CAW Atlantic endorses Elizabeth May

Announcement from the CNW Group, October 8th. Just came up on my Google News Reader a couple of hours ago.

Les Holloway, CAW Atlantic Canada Area Director, announced today that the union is throwing its support behind Green Party leader Elizabeth May, in the Central Nova riding....

"It is critical that we do not re-elect a Harper Conservative government that will continue with its failed right-wing policies which have already cost our country hundreds of thousands of good paying manufacturing jobs," said Holloway.

Holloway stated, "This ideology that you give everybody their taxes back, cut government spending to do it by deregulating everything and let the market take care of itself has cost us dearly in both life and economic well being, and it has indeed put us on the same course as the United States."

"Elizabeth May is an extremely intelligent and articulate woman and will do us proud as a Member of Parliament for Central Nova. She cares about what this unbalanced economy is doing to residents of Nova Scotia and elsewhere," said Holloway....

That's quite a coup, methinks!

Recommend this post

Response to Bob Hepburn's "Green Party should fade away"

Bob Hepburn, writing in the TorStar today, says that the Green Party should simply fade away "for the good of the environment." The following is my response.

How dare Bob Hepburn so outrageously dismiss Green Party supporters, who are as much citizens of this country as he is? Because that's what it amounts to when he suggests the Green Party should just "fade away."

Supporters of the Greens have as much right to build, and vote for a party which reflects their views as any other citizen of this country. It's not their fault that our embarrassing, archaic undemocratic first-past-the-post voting system functions as it should only when two parties exist.

No truly democratic country should force its citizens to choose between just two options. We need to change the system to reflect the various interests of our citizens, not force parties to die off.

Recommend this post

Tyee Reporter barred from Harper Rally

Other media personnel were admitted, but not The Tyee's reporter Geoff Dembicki. Read the whole account. It reveals even more interesting details.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper spoke to what was most likely a packed room of supporters at Vancouver's Bayshore Westin hotel last night. The Tyee can't be sure though, because I was not let inside.

This was the second time the Harper team barred The Tyee from reporting on this campaign.

As the Conservative leader began his address in the Stanley Park Ballroom, several members of the media pleaded with event staff to be admitted.

The staffers held firm that the event had already begun and nobody standing outside was to be admitted.

I was running a few minutes late ... but I arrived at the ballroom before 7:00 p.m., the official start time of the rally, according to a Conservative press release.

Harper staffers were adamant that media were too late for the rally. After a few minutes, however, reporters from World Journal and Channel M were admitted to the ballroom.

Talk about controlling the message! I wonder who those "no comment" people were?

Recommend this post

Fair Vote Canada: Open letter to strategic voters

Posted in full, with permission from Fair Vote Canada..

Open letter from Fair Vote Canada to strategic voters and vote-swappers

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.” - Albert Einstein


Another federal election and another disaster for democracy.

On October 14, millions of Canadians – possibly eight million – will become orphan voters, casting ballots that send no one to Ottawa. As usual, the election results will be wildly distorted.

Some parties will get a portion of seats far exceeding their portion of the popular vote, while others will get too little or none at all.

We may even see a party opposed by six voters in every ten take majority control in the House of Commons.

Why we call this exercise “democracy” is a continuing mystery.

During every election in recent memory the frustration created by an undemocratic electoral system leads some to conclude that voters should try to “game” the system. Instead of marking the ballot for a party you support, they say, be “smart” and vote for a party you do not support in order block another party that you despise.

A recent poll by the Toronto Star indicated that about half of those supporting the Liberals, NDP and Green Party would consider casting a negative or “strategic” vote, abandoning the party they actually prefer, to vote for another party in the hope of stopping a candidate from the front-running Conservatives.

In addition to 40% of the eligible voters who choose not to vote we could now have another large group of people who have given up on sincere voting and genuine democratic representation.

This is no way to nourish pride of citizenship or public respect for the laws that emanate from an unrepresentative Parliament.

