It's a hard news day, really, despite supposedly being a "day off". The bad news is, ironically, the surge by the NDP that threatens to hand over a majority to the Conservatives by splitting the vote in otherwise Liberal-leaning ridings. Do we really want to vote NDP where our lost Liberal vote will let the Tories coast by and claim a seat?
More bad news comes in the form of the Canada Free Press--a tabloid-style online right-wing rag, having more in common with the Communist and Marxist-Leninist papers of years gone by in their toxic spewing of ideology, and on the hustings now to promote Sun News Network, aka Fox News North. If ever there was any doubt that Harper has the knives out for the CBC, it should be dispelled here. Don't look for any meaningful political discourse, just diatribes and stink bombs. If people read this pernicious tripe and set any store by it, well, God help us all.
Which brings me to the themes of the day--crucifixion, today being Good Friday; the Jewish escape from slavery celebrated in the Passover; and, ultimately, the resurrection of Easter. From both a religious and a secular perspective, these themes have resonance, I think. Canada is undergoing its own form of enslavement under Harper, from the suppression of dissent to the quieting of information and the inflammation of partisan rhetoric. The landscape is being crucified both literally through the environmental degradation that is encouraged to flourish and metaphorically through fear-mongering and shameless abuses of democracy.
I can only hope--and pray--that May 2 brings deliverance to this beautiful country and its people so that a resurrection may begin.
Friday 22 April 2011
Tuesday 19 April 2011
Let the majority speak
Until now, I've been overwhelmed by the news that 40% of us still want Harper to run our country despite everything (the Youtube video pretty much says it all). But you know, that still means that a majority--60% of us--do not want Harper running the country. And many of us feel more passionately than we have ever felt about an election. So it's time to stop feeling trapped by the numbers. If we play our cards right, we might just be able to harness those numbers to our own "majority". It could happen.
Three Hundred Eight is a constantly updated site showing the voting patterns in ridings across the country. From a cursory glance, close to 50 seats appear vulnerable to strategic voting. That's a lot of seats. Thirty-three of these seats are currently projecting Tory wins; some are very tenuous Liberal or NDP leaning. All of them could have significantly altered outcomes if the supporters of parties out of contention would agree to "hold their nose and vote." And the latest in strategic voting aides are sites such as votepair.ca and Avaaz based on the premise that if you know your vote won't count in the riding you're in, offer it to the party for whom it can count in exchange for someone elsewhere in the country agreeing to vote for your party where it will count. You register, stating how you want to vote and which parties you are willing to vote for, and then you are matched with a voting partner, where possible.
"Weird" is how one Liberal party worker described it when I spoke with her today. Are we really comfortable swapping our votes? How does it avoid abuse and fraud? Well, it does involve an act of faith that your partner will honour your request, but there's really nothing to be gained in not doing so, except, I suppose, a tiny increase in the popular vote, which as we know is next to worthless politically. Open in theory to all parties, in practice there aren't many people willing to swap with Conservatives. And if you try to hide which party you really want to vote for, there's no point. Your "deceitful" vote is still only one vote. But the potential to double the impact of your vote, especially where it won't count otherwise, has considerable appeal.
Just think, if the Liberals and New Democrats in Saanich BC agreed to vote Green in exchange for Greens returning the favour to the NDP in, say, Burnaby-Douglas and to the Liberals in Kitchener Centre, we could a) give a much-deserved seat to Elizabeth May, and b) wrest three ridings from the Tories.
We, the people, could coalesce to achieve our mutual goals.
Three Hundred Eight is a constantly updated site showing the voting patterns in ridings across the country. From a cursory glance, close to 50 seats appear vulnerable to strategic voting. That's a lot of seats. Thirty-three of these seats are currently projecting Tory wins; some are very tenuous Liberal or NDP leaning. All of them could have significantly altered outcomes if the supporters of parties out of contention would agree to "hold their nose and vote." And the latest in strategic voting aides are sites such as votepair.ca and Avaaz based on the premise that if you know your vote won't count in the riding you're in, offer it to the party for whom it can count in exchange for someone elsewhere in the country agreeing to vote for your party where it will count. You register, stating how you want to vote and which parties you are willing to vote for, and then you are matched with a voting partner, where possible.
"Weird" is how one Liberal party worker described it when I spoke with her today. Are we really comfortable swapping our votes? How does it avoid abuse and fraud? Well, it does involve an act of faith that your partner will honour your request, but there's really nothing to be gained in not doing so, except, I suppose, a tiny increase in the popular vote, which as we know is next to worthless politically. Open in theory to all parties, in practice there aren't many people willing to swap with Conservatives. And if you try to hide which party you really want to vote for, there's no point. Your "deceitful" vote is still only one vote. But the potential to double the impact of your vote, especially where it won't count otherwise, has considerable appeal.
Just think, if the Liberals and New Democrats in Saanich BC agreed to vote Green in exchange for Greens returning the favour to the NDP in, say, Burnaby-Douglas and to the Liberals in Kitchener Centre, we could a) give a much-deserved seat to Elizabeth May, and b) wrest three ridings from the Tories.
We, the people, could coalesce to achieve our mutual goals.
It's personal to a lot of people
I don’t usually think of an election, or even government, as being overly 'personal' affairs. Heck, my mother even tried to convince me early on that the leaders of opposing parties “could be good friends” in real life. Not sure that’s ever been true. But beyond the opposition wrangling and the fierce competition for votes, the personal aspect of elections in Canada has never stood out. Yes, one’s favoured party might not win, neighbours might be perturbed by the lawn signs, and a few things might change in the public sphere. But real personal pain?
The case of Helena Guergis is particularly interesting in this regard. Her treatment by the party provides a disturbing glimpse into the personal implications of being a Tory who falls out of favour. Her faults: being rude in an airport, and being married to a cocaine user/drunk driver who lost his Alberta seat in the last election. Sensational allegations were later made against her for which no evidence was found. But she had to apply to the Access of Information Act to find out the nature of these charges, and to the PM she is now a nameless “individual” not welcome in the caucus and replaced as the Tory candidate of choice on the ballot in her riding.
