
I therefore submit this suggestion to Canada's political parties (including the provincial ones): send bloggers free t-shirts too!
Myself being a non-partisan and an equal-opportunity enthusiast, I assure all political parties that their t-shirts will be given equal exposure.
Recommend this post
12 July 2010
In the Modern Era of Google
... one cannot MOVE a page and yet not have it found.
To anyone interested - and I DO urge that Canadians be interested - here is the NEW, direct link to that pesky "Reinstate our Census Long Form" discussion which was happening over at the Government of Canada's Digital Economy Consultation website.
The page was moved from its original location by HarperCo, clearly as an attempt to bury it.
I suppose Canadians were too engaged in the topic, eh?
Recommend this post
To anyone interested - and I DO urge that Canadians be interested - here is the NEW, direct link to that pesky "Reinstate our Census Long Form" discussion which was happening over at the Government of Canada's Digital Economy Consultation website.
The page was moved from its original location by HarperCo, clearly as an attempt to bury it.
I suppose Canadians were too engaged in the topic, eh?
Recommend this post
08 July 2010
Stephen Harper Ultimately Responsible for G20 Infringement of Civil Liberties
Having taken my own advice to show my support for Canadian civil liberties, I've begun receiving correspondence back from MPs. Among the respondents has been Mario Silva, a Liberal who represents the Toronto riding of Davenport. He writes in part that
Now I'm loathe these days to take any politician's word for anything, but this does make sense, given the G20 was the $1.3 billion party ordered up by one Stephen Harper. And we all know how much Harper favours micromanagement - if he's the one doing it.
ETA: And now a response from Rona Ambrose, one of Harper cabinet ministers: "I am pleased to inform you that an independent review of police tactics during the G20 protests will be conducted."
Would that be the independent review to be held by the Toronto Police Services Board, I wonder? If so, then Ambrose's response is an exercise in duplicity; it answers NOTHING with respect to FEDERAL responsibility. (I've responded to her in kind, insisting on an inquiry at the federal level.)
Recommend this post
it was the office of the Minister of Public Safety, the Honourable Vic Toews, which coordinated security for the G8 and G20 summits, in close consultation with the Prime Minister’s department, the Privy Council Office.
Now I'm loathe these days to take any politician's word for anything, but this does make sense, given the G20 was the $1.3 billion party ordered up by one Stephen Harper. And we all know how much Harper favours micromanagement - if he's the one doing it.
ETA: And now a response from Rona Ambrose, one of Harper cabinet ministers: "I am pleased to inform you that an independent review of police tactics during the G20 protests will be conducted."
Would that be the independent review to be held by the Toronto Police Services Board, I wonder? If so, then Ambrose's response is an exercise in duplicity; it answers NOTHING with respect to FEDERAL responsibility. (I've responded to her in kind, insisting on an inquiry at the federal level.)
Recommend this post
25 June 2010
Fairness in Representation vs. Ideological Identity
I happened upon this news story today, about (now) former Liberal Hec Cloutier planning to run as an independent in the next federal election.
I tweeted the link to the article, adding the comment "Canadians need more politicians like this."
I got a common reply, of the type: 'S/he supports (or is against), or would vote in favour of _____.' (Fill in the blank, e.g.: the gun registry, abortion, censorship, strict environmental laws, Canada's military presence in Afghanistan....
The underlying message of such comments? That anyone who supports _____ or, regardless of personal conviction, would vote in support of _____, is ipso facto a poor candidate for political office; this, despite the majority of constituents in the riding being in support of _____.
Which brings one to a dilemma. In some cases*, fairness in representation aligns well with ideological identity. That is, the Member of Parliament or provincial representative and the political party of which s/he is a member represent the majority view of constituents in that riding.
But what of cases when they don't? What should a politician do? Represent the wishes of the majority of constituents, even if the representative or his/her party may disagree? - and even if the majority outside the riding may disagree? Or should the representative of the people of that riding vote the (national, provincial) party line?
See, to me, it's no dilemma at all. In a properly-functioning democracy, politicians represent the people. (Nothing in the Canadian Constitution says that political parties have a right to representation!)
If the wishes of the majority in a riding run counter to the wishes of others in the riding, then it's up to the dissenting minority, most particularly in the riding, to work to persuade the others. If the dissenters want to enlist outside help, that's fine, as can the opposing side. At least the two sides are listening and talking to one another, which so often doesn't happen now.
That's what democracy is about. It's messy and sometimes inconvenient.
In a properly functioning democracy, we shouldn't be running roughshod over other people's views. Most particularly, we shouldn't permit unfair political representation of the people just because the people in question hold views contrary to ours.
* I write in some cases because our antiquated voting system and the unwillingness of 'the people's representatives' to cooperate ensure that the majority views of Canadians remain, in fact, unrepresented in our houses of government.