Citizens in most major democracies take for granted their right to cast a vote that elects the representation they want. In the upcoming election, the majority of Canadian voters will all but certainly be denied that right.

Fair Vote Canada cannot advise voters whether to cast negative votes or to participate in vote-swapping schemes on October 14. It’s rarely a clear or easy choice.

What we can advise is that all Canadians should be coming together to demand reform of our country’s undemocratic election process.

If you have not already done so, join and support Fair Vote Canada. Sign the Fair Vote Canada petition calling for a national referendum on electoral reform. Urge other organizations to make active citizenship, equal votes and proportional representation for all Canadians a part of their basic mission.

Together we can win.

British Columbians showed the way in 2005 when 58% voted by referendum for proportional representation, only to be frustrated – in the short-term – by an undemocratic government-imposed threshold of 60%. On May 12, 2009, British Columbians will vote again in an electoral reform referendum. With our encouragement and help, they can lead Canada on the path of democratic renewal.

The electoral system has orphaned many of us. We must refuse to be silenced. Democracy has been long delayed, but if democrats are steadfast, democracy will not be forever denied.

Fair Vote Canada
Orphan Voters

Please help spread the word about the importance of reforming our electoral system - distribute this letter widely. - Ocean.

Recommend this post

Way... to... go..., Elizabeth!

Mike Duffy gets some of his own bad-tasting medicine and for a cure he sorely needs. Biased, much, Mr. I-Heart-Stephen Duffy?

Recommend this post

Quips from Opposition Leaders re Harper Economic Plan

Elizabeth May:
"He's offering tariff reductions to industries that can’t afford to import machinery, just as he’s generously given tax cuts to businesses that have no profits to tax. If this wasn’t such a serious matter, Mr. Harper’s policies would be a joke."

Stephane Dion:
"Mr. Harper showed his true colours today by saying that the current market conditions had created ‘some great buying opportunities'.... Mr. Harper said today that it is no time to change boats in a storm. But Mr. Harper has been asleep at the helm. We need to change the captain and his crew." [My emphasis]

That quote from Harper sickens me.

Who would be the people able to capitalize on these "great buying opportunities"? Not I. Not the increasing number of individuals and families whose household incomes are below or plummeting disastrously close to the poverty line.

And the "great buying opportunities" come at the cost of some of the most poorly-strapped Canadians, including seniors. The losses have been to their nest eggs. Therefore, many of those who invested in mutual funds and were reliant on them as a form of income support have nothing left with which to invest or take back what they've lost.

The headline of another Liberal media release caught my eye in the context of a CBC.ca headline. The juxtaposition of the two is hilarious.

Liberal headline: "Conservatives ditch censorship provision in a panic."
CBC headline: "'This prime minister isn't going to panic': Harper to Mansbridge."

Jack Layton:
No press release from them yet. No doubt there'll be a goodie or two to add here, once it does come out.

Recommend this post

Life-threatening Vandalism - and Nothing from Harper

Where is Mr. Tough-on-Crime now? The one who touts the line "If you do the crime, you do the time"? The manly man who wants to put 14-year-olds in adult penal institutions?

There has been not one word from Stephen Harper or his minions about the most recent cases of serious, life-threatening vandalism against Liberal supporters.

TWENTY-NINE Liberal supporters who have democratically chosen to show their support by having lawn signs on their property have been targeted. Many have woken up to find their brake lines have been cut. Others didn't discover this fact until they were on the road and in major traffic.

When are the Harper Conservatives going to speak up against these heinous acts? We all know whose supporters are targeting Liberal supporters. So must the Conservatives.

Recommend this post

Ugh... Am exhausted... Is it over yet?

Well, the title about says it.

Don't know how the candidates can bear it. The vast majority of them must be extroverts, the 60-odd per cent of the population that is energized by being in a room full of people.

Unfortunately, the opposite is true for introverts, of which I am one. Other folks exhaust us, not because we don't like people (most of us do), but because we invest so much of OUR energy into any exchange with another person - the Other becomes our sole focus of attention.