The case of Remy Beauregard, a civil servant at the end of a distinguished career, is even more concerning. In a letter to The Toronto Star, Suzanne Trepanier, outlines how her husband was the subject of a sustained and baseless assault on his character that caused him to die of a stress-induced heart attack. She explains how the assault came about through a secret performance evaluation of his work at the human rights organization Rights and Democracy by three Harper appointees to the board. In a move that negates every principle of fair employee treatment, Beauregard was never shown this evaluation, let alone given a copy. He had no knowledge of what he was fighting against, or why the negative attacks had been made.
A year later the organization is proceeding in the direction Beauregard originally laid out, building upon his obviously valued ideas, while his wife waits for an apology for "destroying" their lives.
The discipline exerted within a political party to sanction members who’ve chosen to run for election is one thing. Treating a distinguished public servant as "an inconsequential and incidental casualty of political games," as Trepanier puts it, takes things to another level altogether. And these are just the stories that have broken out.
And of these two stories, relatively little airplay has been given them, really, considering what they say about the modus operandi of the Harper government. So I wonder how many similar stories are out there, how many people say nothing for fear of losing their jobs or their health or both. Are our journalists worried that they too could find themselves sidelined, especially if Harper’s secretly planned new government media outlet with its promise of “robust physical and information security measures to protect the prime minister and cabinet” goes ahead? Which would only be the beginning. . .
Saturday 16 April 2011
It must be the Sarah Palin glasses
As the polls continue to show strong support for Harper as a leader and the Conservatives in general, I wonder how does this man do it? Each day brings fresh cause for outrage--a Tory report misrepresenting Sheila Fraser by stealing from a previous report on the spending of the LIBERALS following 9/11, hints of gross misspending during the G8, Tory thugs trying to wrest away a U of Guelph ballot box, sensational revelations about the unfounded but damaging character assassination of Helena Guergis. All this in less than a week.
Still, despite everything, it seems that 4 in 10 Canadians trust not only his leadership capability but his vision. His vision! Go figure!
Margaret Wente, in her March 29 article "The Amygdala Election," puts forward the argument that we decide who we will vote for on the basis of our emotions and fears and then look for the justification that fits our decision (G&M). When it comes to this election, she says, the current leader hasn't been in office long enough to wear out his welcome, and our "paleomammalian brains are not in particularly high distress." She might be on to something. Clearly, not enough of us are alarmed in spite of all that's been happening.
During the English language debate, Harper looked not at the individual leaders as he responded to their questions but at the camera. While one could argue that, as his words were intended to win over the people, the camera was the most appropriate place for his gaze, nevertheless, refusing to look directly in the face of one's opponent is dismissive at best, if not downright rude, and it was bizarre to watch. There were those eyes, staring relentlessly from behind Sarah Palin glasses, and there was the mantra: It's all about the economy--let us be clear--the economy.
Harper's catalogue of anti-democratic manoeuvers is longer and more insidious than that of any previous prime minister, and our debt is the highest it's ever been, higher even than under Mulroney, the last big spender. In an odd way, the days of Brian Mulroney cozying up to Ronald Reagan with their "Irish eyes are smiling" duet feel almost benign by contrast. Then at least the spell had some warmth. Now, it seems, we are well and truly under some spell, but the eyes mesmerizing us are just plain cold. Let's hope we can snap out of it before it's too late.
Still, despite everything, it seems that 4 in 10 Canadians trust not only his leadership capability but his vision. His vision! Go figure!
Margaret Wente, in her March 29 article "The Amygdala Election," puts forward the argument that we decide who we will vote for on the basis of our emotions and fears and then look for the justification that fits our decision (G&M). When it comes to this election, she says, the current leader hasn't been in office long enough to wear out his welcome, and our "paleomammalian brains are not in particularly high distress." She might be on to something. Clearly, not enough of us are alarmed in spite of all that's been happening.
During the English language debate, Harper looked not at the individual leaders as he responded to their questions but at the camera. While one could argue that, as his words were intended to win over the people, the camera was the most appropriate place for his gaze, nevertheless, refusing to look directly in the face of one's opponent is dismissive at best, if not downright rude, and it was bizarre to watch. There were those eyes, staring relentlessly from behind Sarah Palin glasses, and there was the mantra: It's all about the economy--let us be clear--the economy.
Harper's catalogue of anti-democratic manoeuvers is longer and more insidious than that of any previous prime minister, and our debt is the highest it's ever been, higher even than under Mulroney, the last big spender. In an odd way, the days of Brian Mulroney cozying up to Ronald Reagan with their "Irish eyes are smiling" duet feel almost benign by contrast. Then at least the spell had some warmth. Now, it seems, we are well and truly under some spell, but the eyes mesmerizing us are just plain cold. Let's hope we can snap out of it before it's too late.
Thursday 14 April 2011
Confidence of the House
Much has been made of the idea of a coalition--with Stephen Harper trying to inflict fear into our hearts at the thought of one, despite evidence that he negotiated with the Bloq and NDP in 2004 to put one together against the Liberals back then. But never mind that. Stephen has denied it, and Stephen would not lie. Stephen says a coalition would be bad, and we should believe him.
After all, getting back in with a minority would be a real headache for the man. In our system of democracy, if he wins the most seats, he would be allowed first crack at leading the government. But he can only do this WITH THE CONFIDENCE OF THE HOUSE. Unlike in the States, where voters choose their president, we do not vote for a prime minister, though the ludicrous and insulting attack ads, "A vote for the Liberals is vote for Ignatieff," create the false idea that we do. It serves Harper's purpose for us to think we're voting directly for him, but we are not. He may behave as though all power resides in him--and this thought should certainly scare us more than it seems to--but according to our constitution, it does not. The House of Commons, the house of all of us together, rules the day.
What Harper is really worried about is that the House will NOT give him their confidence should he be returned with a minority. We are going to the polls because the House of Commons does not have confidence in the Harper government. I do not have confidence in it either, so I am glad the House does not.
So what are we to do if Harper wins the most seats but not a majority? Have another election? Clearly not realistic. What then are the alternatives? Would the Harper-appointed Governor General ask Ignatieff to form a government instead, and would that party be able to gain and keep the confidence of the house? Should Ignatieff consider a coalition with a division of executive powers despite having said he wouldn't? Or simply go it on his own?