Recommend this post
"I met Mr. Ignatieff and he said to me: 'Hector, I would like you to consider running for me because you're the only one who can win the seat back for us.' I said I will consider running, but 'I am going to vote the wishes of my constituents'," Clouthier recalled.
"He said: 'I am the leader. If I whip the caucus you have to follow in line.' I said: 'No, I've been there, done that.' I toed the party line and lost in 2000. I refuse to do that again."
I tweeted the link to the article, adding the comment "Canadians need more politicians like this."
I got a common reply, of the type: 'S/he supports (or is against), or would vote in favour of _____.' (Fill in the blank, e.g.: the gun registry, abortion, censorship, strict environmental laws, Canada's military presence in Afghanistan....
The underlying message of such comments? That anyone who supports _____ or, regardless of personal conviction, would vote in support of _____, is ipso facto a poor candidate for political office; this, despite the majority of constituents in the riding being in support of _____.
Which brings one to a dilemma. In some cases*, fairness in representation aligns well with ideological identity. That is, the Member of Parliament or provincial representative and the political party of which s/he is a member represent the majority view of constituents in that riding.
But what of cases when they don't? What should a politician do? Represent the wishes of the majority of constituents, even if the representative or his/her party may disagree? - and even if the majority outside the riding may disagree? Or should the representative of the people of that riding vote the (national, provincial) party line?
See, to me, it's no dilemma at all. In a properly-functioning democracy, politicians represent the people. (Nothing in the Canadian Constitution says that political parties have a right to representation!)
If the wishes of the majority in a riding run counter to the wishes of others in the riding, then it's up to the dissenting minority, most particularly in the riding, to work to persuade the others. If the dissenters want to enlist outside help, that's fine, as can the opposing side. At least the two sides are listening and talking to one another, which so often doesn't happen now.
That's what democracy is about. It's messy and sometimes inconvenient.
In a properly functioning democracy, we shouldn't be running roughshod over other people's views. Most particularly, we shouldn't permit unfair political representation of the people just because the people in question hold views contrary to ours.
* I write in some cases because our antiquated voting system and the unwillingness of 'the people's representatives' to cooperate ensure that the majority views of Canadians remain, in fact, unrepresented in our houses of government.
Recommend this post
20 June 2010
If the Liberal Party Aims to be Rid of the Elitist Label
... then it had better rethink postures like this:
No one who follows Canadian politics will be surprised at the above. But then there's this:
Except, by long established practice, the exclusion of all but the leader of the official opposition isn't 'perfectly normal'.
If the label fits, wear it: elitist.
Recommend this post
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is snubbing opposition parties by ending a long established practice of inviting foreign heads of state to meet with them.
No one who follows Canadian politics will be surprised at the above. But then there's this:
Meanwhile, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has met with U.S. President Barack Obama and he also met Mexican President Felipe Calderon in May.
“It seems totally normal to me that the leader of the official opposition would have meetings, and the leaders of the third and fourth parties would not,” Ignatieff spokesman Michel Liboiron said.
Except, by long established practice, the exclusion of all but the leader of the official opposition isn't 'perfectly normal'.
If the label fits, wear it: elitist.
Recommend this post
17 June 2010
G8 'Signature Environmental Project' Dims
Fifteen solar lamps - at a cost of $207,900 - were supposed to light the way for G8 participants. HarperCo didn't grant the contract for this "signature environmental project" until May 25th. The company charged with supplying the lamps can only provide five lamps within the allotted time. The problem is partly due to the rocky terrain - otherwise known as The Canadian Shield.
Steve Rennie, of The Canadian Press, notes that "the same money could buy almost 14,000 solar-powered Noma garden lights at Canadian Tire. Those lights cost $15 each."
Recommend this post
Steve Rennie, of The Canadian Press, notes that "the same money could buy almost 14,000 solar-powered Noma garden lights at Canadian Tire. Those lights cost $15 each."
Recommend this post
Alert for USians Living In or Travelling to TO
Yup. Despite one billion loonies spent by HarperCo on security for the coming G20 summit, Washington has deemed it necessary to issue a travel alert. USians who live in or intend to travel to Toronto between now and June 28th are advised to "avoid protests" and avoid downtown TO altogether.
Recommend this post
Recommend this post
15 June 2010
Afghan Document Deal No Deal for Canadians
Ralph Goodale has just said in the House of Commons that the success of the agreement will depend on the "honest behaviour" of all parties involved and he vowed that the Liberals "will continue to be alert and vigilant in the process."
Bwahahahaha...
According to Goodale, "all relevant and necessary information will be available."
Relevant and necessary, as determined by whom?
That would be jurists, not Members of Parliament who are the people's representatives. Jurists will review all material - minus legal documents and cabinet records which are to be automatically excluded from the get-go - before ever an MP's eyes should fall upon it.