Even engaging with people online doesn't seem to help, although I thought that imposing a faceless barrier would.

How candidates can get hyped about the issues no matter how many times they have to repeat the same old thing also boggles this tired brain.

I canna do it day in, day out, without a break in between. And frankly, I get BORED with having to say and think the same thing over and over and over... Although I recognize the necessity of that if we're going to get our message out to as many people as possible.

So, what do you think? Are you just as frazzled as I am? Or are you just getting started?

Recommend this post

Podcast: Stories of Poverty in the First Person - Rayna

A podcast reading from the book Policies of Exclusion, Poverty & Health: Stories from the front. Compiled, with Introduction and Reports by Chrystal Ocean. Copyright 2005.

I was pretty outgoing as a really young child. If I thought something was crap, I would say so. The first time my mom took out her stuff on me, I sat her down the next day and said, "You got a little out of control." Just had this rational discussion! I was 7…

We moved to different neighbourhoods and I wound up at a really tough school; I got beaten up at school everyday for a couple of years. It was ironic. I got beaten by a gang of girls on the same bridge that [14-year-old] Reena Virk died under. Of course, I was supposed to come home with A’s and B’s. It just wasn’t happening. So I’d get beaten up at home as well.

Rayna has struggled with depression and anxiety most of her life. Now on disability benefits, she is trying to maintain a part-time job, more for the sake of her self-esteem than for any bit of extra money she might earn. In fact, Rayna faces strong disincentives to work, including employment expenses which are not included in Ministry calculations.

Rayna also faces other barriers: finding housing which allows pets, her pets having been her lifeline; and earning enough money in any given week to keep up with the interest charged on an original $180 payday loan.

Recommend this post

First Rae, now Layton

As I wrote yesterday, the argument both men are now using to sway voters to their party is no more rational when spewed from Jack Layton's mouth today than it was when uttered yesterday by Bob Rae. They are counselling voters to do the wrong thing, or the right thing in the leaders' own views but for the wrong reason from the perspective of voters.

Both leaders are shifting their own responsibility onto voters. That responsibility is to lead and to form a temporary coalition or alliance, if necessary, after the election. Such a coalition would either form a majority government - with due representation of each party according to the proportion of the popular vote it received and thus including Green representation - or agitate as one to begin a democratic, grassroots-lead process to reform our voting system and replace it with proportional representation.

Recommend this post

Rae: Liberals should target NDP

OK. This I don't like. As readers of this blog will know, I'm no fan of the NDP. But I'm even less a fan of flawed reasoning and tactics intended to scare voters into doing something they otherwise wouldn't.

The reasons given by Bob Rae today for urging Liberals to target their attacks now at the NDP are senseless. They're intended to scare voters into doing exactly what they shouldn't: vote on the basis of "who stands the most chance to form the government," rather than for the party whose policies a voter most supports.

Think seriously about how asinine that argument is.

Rae said the Liberals need to emphasize that voting for the NDP will only make it easier for the Conservatives to increase their seat count.

"In the last 10 days, we've really got to focus on what are the real choices. And I honestly believe the NDP is not a viable choice anymore," Rae said after rallying about 40 supporters.

"Jack might think he's Barack Obama, but he really isn't. He's Ralph Nader. The effect of voting for his candidates in most ridings is to perpetuate Conservative rule."

One might argue the reverse and it would be as equally self-serving.

Scene: Hypothetical NDP strategist argues to gathered supporters:

The NDP need to emphasize that voting for the Liberals will only make it easier for the Conservatives to increase their seat count.

In the last 10 days, we've really got to focus on what are the real choices. And I honestly believe the Liberals are not a viable choice.

Dion might think he's Barack Obama, but he really isn't. He's Ralph Nader. The effect of voting for his candidates in most ridings is to perpetuate Conservative rule.