Either option seems a whole lot more plausible than that Harper could stand up in the House again with a minority, and he knows it. Knows it and is afraid. That's what this election is really about.
And ultimately, everything comes down to the manner in which our democracy has been shaped and formed into a constitution that is played out in our institutions of governance. May our democratic ship of state hold firm in this storm.
After all, getting back in with a minority would be a real headache for the man. In our system of democracy, if he wins the most seats, he would be allowed first crack at leading the government. But he can only do this WITH THE CONFIDENCE OF THE HOUSE. Unlike in the States, where voters choose their president, we do not vote for a prime minister, though the ludicrous and insulting attack ads, "A vote for the Liberals is vote for Ignatieff," create the false idea that we do. It serves Harper's purpose for us to think we're voting directly for him, but we are not. He may behave as though all power resides in him--and this thought should certainly scare us more than it seems to--but according to our constitution, it does not. The House of Commons, the house of all of us together, rules the day.
What Harper is really worried about is that the House will NOT give him their confidence should he be returned with a minority. We are going to the polls because the House of Commons does not have confidence in the Harper government. I do not have confidence in it either, so I am glad the House does not.
So what are we to do if Harper wins the most seats but not a majority? Have another election? Clearly not realistic. What then are the alternatives? Would the Harper-appointed Governor General ask Ignatieff to form a government instead, and would that party be able to gain and keep the confidence of the house? Should Ignatieff consider a coalition with a division of executive powers despite having said he wouldn't? Or simply go it on his own?
Either option seems a whole lot more plausible than that Harper could stand up in the House again with a minority, and he knows it. Knows it and is afraid. That's what this election is really about.
And ultimately, everything comes down to the manner in which our democracy has been shaped and formed into a constitution that is played out in our institutions of governance. May our democratic ship of state hold firm in this storm.
Monday 11 April 2011
The "Sorries"
"Anon" comments on a recent blog: "Please! Let's not refer to the current Canadian Progressive Conservative Party as Tories! I prefer to call them Sorries, or Fake Tories. Tories were historically populist fiscal conservatives which have very little to do with the dressed-up Reform social conservatives that have taken over the party.
Once upon a time a social democrat like me would actually find Tory positions tenable. The current platform and policies of this party are completely foreign to the Tories of old.
Referring to the current party as Tories just gives them a legitimacy to fiscal conservatives of old that they simply have not earned." ( BoingBoing)
Well said, Anon. The 'we're-the-fiscally-responsible-ones' just doesn't wash coming from a party that started with a $13 billion a year surplus to the budget when it assumed power in 2006 and has now racked up a $17 billion deficit. Where have its much-vaunted tax cuts brought us? To $56 billion in the hole, that's where, the greatest debt our country has ever had, a debt load that our children and grandchildren will have to shoulder well into the future.
This party is not about putting us on a solid economic footing; it's about remaking the country in its own image, a strictly controlled, rigidly enforced ideal of hierarchy and homogeneity. And we'll all be the sorry ones if we don't do something about it now, in this election of 2011.
Well said, Anon. The 'we're-the-fiscally-responsible-ones' just doesn't wash coming from a party that started with a $13 billion a year surplus to the budget when it assumed power in 2006 and has now racked up a $17 billion deficit. Where have its much-vaunted tax cuts brought us? To $56 billion in the hole, that's where, the greatest debt our country has ever had, a debt load that our children and grandchildren will have to shoulder well into the future.
This party is not about putting us on a solid economic footing; it's about remaking the country in its own image, a strictly controlled, rigidly enforced ideal of hierarchy and homogeneity. And we'll all be the sorry ones if we don't do something about it now, in this election of 2011.
They did what?!
I hardly know what to say anymore. The temerity defies description. Deliberately misquoting the Auditor General? Did Stockwell Day resign because he at least has some scruples? (CBC Sheila Fraser).
Shoe-store project
My daughter, in her fourth year of studies at the University of Guelph, tells me of a recent online forum held by her class on political scandal and corruption, something along the lines of media: "watch-dog or lap-dog" to government. I was struck by the very clear images these two terms evoked. Either the German shepherd of the people, or the chihuahua of elected officials. Noble investigator of wrongs and vital component to democracy, or servile sell-out and disgrace to the name of true journalism. Not hard to figure out which side one-time journalist and Pulitzer-prize winning American writer Ernest Hemingway would have chosen, or his admirable Canadian friend Morley Callaghan, journalist and short-story writer extraordinaire.
Which brings me to the latest piece of information unearthed by the Toronto Star through the Access to Information Act. It has discovered that Stephen Harper has been planning for a year to create a special outlet to replace the National Press Gallery, one that would provide "'robust physical and information security measures to protect the prime minister and cabinet'"(CBC), one that could allow government to choose which journalists were present to ask questions of the government and to film its own footage of events. It would basically control the media on all things related to government releases of information, and it would operate out of a former shoe-store on Sparks Street.
Okay, what country are we living in? What era? Things are starting to sound more and more like the McCarthy era in the 1950's in the United States. How long before the Access to Information Act itself is scrapped?
It's not just a difference of opinion we're talking about here, or a change in policy direction. Those things are healthy for a democracy, the back-and-forth along the political spectrum, a corrective flow of checks and balances. No, this is different. It's an out-and-out attack on the very foundations of who we are as a political society and what we know.
Forget about lap-dog; our media could soon become nothing more than a puppet on a shoe-string.
Which brings me to the latest piece of information unearthed by the Toronto Star through the Access to Information Act. It has discovered that Stephen Harper has been planning for a year to create a special outlet to replace the National Press Gallery, one that would provide "'robust physical and information security measures to protect the prime minister and cabinet'"(CBC), one that could allow government to choose which journalists were present to ask questions of the government and to film its own footage of events. It would basically control the media on all things related to government releases of information, and it would operate out of a former shoe-store on Sparks Street.
Okay, what country are we living in? What era? Things are starting to sound more and more like the McCarthy era in the 1950's in the United States. How long before the Access to Information Act itself is scrapped?
It's not just a difference of opinion we're talking about here, or a change in policy direction. Those things are healthy for a democracy, the back-and-forth along the political spectrum, a corrective flow of checks and balances. No, this is different. It's an out-and-out attack on the very foundations of who we are as a political society and what we know.