This sham of a deal, which has enough holes to sink a ship and leaves Harper enough wiggle room for further circumventing parliamentary privilege, was predictable. As was the Liberal-Conservative dance to avoid an election.
Not predictable and disappointing to me was the assent of the Bloc.
The NDP, which has refused to sign on to the deal, has been much more forceful of late. I'm impressed and likin' it.
Recommend this post
Bwahahahaha...
According to Goodale, "all relevant and necessary information will be available."
Relevant and necessary, as determined by whom?
That would be jurists, not Members of Parliament who are the people's representatives. Jurists will review all material - minus legal documents and cabinet records which are to be automatically excluded from the get-go - before ever an MP's eyes should fall upon it.
This sham of a deal, which has enough holes to sink a ship and leaves Harper enough wiggle room for further circumventing parliamentary privilege, was predictable. As was the Liberal-Conservative dance to avoid an election.
Not predictable and disappointing to me was the assent of the Bloc.
The NDP, which has refused to sign on to the deal, has been much more forceful of late. I'm impressed and likin' it.
Recommend this post
12 June 2010
Post-9/11 Security Hysteria Similar to Nuclear Arms Race
Post-9/11 security hysteria - which is costing Canada $1.2 billion and counting for a single shindig - reminds me of the nuclear arms race of the Cold War. It's the philosophy of security or nuclear weapons hypothetically being deterrents for terra-ism or war.
However, so much security creates an atmosphere of fear; and anger at freedoms curtailed. And when people feel fear and are incensed by the injustice imposed by the State, terra-ism and war become more, not less, likely.
Recommend this post
However, so much security creates an atmosphere of fear; and anger at freedoms curtailed. And when people feel fear and are incensed by the injustice imposed by the State, terra-ism and war become more, not less, likely.
Recommend this post
31 May 2010
He Talketh Out of Both Sides of Mouth
Liberal MP Joe Volpe tweets: "I stand with Israel. Critics would be wise to reserve judgment until all the facts are clear."
Clearly, Volpe considers his own advice to be valueless.
Recommend this post
Clearly, Volpe considers his own advice to be valueless.
Recommend this post
23 May 2010
Stephen Harper Does a Mr. Dithers
According to Dimitri Soudas - now banned (as are all political staffers) by HarperCo from appearing before parliamentary committees -, one Stephen Harper has done a Mr. Dithers.
No, Soudas didn't put it quite that way. He put it this way:
"The Prime Minister is keen to see discussions [between the board of internal economy and the AG re MP expenses] continue. He's also keen to see this matter resolved with more transparency."
How it must hurt Harper to have mocked Iggy's backtracking - only to turn around and do it himself!
Meanwhile, Jack Layton, who heads the most progressive (?) of Canada's national parties, still cleaves to BOIE's original decision not to allow the AG to do an audit, period.
For those who like to keep score, this is how the leaders of the four parties in the House of Commons stack up on the issue:
First place, blue ribbon: Gilles Ducuppe, whose party always supported having the AG do an audit.
Second place, red ribbon: Ignatieff, who listened to his MPs and backtracked early.
Third place, white ribbon: Harper, who didn't backtrack until late in the game.
Fourth place, no ribbon: Layton, whose party continues to support the status quo.
All of which leads me to this:
An audit by the AG is no longer good enough. Resistance by MPs has raised alarm bells. NOW I want all MPs (and senators) to post online their detailed expense reports and to back them up with links to the relevant invoices. Toronto city council is a good example of what SHOULD be done.
[H/t to @dominionpundit for reference to the TO info.]
Recommend this post
No, Soudas didn't put it quite that way. He put it this way:
"The Prime Minister is keen to see discussions [between the board of internal economy and the AG re MP expenses] continue. He's also keen to see this matter resolved with more transparency."
How it must hurt Harper to have mocked Iggy's backtracking - only to turn around and do it himself!
Meanwhile, Jack Layton, who heads the most progressive (?) of Canada's national parties, still cleaves to BOIE's original decision not to allow the AG to do an audit, period.
For those who like to keep score, this is how the leaders of the four parties in the House of Commons stack up on the issue:
First place, blue ribbon: Gilles Ducuppe, whose party always supported having the AG do an audit.
Second place, red ribbon: Ignatieff, who listened to his MPs and backtracked early.
Third place, white ribbon: Harper, who didn't backtrack until late in the game.
Fourth place, no ribbon: Layton, whose party continues to support the status quo.
All of which leads me to this:
An audit by the AG is no longer good enough. Resistance by MPs has raised alarm bells. NOW I want all MPs (and senators) to post online their detailed expense reports and to back them up with links to the relevant invoices. Toronto city council is a good example of what SHOULD be done.
[H/t to @dominionpundit for reference to the TO info.]
Recommend this post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)