What matters, or should matter, to each and every voter, is which party platform best represents that voter's values and offers the best solutions. And engaged voters should be working to make the party platforms known to their friends, co-workers and neighbours.

If I am to vote for the Green, NDP, Liberal or, for that matter, Conservative candidate in my riding, it will be because the party which that candidate represents coheres best with my own sense of what matters.

I'll not vote based on a self-serving argument such as that which Rae has put forward.

Yes, thanks to our embarrassing, archaic, anti-democratic first-past-the-post electoral system, voters face a prisoner's dilemma. However, no party or candidate should be encouraging supporters of other parties to vote for them simply because their own party of choice purportedly doesn't stand a chance.

Voters should not be asked to compromise their democratic right and obligation to vote according to what they believe would be the best platform for this country.

What voters need, after the election is over and after they have cast their votes, are leaders with the backbone to do what's right: to form a temporary coalition, if necessary, one whose representation reflects each party's percentage of the popular vote - hence giving voters a form of proportional representation. Then, approach the Governor-General to request that the coalition form the government.

The coalition's first order of business? As Elizabeth May in the October 2nd debate said,

"First we have to fix the electoral system. We have to put ourselves on the path to proportional representation so we don't run the risk of false majorities such as a majority of the seats with the minority of support."

Recommend this post

May Nails Top Priority Issue: Electoral reform

[UPDATE: Thanks to information from a reader, more details are provided below.]

One month ago, I wrote that electoral reform was the most pressing issue facing Canada's voters.

"Not the environment. Not poverty. Not the healthcare system. Not crime, gangs, or violence against women. Not abortion. Not the war in Afghanistan or the US invasion of Iraq and their imminent attack on Iran. Not the sabre rattling between the US and Russia."

None of these issues will get addressed by ANY party or politician. Not in any substantive, meaningful way. Not unless something fundamental changes in our eroding democracy.

Therefore, the first order of business of any government should be the start of the process to replace our embarrassing, archaic, undemocratic first-past-the-post system with a form of proportional representation.

And which leader would do that?

Well, each of them were asked in last night's English language debate what they would do first should their party form the government.

Did any of them mention proportional representation or electoral reform in their answer?

Not the Conservatives, who do just fine on the present system.

Not the NDP. They talk the talk well enough - well, not always, as I challenged in a letter to a local paper and as we heard last night from Jack Layton. Nary a word fell from Layton's lips about proportional representation. Indeed, when the NDP had the opportunity to support changing our voting system to proportional representation back in 1980 they turned it down.

The Liberals wouldn't change our voting system either. Their 66-page platform mentions not a word about it. And Dion's response last night only confirmed that bringing democracy to our voting system isn't even on his radar. "Democracy" is all well and good when it comes to debate participants, but not so good when it comes to true voter choice, apparently.

There was only one leader who responded correctly to that first-order-of-business question.

It was Elizabeth May of the Green Party.

May promised to start down the road toward electoral reform and to shift the tax burden to polluters.

"As a woman and a single mom, I'm really good at multi-tasking, so there would be more than one thing," she quipped.

"We've got to put ourselves on a path of proportional representation, so that the will of the voters is expressed and the way people vote is reflected in the House of Commons."

Am looking for videos and a full transcript of the debate. Please write a comment below if you come across either and include the link to its source.

UPDATE
The question asked during the debate: "I'm a retiree building my shed in the backyard here and I have a question for all of you potential prime ministers. My question is if I should elect you prime minister, what's the very first thing you'll do when you get into office. And I don't want any bull feathers, baffled brains answer, I just want the real issue you're going to tackle."

Elizabeth May: "First I'd like to say I'd love to come help you finish the shed but as a woman and a single mom, I'm really good at multitasking so there will be more than one thing. First we have to fix the electoral system. We have to put ourselves on the path to proportional representation so we don't run the risk of false majorities such as a majority of the seats with the minority of support. We also need to move forward on the plan to deal with carbon and carbon emission, that makes the future more secure. It's top priorities for greens. Top priorities for 80% of Canadians who realize we have a moral obligation to the future to act."