Forget about lap-dog; our media could soon become nothing more than a puppet on a shoe-string.
Saturday 9 April 2011
Why crime?
There is no doubt that crime is a great and uncomfortable ill of society. A break-in victim feels violated, though in a small way compared to the victim of rape. And murder, well, God protect us all from the Russell Williams of the world. But should crime be a priority for our government at this time? Are there serious flaws in our system of law and order that need strong and immediate redressing? Is crime currently more important than, say, the environment, health care, or foreign policy?
The facts are these: crime rates have gone down in the last decade (12%), including, Williams notwithstanding, the violent nature of crimes (22%). Furthermore, the vast majority (93%) of Canadians feel unthreatened by crime. So why would Stephen Harper have us think it's such a problem?
Ian Brown writes an intriguing piece deconstructing the crime game (G&M April 9) in which he argues that the Conservative desire to build more jails, eliminate parole, incarcerate offenders for the full extent of their sentences is predicated on the fundamental philosophical view that people do not change who they are, that rehabilitation programs don't work, and that bad people should simply be kept away from the rest of us.
It reminds me of Michael Moore's cartoon sketch in Bowling for Columbine called "A Short History of America." In it he parodies the white man's fear of the black man from the beginning of the slave trade, and suggests that it was fear of difference that created the great racial problems in the United States. This fear of difference in turn created unfounded fears of violence, which in turn led the whites to work ever harder to protect themselves against an enemy more ghostly than real. Deliberately simplistic, the cartoon nevertheless contains a message worth reflecting upon.
Choosing to focus on crime when statistics show that its incidence and severity are abating is not rational; it is not common sense. Only through playing to our fears does such a strategy have resonance.
Stephen Harper may want to live in a bubble, but is that what the rest of us want?
The facts are these: crime rates have gone down in the last decade (12%), including, Williams notwithstanding, the violent nature of crimes (22%). Furthermore, the vast majority (93%) of Canadians feel unthreatened by crime. So why would Stephen Harper have us think it's such a problem?
Ian Brown writes an intriguing piece deconstructing the crime game (G&M April 9) in which he argues that the Conservative desire to build more jails, eliminate parole, incarcerate offenders for the full extent of their sentences is predicated on the fundamental philosophical view that people do not change who they are, that rehabilitation programs don't work, and that bad people should simply be kept away from the rest of us.
It reminds me of Michael Moore's cartoon sketch in Bowling for Columbine called "A Short History of America." In it he parodies the white man's fear of the black man from the beginning of the slave trade, and suggests that it was fear of difference that created the great racial problems in the United States. This fear of difference in turn created unfounded fears of violence, which in turn led the whites to work ever harder to protect themselves against an enemy more ghostly than real. Deliberately simplistic, the cartoon nevertheless contains a message worth reflecting upon.
Choosing to focus on crime when statistics show that its incidence and severity are abating is not rational; it is not common sense. Only through playing to our fears does such a strategy have resonance.
Stephen Harper may want to live in a bubble, but is that what the rest of us want?
Friday 8 April 2011
It's Friday evening
and I'm tempted to take the night off, but I can't resist one or two more examples of the 'media is the story' theme.
Following the Globe and Mail's page 6 column on Sun Media's attack of the CBC, the Sun volleyed back with an editorial, "Grey Globe Goes Lefty" (Sun). In it, the Sun accused G&M of having lost touch with its roots; shame on it for its defence of the CBC by its New York artsy guy. Wondering just what kind of impact this would have on the Globe, I nearly choked on my coffee today as I turned to pages 4 and 5. Two huge photographs, one of Stephen in an Olympics jacket playing bocce, and the facing page of a huge sign for Julian Fantino. The Fantino article describes the Tory's tightening of "the cone of silence," reporting the refusal of many Conservative candidates to participate in all-candidates debates, another anti-democratic play in their quest for autocracy. The other article boasted Stephen "promising a majority Conservative government" would deliver on a "bold justice bill pledge" "within 100 days of taking power." Guess it felt guilty for spilling the story of yet another sordid dimension to the Bruce Carson affair on the front page and needed to make amends.
Is this what it has come to with our press? Needing to affirm support for the party in power in order to maintain its ad revenues? It makes one wonder. The Tory boycott of the Haliburton County Voice this week because the managing editor had decided to run for the Liberals in the riding of Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock was reported yesterday. No doubt Laura Redman should have taken leave of the paper sooner than she did (she says she couldn't afford to), but the action of Conservative Barry Devolin does not sit well with the editor, who writes,"'It is virtually unprecedented in the history of Canadian journalism for a powerful federal party to use its power to deny a small independent paper's employees their right to work and their right to pursue their craft.'" (G&M)
Maybe unprecedented, but the Tories have no problem with that. Refuse to engage where you can't control the responses? Sounds like a plank in the Tory platform.
Following the Globe and Mail's page 6 column on Sun Media's attack of the CBC, the Sun volleyed back with an editorial, "Grey Globe Goes Lefty" (Sun). In it, the Sun accused G&M of having lost touch with its roots; shame on it for its defence of the CBC by its New York artsy guy. Wondering just what kind of impact this would have on the Globe, I nearly choked on my coffee today as I turned to pages 4 and 5. Two huge photographs, one of Stephen in an Olympics jacket playing bocce, and the facing page of a huge sign for Julian Fantino. The Fantino article describes the Tory's tightening of "the cone of silence," reporting the refusal of many Conservative candidates to participate in all-candidates debates, another anti-democratic play in their quest for autocracy. The other article boasted Stephen "promising a majority Conservative government" would deliver on a "bold justice bill pledge" "within 100 days of taking power." Guess it felt guilty for spilling the story of yet another sordid dimension to the Bruce Carson affair on the front page and needed to make amends.