My thanks to a reader for that additional info and for providing its CBC source.

More updates to come (I hope), which will include video clips.

Recommend this post

Another Harper speech, another case of plagiarism

In a Liberal media release today, we learn of more plagiarism committed by Stephen Harper back when he was Leader of the Opposition in 2003. This time, he took the words of former Ontario Premier Mike Harris as his own.

Posted on the website of the Montreal Economic Institute - a conservative right-wing think-tank - are the December 4, 2002, speaking notes of Mr. Harris. They state:

“Thinking about things from a new and different perspective is never easy. It takes courage, conviction and the strength to know that in taking a new and innovative course, you are making change for the better.

“Genuine leaders are the ones who do the right thing.”

Two months later, on February 19, 2003, in Mr. Harper’s major address in the House of Commons in response to the Liberal budget, he said:

“Thinking about things from a new and different perspective is not about reading the polls and having focus group tests. It is never easy because it takes courage, conviction and the strength to know that taking a new and innovative course is going to make change for the better. Genuine leaders are the ones who do the right thing.”

As I mused when the first report of plagiarism came out, where there's one case, there's likely to be more - a history of such unethical, if not criminal, behaviour. In the academic world, such acts are grounds for dismissal.

Recommend this post

No pets laws should be outlawed - Response

In the Victoria Times-Colonist today is a Letter to the Editor by Val McWilliams.

I assume McWilliams was writing in response to a TC article about pets in rental units. BC's archaic Residential Tenancy Act allows landlords to prohibit tenants from having pets.

I sent my own Letter to the Editor today, in support of McWilliams.

Bravo! to letter-writer Val McWilliams, of Victoria ("No pets rules should be outlawed").

There are three classes of residents in this province: those who own their homes, those who rent the places where they live and those who haven't a home at all.

Only the first class can choose to have pets without someone else's "property rights" overriding that choice. Only members of that first class can reap the health benefits from having pet companions. Only members of that first class can choose not to be lonely. Only members of that first class can take in a warm live being whose companionship makes the human in the relationship feel needed and appreciated. Only members of that first class can choose to have a companion on which they can pour their otherwise unused love and need to nurture.

With few exceptions, renters and those without homes have incomes substantially lower than homeowners. And more of renters' scant incomes today go to housing - increasingly, over 60 per cent.

It therefore comes as a tremendous irony that the residents of our fair province who would most benefit from having pets are those most likely to be denied them - the people most likely to be in poor health due to the stress of living on too low an income, the people most likely to need the love of a pet companion, and the people most likely to be isolated and lonely and desperately in need of someone to love.

Pets help alleviate stress, improve one's sense of wellbeing, stave off loneliness and isolation, provide security and comfort.

But only homeowners in this province are allowed unrestricted choice to have these health benefits. And property owners - including the BC Government, which provides or subsidizes housing for those on low income - can choose to deny it to the rest of us.

Ocean,
Duncan BC.

Am curious to see if the letter gets published. Given that one letter in favour of tenants is likely enough for this CanWest paper for awhile, I suspect not.

Recommend this post

CanWest Global and Drug Ad Laws

The following video was researched and created by Rob Wipond, an independent journalist.

What it's about: Canada's biggest media empire has launched a lawsuit to strike down restrictions against prescription drug advertising. But your media isn't telling you about it - find out why and what the potential danger is to you.

Recommend this post

Conservative Sleaze Hits New Low

Do Canadians really want someone who would stoop this low to be their Prime Minister? Again?

From the Tory war room:

WHAT ARE LIBERALS SAYING ABOUT DION’S LEADERSHIP?

More and more Liberals are openly starting to muse about Dion’s leadership. In fact, even one of Stéphane Dion’s few original caucus supporters is now wondering out loud whether he regrets supporting him.

Charles Hubbard: “I sometimes say in my mind ‘what if Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff were leader?’” (New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal, October 2, 2008)

Versus the context of that quote:

Does [Hubbard] regret his early support for Dion?

“I don’t think so,” said the low-key Hubbard, a former high school principal. “I sometimes say in my mind ‘what if Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff were leader?’

“But the Conservatives would have done the same thing.

“No matter who it was, they would have run comparable ads.”

Kady O'Malley over at Macleans has the full transcript.

That someone is so desperate to hang onto power that he would stoop this low astounds me. Whether Harper saw this before it was released, I don't know. But even if he didn't, he hires the people who did. Mr. micro-manager Harper lets little happen in the Conservative camp without his express approval.

Canadian voters must be made aware of just how low these power-hungry men (they're almost all men) will go to rule this land and to force a two-thirds majority of us who don't share their ideology. That they take actions to deliberately, blatantly deceive voters should say it all.

Recommend this post

My Scarred Heart

This came after reading a book review* in Herizons Magazine about a creative writer telling her students to write about their scars for ten minutes.

So I wrote.

My Scarred Heart

My scarred heart,
Is it art?

The sad demise of my father
left a scar,
seeping sorrow.
A criminally induced abortion,
criminally induced
by rape
cries for forgiveness
while two miscarriages weep
for never having been seen.
The wound of a failed marriage wraps barbed wire
around my fragile beating orb.
Loud lament of women
world-wide
send pinpricks of pain
like buckshot fired at feeding deer.

Despite the wounds,
the dissipating anguish
my beating, bloodied blob beats on.
Still, there is room for
love
as it heals and cradles
all the wretchedness
with loving kindness.

My heart
is
scarred art.

* The review, which appeared in the Fall 2008 issue of Herizons Magazine, was written by Lisa Tremblay. It was of Natalie Goldberg's book Old Friend From Far Away.

Here is Natalie Goldberg talking about her writing process and her latest book.

Recommend this post

Cool New Lib Site: Harpernomics

Clever, well designed, largely done in black, white and dark tones, this new Liberal website focuses on the Harper Conservatives' economic policies and their result on Canada's economy. In other words, Harpernomics.

'Tis worth a visit.

Recommend this post

NDP denied voters proportional representation in 1980

An explosive account in a major column today reveals that the federal NDP back in Ed Broadbent's time, rejected the Liberal government's offer to change our voting system to proportional representation.

Why?

Because "the MPs were afraid of losing their seats."

The electoral crapshoot would long be a thing of the past had NDP leader Ed Broadbent and his caucus seized a never-before-disclosed offer from prime minister Pierre Trudeau immediately after the 1980 election. The Liberals captured 147 of 282 seats with 44 per cent of the popular vote, but failed to elect a single MP west of Winnipeg despite the support of about 25 per cent of western voters.

A Liberal majority with no western seats ignited western rage. Not only do ongoing unrepresentative and perverse electoral outcomes undermine democratic legitimacy and suppress turnout, they rupture the bonds holding the country together, artificially fomenting regional alienation and fracturing national unity.

Trudeau invited Broadbent to his office for a chat. The NDP had captured 26 of its 32 seats in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and B.C. with about one-third of the vote. Trudeau said he would introduce legislation for proportional representation if the NDP would co-sponsor it.

According to well-placed sources, Broadbent said he would take the proposal to his caucus. The answer was no.

Broadbent told the prime minister NDP MPs were afraid of losing their seats. Trudeau declined to forge ahead alone.

Can't blame Trudeau, having obtained 44% of the vote, being reluctant to change our voting system without support of another party and one which better represented western provinces. The optics would have been bad otherwise, not to mention ethically questionable. ('Tis a shame Harper & Co. aren't so laden with ethical considerations such as these.)

Go. Read. Lots there to chew on.

Recommend this post

ACR: Harper's Canada in 60 seconds

By permission of Pale Cold, over at A Creative Revolution, here's Harper's Canada in 60 Seconds. Spread far and wide.

Recommend this post