Is this what it has come to with our press? Needing to affirm support for the party in power in order to maintain its ad revenues? It makes one wonder. The Tory boycott of the Haliburton County Voice this week because the managing editor had decided to run for the Liberals in the riding of Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock was reported yesterday. No doubt Laura Redman should have taken leave of the paper sooner than she did (she says she couldn't afford to), but the action of Conservative Barry Devolin does not sit well with the editor, who writes,"'It is virtually unprecedented in the history of Canadian journalism for a powerful federal party to use its power to deny a small independent paper's employees their right to work and their right to pursue their craft.'" (G&M)
Maybe unprecedented, but the Tories have no problem with that. Refuse to engage where you can't control the responses? Sounds like a plank in the Tory platform.
Thursday 7 April 2011
Whither the big issues
On TVO's The Agenda tonight, dealing with the topic Broken Political Parties, a point was raised by historian Michael Bliss, Where are the big issues in this election? Really, so very little is being discussed. A few gifts are dangled in front of the middle class, opposition parties are trying to make headway with Harper's "narrative of control," and, of course, Harper is floating along intoning 'the economy, the economy.'
What about our climate change policy? Oh right, our bill on climate change, though passed by a majority of MP's in the House of Commons, was killed by the Tory-dominated Senate. How about our foreign policy? Defense policy? Fighter jets needed for Libya, are they now? As the Council of Canadians asks, what about our policy on water? Does Harper have a plan to run a pipeline from northern Alberta down to Texas? (rabble.ca) Quietly and with few noticing or calling him on it, Harper has just let these policies drift away out of sight, either as part of an overall plan to diminish the role of government, or simply to hide them from view until a majority allows him the freedom to do as he pleases. And why aren't Ignatieff and Layton bringing these things to our attention?
Members of the panel on tonight's Agenda generally agreed that Parliament has become a place where there is little room for individual contributions by MP's, few roles for them to play, little to do other than to be a mouthpiece for the party's agenda, which is largely determined by polls of the day interpreted by fiercely loyal partisans. A new authoritarian structure is creating a strict, vertical chain of command, and in the House of Commons, the opposing sides view each other as enemies to be destroyed rather than people to work with toward a common good.
We want more from our government than this, and we either naively expect it to just happen, or we cynically assume it won't despite anything we might do. Either way, we don't pay much attention--apparently we rank well below Sweden, the UK and the US in terms of our attentiveness to the news. But we cannot afford to be either naive or cynical here, and we certainly can no longer afford not to pay attention. This is our country, and its democracy is in jeopardy.
What about our climate change policy? Oh right, our bill on climate change, though passed by a majority of MP's in the House of Commons, was killed by the Tory-dominated Senate. How about our foreign policy? Defense policy? Fighter jets needed for Libya, are they now? As the Council of Canadians asks, what about our policy on water? Does Harper have a plan to run a pipeline from northern Alberta down to Texas? (rabble.ca) Quietly and with few noticing or calling him on it, Harper has just let these policies drift away out of sight, either as part of an overall plan to diminish the role of government, or simply to hide them from view until a majority allows him the freedom to do as he pleases. And why aren't Ignatieff and Layton bringing these things to our attention?
Members of the panel on tonight's Agenda generally agreed that Parliament has become a place where there is little room for individual contributions by MP's, few roles for them to play, little to do other than to be a mouthpiece for the party's agenda, which is largely determined by polls of the day interpreted by fiercely loyal partisans. A new authoritarian structure is creating a strict, vertical chain of command, and in the House of Commons, the opposing sides view each other as enemies to be destroyed rather than people to work with toward a common good.
We want more from our government than this, and we either naively expect it to just happen, or we cynically assume it won't despite anything we might do. Either way, we don't pay much attention--apparently we rank well below Sweden, the UK and the US in terms of our attentiveness to the news. But we cannot afford to be either naive or cynical here, and we certainly can no longer afford not to pay attention. This is our country, and its democracy is in jeopardy.
Wednesday 6 April 2011
No moral rightness here
Sometimes people feel so strongly about one issue that nothing else really matters. Take the long-gun registry. Anger over this has died hard and is apparently still ready to flame up. So be it. But please don't try to say that this party has any claim to moral rightness. It galls me to hear people who should know better claim they will vote Conservative because of the party's moral values. Moral values! Let's look at those for a minute.
Take Bruce Carson. This long-time PMO insider was dismissed in mid-March, and his case referred to the RCMP, after the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network revealed the relationship between this 65-year-old man and his 22-year-old escort-girlfriend, Michele McPherson. Carson used his high-powered contacts with Indian Affairs, Environment Canada, and the Assembly of First Nations to help her and her mother in their bid to secure water filtration contracts worth millions. Clearly APTN smelled a rat.
Turns out Carson has been dirty a long time.
Disbarred by the Law Society in Ontario in 1981 for misappropriating funds, he was charged and convicted and ultimately served jail time on two counts of fraud. Until recently, this was the extent of the wrongdoing. As we've learned in the last few days, Carson's criminal wrongdoings didn't end with the jail time and include another three counts of fraud.
So how did this man get so close to the Prime Minister, so close that, as Maclean's quotes from The Ottawa Citizen, Carson in 2006 was "'the ultimate troubleshooter in Tory circles, the PMO's Mr. Fixit and one of the principal authors and packagers of a wide range of Tory policies'"? When APTN's story first broke, Harper admitted that he knew Carson had made a mistake in the past but felt he deserved a chance to rebuild his life.
With the most recent revelations, Harper reports that it's all news to him, and that had he known he would never have hired Carson (G&M). Carson claims he disclosed fully his criminal record; and even without his assertion, it strains credulity, as the Liberals were quick to point out, to think that any party that can suss out participants at a rally with links to Liberal supporters on Facebook would not know all about the chequered past of one of the PM's closest advisors.
And this doesn't even touch on the Tory senators who are being investigated on election money-laundering schemes. Or the staffers found to be interfering with Access to Information requests. Or Bev Oda and her lies to Parliament.
Moral rightness? Say the long-gun registry if you want, but please do not try to claim any moral rectitude for the Harpercons. The only thing that guides their moral compass is the quest for power.
Take Bruce Carson. This long-time PMO insider was dismissed in mid-March, and his case referred to the RCMP, after the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network revealed the relationship between this 65-year-old man and his 22-year-old escort-girlfriend, Michele McPherson. Carson used his high-powered contacts with Indian Affairs, Environment Canada, and the Assembly of First Nations to help her and her mother in their bid to secure water filtration contracts worth millions. Clearly APTN smelled a rat.
Turns out Carson has been dirty a long time.
Disbarred by the Law Society in Ontario in 1981 for misappropriating funds, he was charged and convicted and ultimately served jail time on two counts of fraud. Until recently, this was the extent of the wrongdoing. As we've learned in the last few days, Carson's criminal wrongdoings didn't end with the jail time and include another three counts of fraud.
So how did this man get so close to the Prime Minister, so close that, as Maclean's quotes from The Ottawa Citizen, Carson in 2006 was "'the ultimate troubleshooter in Tory circles, the PMO's Mr. Fixit and one of the principal authors and packagers of a wide range of Tory policies'"? When APTN's story first broke, Harper admitted that he knew Carson had made a mistake in the past but felt he deserved a chance to rebuild his life.
With the most recent revelations, Harper reports that it's all news to him, and that had he known he would never have hired Carson (G&M). Carson claims he disclosed fully his criminal record; and even without his assertion, it strains credulity, as the Liberals were quick to point out, to think that any party that can suss out participants at a rally with links to Liberal supporters on Facebook would not know all about the chequered past of one of the PM's closest advisors.
And this doesn't even touch on the Tory senators who are being investigated on election money-laundering schemes. Or the staffers found to be interfering with Access to Information requests. Or Bev Oda and her lies to Parliament.
Moral rightness? Say the long-gun registry if you want, but please do not try to claim any moral rectitude for the Harpercons. The only thing that guides their moral compass is the quest for power.
Tuesday 5 April 2011
The media is the story Part II--CBC under attack from Sun Media
Simon Houpt's column in today's Globe and Mail sheds new light on the Harper agenda: "Sun burns CBC in bid to hype conservative TV."
On April 18, Sun Media will launch its new broadcasting medium, Sun TV, promising "Hard News and Straight Talk." Talk about a built-in propaganda machine.
Last week Sun newspapers such as The Ottawa Sun screamed "CBC Full of Grit," claiming that the CBC's VoteCompass was really a Liberal indoctrination tool and that one of its developers had worked for Ignatieff's political campaign. Turns out Peter Loewen had also worked for Tom Flanagan in 2004 and a Tory MP in Nova Scotia, but Sun Media neglected to mention those details or to point out that "Mr. Flanagan is on record noting that . . . Loewen is an outstanding researcher without an ounce of partisan in him."
These unjustified attacks on our public broadcaster for self-serving interests only underscore how vigilant a society must remain in order to protect its vital institutions--and in this case, an organ of democracy. It's hardly news to say that the CBC informs us, unites us, and encourages us to reflect thoughtfully on affairs both local and national. But this institution, widely valued regardless of one's political stripes and held to a high standard of accountability, is no longer something we can assume will always be there.
It sounds ultra-cynical to say that Harper doesn't want the people of this country to think, let alone exercise intellectual integrity, but it's hard to draw any other conclusion. When everything blurs outward from a frenzy of Fox News Network-style broadcasting in which "biases are a part of [the] appeal", meaningful public discourse is not only diminished, it threatens to disappear. We become not citizens but mere commodities in a dark, little world.
On April 18, Sun Media will launch its new broadcasting medium, Sun TV, promising "Hard News and Straight Talk." Talk about a built-in propaganda machine.
Last week Sun newspapers such as The Ottawa Sun screamed "CBC Full of Grit," claiming that the CBC's VoteCompass was really a Liberal indoctrination tool and that one of its developers had worked for Ignatieff's political campaign. Turns out Peter Loewen had also worked for Tom Flanagan in 2004 and a Tory MP in Nova Scotia, but Sun Media neglected to mention those details or to point out that "Mr. Flanagan is on record noting that . . . Loewen is an outstanding researcher without an ounce of partisan in him."
These unjustified attacks on our public broadcaster for self-serving interests only underscore how vigilant a society must remain in order to protect its vital institutions--and in this case, an organ of democracy. It's hardly news to say that the CBC informs us, unites us, and encourages us to reflect thoughtfully on affairs both local and national. But this institution, widely valued regardless of one's political stripes and held to a high standard of accountability, is no longer something we can assume will always be there.
It sounds ultra-cynical to say that Harper doesn't want the people of this country to think, let alone exercise intellectual integrity, but it's hard to draw any other conclusion. When everything blurs outward from a frenzy of Fox News Network-style broadcasting in which "biases are a part of [the] appeal", meaningful public discourse is not only diminished, it threatens to disappear. We become not citizens but mere commodities in a dark, little world.
Monday 4 April 2011
Willing to be hopeful, once
As things were careening mid-March toward a non-confidence vote in Parliament and I was railing on about Harper's anti-democracy, my mother casually said, "I thought you rather liked Stephen Harper." Stunned that I had ever managed to give her this impression and, further, to not have disabused her of the notion long ago, I searched my mind for a time I had been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, feel hopeful about what he might bring to the country.
It was 2006 and he had just won his first minority. In the voter's booth, my vote had been purely in support of my local candidate. Like so many, I was sickened by the overlong departure of Chretien as leader and the stink of the sponsorship debacle. If ever Liberals needed some humility, it was then.
At the same time, a couple of pieces of information had surfaced to make me question my political assumptions. The first was finding out that Brian Mulroney had been named by the Sierra Club as Canada's greenest prime minister. How on earth had this happened without us all realizing? The second was reading that, in Toronto, Mike Harris was credited with encouraging the construction of several arts-related buildings, including the new home of the National Ballet of Canada, through the development of viable public-private partnerships. He was a disaster for education and water treatment and First Nations relations, but arts and culture in Toronto owed him something.
From these two points I realized a lesson I should have internalized a long time ago, that the same end can often be reached by different means. So, yes, I was willing to give Stephen Harper a chance after he won. And there's a part of me that keeps looking to see something positive in what he's done. But if it's there, it's nothing in comparison with what's been lost--and what's at risk.
It was 2006 and he had just won his first minority. In the voter's booth, my vote had been purely in support of my local candidate. Like so many, I was sickened by the overlong departure of Chretien as leader and the stink of the sponsorship debacle. If ever Liberals needed some humility, it was then.
At the same time, a couple of pieces of information had surfaced to make me question my political assumptions. The first was finding out that Brian Mulroney had been named by the Sierra Club as Canada's greenest prime minister. How on earth had this happened without us all realizing? The second was reading that, in Toronto, Mike Harris was credited with encouraging the construction of several arts-related buildings, including the new home of the National Ballet of Canada, through the development of viable public-private partnerships. He was a disaster for education and water treatment and First Nations relations, but arts and culture in Toronto owed him something.
From these two points I realized a lesson I should have internalized a long time ago, that the same end can often be reached by different means. So, yes, I was willing to give Stephen Harper a chance after he won. And there's a part of me that keeps looking to see something positive in what he's done. But if it's there, it's nothing in comparison with what's been lost--and what's at risk.
Sunday 3 April 2011
The Good, the Bad, and the Media
In the beginning this blog was to be about bias in the newspapers. After all, ownership of a medium will almost entirely determine its slant--remember Russell Mills fired back in the 90's as editor of The Ottawa Citizen for not pleasing its owner who was friends with the PM? In Postmedia publications, such as the Citizen, Stephen Harper can do no wrong; The Star is a more Liberal vehicle. The Globe and Mail, under Thomson ownership, plays around the centre, with small "c" conservative business values but more liberal social views, ostensibly balanced but clearly engaging in Harper bias early in the week--the dashing front-page splash of Stephen against a baby blue background the day the government fell, followed by several photographs and a high percentage of first-references to him early on.
Yet just when it seemed so much for objective newspaper reporting, along came Maclean's April 11 issue with its 2011 Federal Election Newspaper Analysis project, assessing 18 newspapers for such things as references to topics and leaders. Suddenly, it noted, the economy is front and centre along with crime and defence. "Where's the outrage?" the article asks, "Why the Conservatives' contempt of Parliament and spending on fighter jets is suddenly old news." Kudos to Maclean's for injecting some perspective into the reporting process.
But the media is playing an even more central role these days. As Marshall McLuhan predicted, the media itself is becoming the story.
In this youtube video, Stephen Harper's aide has the RCMP block camera coverage at an event in Quebec: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hlpNe6sXFc&feature=youtube_gdata_player. Our national law and order force protecting the prime minister--from invited journalists?! What country is this anyway?
Harper allows only five questions a day, two in English, two in French, one from a local journalist and now, no questions at all about any of the 308 riding candidates. That might bring up the names of unsavoury volunteers such as Giulio Maturi. We already know he won't talk about Ryan Sparrow, or any of the other half-dozen staffers who've fallen on their sword in the time he's been in office.
Muzzle the questioners; not a good prescription for democracy.
Yet just when it seemed so much for objective newspaper reporting, along came Maclean's April 11 issue with its 2011 Federal Election Newspaper Analysis project, assessing 18 newspapers for such things as references to topics and leaders. Suddenly, it noted, the economy is front and centre along with crime and defence. "Where's the outrage?" the article asks, "Why the Conservatives' contempt of Parliament and spending on fighter jets is suddenly old news." Kudos to Maclean's for injecting some perspective into the reporting process.
But the media is playing an even more central role these days. As Marshall McLuhan predicted, the media itself is becoming the story.
In this youtube video, Stephen Harper's aide has the RCMP block camera coverage at an event in Quebec: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hlpNe6sXFc&feature=youtube_gdata_player. Our national law and order force protecting the prime minister--from invited journalists?! What country is this anyway?
Harper allows only five questions a day, two in English, two in French, one from a local journalist and now, no questions at all about any of the 308 riding candidates. That might bring up the names of unsavoury volunteers such as Giulio Maturi. We already know he won't talk about Ryan Sparrow, or any of the other half-dozen staffers who've fallen on their sword in the time he's been in office.
Muzzle the questioners; not a good prescription for democracy.
Saturday 2 April 2011
Go, Michael, Go
It was one week ago that I met Michael Ignatieff. I'd received a phone call the evening before, one of those mass phonings with a 'personal' invitation by Michael to attend a rally to show the "strong Liberal pride" Ottawa has long held. I was curious, so I went, along with two of my daughters.
In the convention hall of the Delta City Centre, people streamed in. The place hummed with the energy of people of all types and ages, young, old, hip, not, children on parents' shoulders, photographers politely pushing their way through, people with placards and people with balloon batons, a great deal of red and white. The Liberal candidates for the local ridings were announced to fanfare, and finally the leader arrived.
From where we stood, we could occasionally catch a glimpse of his face, but mostly we just listened. A little anecdote about Harper leaving the Governor-General's that morning, dismissing the contempt ruling as "just a vote in Parliament," a campaign slogan from Bob Dylan's "'You've gotta serve somebody,'" and a rhetorical question, "Who does he think we are?" that prompted an audience shout-out of "Americans!" to cheers and applause.
Pretty standard rally-type stuff, decently brief, an encouraging tone from a leader who hasn't stirred up much these past three years, and we exited the hall just ahead of the media scramble. Lining up against the wall to watch the procession out, suddenly Michael Ignatieff was there in front of us, hand out, eye to eye, saying, "Thank you for coming." We hadn't expected that, but there it was, a few seconds of direct human contact, changing everything. "Nice hat," he said to my daughter, smiling.
Instead of a remote and distant presence, here was a real human being who seemed warm and sincere, and surprisingly down to earth. Does he mean everything he says? Can he pull it off in a fight against Harper? I still don't know the answers, but I feel a whole lot better about him.
In the convention hall of the Delta City Centre, people streamed in. The place hummed with the energy of people of all types and ages, young, old, hip, not, children on parents' shoulders, photographers politely pushing their way through, people with placards and people with balloon batons, a great deal of red and white. The Liberal candidates for the local ridings were announced to fanfare, and finally the leader arrived.
From where we stood, we could occasionally catch a glimpse of his face, but mostly we just listened. A little anecdote about Harper leaving the Governor-General's that morning, dismissing the contempt ruling as "just a vote in Parliament," a campaign slogan from Bob Dylan's "'You've gotta serve somebody,'" and a rhetorical question, "Who does he think we are?" that prompted an audience shout-out of "Americans!" to cheers and applause.
Pretty standard rally-type stuff, decently brief, an encouraging tone from a leader who hasn't stirred up much these past three years, and we exited the hall just ahead of the media scramble. Lining up against the wall to watch the procession out, suddenly Michael Ignatieff was there in front of us, hand out, eye to eye, saying, "Thank you for coming." We hadn't expected that, but there it was, a few seconds of direct human contact, changing everything. "Nice hat," he said to my daughter, smiling.
Instead of a remote and distant presence, here was a real human being who seemed warm and sincere, and surprisingly down to earth. Does he mean everything he says? Can he pull it off in a fight against Harper? I still don't know the answers, but I feel a whole lot better about him.
Friday 1 April 2011
Most Important Election Ever
My venerable mother, who's been paying close attention to political affairs in this country since at least the start of World War II, says that this is the most important election we've ever had. "Are times really worse than in the Diefenbaker era?" I asked, Diefenbaker being someone I'd long heard decried but never really knew. No question there, it turns out. Seems that Dief, for all his faults, did not disrespect Parliament, he just couldn't govern. Today we have a leader who appears to know how to govern; he just doesn't respect Parliament. What does this mean for us?
Harper has mastered the machinery of power so effectively he gives the impression of a calm, collected confident leader. He also consistently flouts the political system within which only that power is legitimate. He refuses to disclose information on a major bill he wants to pass through Parliament. He hides details of a major purchase of fighter jets. A cabinet minister of his lies to Parliament. Tory senators are charged with fraud in dirty election schemes, party workers with graft in sex scandals. He prorogues Parliament. He eliminates and threatens nation-building sources of information and analysis--the long-form census gone in a summer pen-stroke, and the CBC, accused of "lying" and being something the government has no "business" supporting.
Incredibly, all this behaviour hasn't yet hurt his approval rating as a leader. Do we really think this man should lead? Clearly he knows how to wield power, but does he do so legitimately?
More than any other time, this election is about assessing the values at the core of our political system. The Conservatives campaigned in 2005 on a platform of transparency and ethics. Stephen Harper has ushered in autocracy and contempt. It's time we sent him a message.
Harper has mastered the machinery of power so effectively he gives the impression of a calm, collected confident leader. He also consistently flouts the political system within which only that power is legitimate. He refuses to disclose information on a major bill he wants to pass through Parliament. He hides details of a major purchase of fighter jets. A cabinet minister of his lies to Parliament. Tory senators are charged with fraud in dirty election schemes, party workers with graft in sex scandals. He prorogues Parliament. He eliminates and threatens nation-building sources of information and analysis--the long-form census gone in a summer pen-stroke, and the CBC, accused of "lying" and being something the government has no "business" supporting.
Incredibly, all this behaviour hasn't yet hurt his approval rating as a leader. Do we really think this man should lead? Clearly he knows how to wield power, but does he do so legitimately?
More than any other time, this election is about assessing the values at the core of our political system. The Conservatives campaigned in 2005 on a platform of transparency and ethics. Stephen Harper has ushered in autocracy and contempt. It's time we sent him a message.
Thursday 31 March 2011
A voice to be heard
The decision by the broadcasting consortium to exclude Elizabeth May from the leadership debate, while perhaps defensible from a legalistic standpoint--the Green Party holds no seats in Parliament--is nevertheless both mean-spirited and undemocratic. Last election the Green Party garnered 7 % of the popular vote. Despite not earning a seat, her vote total represents a constituency as large as that of Gilles Duceppe's, just diffused across the country. One might even argue that her party has more legitimacy than that of the Bloq Quebecois since it does not seek to support one area of the country to the detriment or exclusion of all others.
The consortium's decision not to invite May is also curious given the decision of the CBC, which holds two of the five seats on the board, to include the Green Party as one of the parties in its Vote Compass survey. I like Vote Compass! It's a great way to engage with politics and assess one's values, and I applaud the CBC for its creativity and initiative in developing it. But if the party was considered important enough to be judged alongside the other four parties in this survey, its leader deserves to be heard in the nationally televised debate.
Let Elizabeth May be heard, and let the people determine for themselves on May 2 how much of a voice they want her to have in the future.
The consortium's decision not to invite May is also curious given the decision of the CBC, which holds two of the five seats on the board, to include the Green Party as one of the parties in its Vote Compass survey. I like Vote Compass! It's a great way to engage with politics and assess one's values, and I applaud the CBC for its creativity and initiative in developing it. But if the party was considered important enough to be judged alongside the other four parties in this survey, its leader deserves to be heard in the nationally televised debate.
Let Elizabeth May be heard, and let the people determine for themselves on May 2 how much of a voice they want her to have in the future.
Wednesday 30 March 2011
Here and Now
Here we are, five days into the Canadian election campaign, and rumbling just underneath the surface is that troubling question, Does anybody really care? There are some who say this current election is a big waste of time, money, and voters' patience, that the politicians should just do what they were elected last time to do and not bother us. One woman, writing in to the Globe and Mail, laments that in the Middle East people force governments to hold elections while in Canadian governments force people into elections. Another, a civics teacher, begs everyone to just not vote. Busy people weighed down by life's responsibilities wonder, well, what will it change anyway?
But just as people in the Middle East can find themselves fighting for democracy after years of dictatorship, so can we find ourselves wondering, where did ours go? Last election, only 58% of people voted. Among young people, the percentage fell to 30%. Stephen Harper, when asked how he felt to be the first prime minister in Canada to be found in contempt of Parliament, muttered, "It was just a vote in Parliament."
"Just a vote in Parliament"?? Just the response of the highest democratic institution in the land to the behaviour of the person with the most political power in the country.
This is why I believe this election is about reaffirming Canada's commitment to democracy.
But just as people in the Middle East can find themselves fighting for democracy after years of dictatorship, so can we find ourselves wondering, where did ours go? Last election, only 58% of people voted. Among young people, the percentage fell to 30%. Stephen Harper, when asked how he felt to be the first prime minister in Canada to be found in contempt of Parliament, muttered, "It was just a vote in Parliament."
"Just a vote in Parliament"?? Just the response of the highest democratic institution in the land to the behaviour of the person with the most political power in the country.
This is why I believe this election is about reaffirming Canada's commitment to democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)