Unless an agreement is reached before Monday, the House of
Commons will resume business as usual with all 338 MPs along
with their staff, clerks, interpreters, security and
cleaners, returning to work in Ottawa.
The Liberals are also proposing one additional session be
held each week with another lengthy question period, but
this one would be held virtually.
Andrew Scheer and his Conservatives, meanwhile, are pushing
for three in-person sittings per week to hold government
accountable for its pandemic response — down from four sittings
they were demanding earlier in the week.
https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2020/04/18/trudeau-hopeful-for-deal-with-opposition-parties-on-house-of-commons-re-opening/#.XpwzKsIpD3j
It seems that Scheer just does not get it, remember this is the
fellow who packed the special flight bringing a couple of leaders to
Ottawa for the last special session with his wife and kids.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/challenger-flight-may-scheer-qualtrough-1.5530542
Meanwhile as I said before there is no need with modern
communication methods for our MPs, who reside in and represent
riding's far from Ottawa, to be in the room to have input to
decisions being made.
https://democracyunderfire.blogspot.com/2020/04/virtual-parliament.html
Its NOT a time for political posturing Mr Scheer, give it a rest!
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Showing posts with label Leadership. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leadership. Show all posts
Sunday, April 19, 2020
Saturday, January 25, 2020
The beginning of the end?
As my ever decreasing small cadre of
regular readers will know I no longer write here on a regular basis
having become so disillusioned with world wide 'democracy' that I
have little positive to say. Here in Canada it has not yet reached
the depth of disillusionment that appears to be overtaking the home
of of our democracy, Great Britain, where after several years of
mayhem they have devolved into what appears to be a authoritative
governance where half the population simply do not know which way to
turn to get non dictatorial governance. Here in Canada we seem to
have narrowly escaped a similar outcome the only difference being
that the areas of discontent and threats of 'separation' are of
different sizes and locations. The ability and / or the desire to
seek and embrace middle ground politically here, in GB and elsewhere
across the world seems to be dwindling in what to those of us who
have been around long enough know that such unyielding intransigent
positions rarely lead to any positive outcomes.
The eyes of the world are currently on
the similarly troubling situation just to the south of us as one half
of the population tries to reign in the excesses of the other, as
those led by a leader who thinks he is god supported by a group of
individuals who are either too scared or too dumb to see that their
very democracy is on the line. I submit that if Trumph is cleared of
any wrongdoing, as I suspect he will be supported by his republican
supporters who appear to be either blinded by his twitter storms or
scared to speak out against him for fear that the right wing
supporters may come to see the truth, it will be the beginning of the
end. The end of democracy as practiced in that former British colony
to the south of us and the gradual transformation of it into a
dictatorship or perhaps a more accurate term might be an oligarchy.
Whilst the charge against him may be a seemingly minor infraction it
is the lengths to which he and his supporters have gone to to
withhold any information related to the alleged misconduct that
clearly tells us that something is very wrong and must remain hidden
from pubic view and from the 'jury' of senators.
At the same time as he ranted about
having done nothing wrong and his impeachment was completely
unwarranted (and he and only he is 'perfect) he took time out from
trashing the duly elected democratic leaders to tell us that climate
change is a hoax and attack a young lady and others
who speaks of a truth that few of us want to
hear.
“In a prepared speech at the World
Economic Forum in Davos, Trump took the opportunity to take a swipe
at Thunberg—who was in the audience—deriding
“perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the
apocalypse” about the environment. “They are the errors of
yesterday’s fortune-tellers,” Trump claimed, “and we have them
and I have them and they want to see us do badly, but we don’t let
that happen,” adding that in order to “embrace the possibilities
of tomorrow,” we must reject the warnings of such individuals.”
With 'Leaders' like this we are doomed,
its just a matter of which comes first ….. Oligarchy, Insurrection,
War or Famine. I just hope our young folks can find a way to save us
all, for this old fellow cannot.....
Sunday, October 20, 2019
Minority Coalition Parliaments
As one of the 'leaders' trying to become our next prime minister
shows his true colours by spouting lies and false information I urge
those of you who have yet to vote to be very careful what you wish
for, or more correctly who you vote for. I will not tell you who to
support but will repeat my belief that it should
be ABC if for no other reason than the recent false information
spread by said conservative 'leader'.
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, probably the most ethical MP in the HoC recently corrected Mr Scheer as have numerous academics who have knowledge of the subject.
She said Scheer is knowingly "misleading" Canadians about the country's parliamentary traditions.
"The convention is quite the opposite of what Mr. Scheer is telling people. I'm not advocating it. I'm explaining what the rules are. The convention is the party that held power before the election has first crack at seeing if they can hold the confidence of the House ... Mr. Trudeau, gets first crack at it," she said. "We elect 338 MPs and they have a right to decide who should form government at the end of an election."
In Canada's system of Westminster parliamentary democracy, the prime minister and the cabinet must answer to the House of Commons and they must enjoy the support and the confidence of a majority of the members of the chamber to remain in office.
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, probably the most ethical MP in the HoC recently corrected Mr Scheer as have numerous academics who have knowledge of the subject.
She said Scheer is knowingly "misleading" Canadians about the country's parliamentary traditions.
"The convention is quite the opposite of what Mr. Scheer is telling people. I'm not advocating it. I'm explaining what the rules are. The convention is the party that held power before the election has first crack at seeing if they can hold the confidence of the House ... Mr. Trudeau, gets first crack at it," she said. "We elect 338 MPs and they have a right to decide who should form government at the end of an election."
In Canada's system of Westminster parliamentary democracy, the prime minister and the cabinet must answer to the House of Commons and they must enjoy the support and the confidence of a majority of the members of the chamber to remain in office.
It is instructive to examine the recent
history of the New Zealand Parliament where they have had
stable minority governments since 1996 when they switched
to a Mixed Member system of electing their government.
They have in fact had a coalition
(there is that word that our current leaders of all stripes have been
studiously avoiding) government of one sort or another continuously
ever since. For those readers who are not familiar with the NZ
parliamentary system I will simply say that it is a Westminster
System based upon the UK tradition, the same as ours is, with the
proviso that their native Māori population have had some reserved
seats since the mid 1800s.
Seems like they are WAY ahead of us and
both our parliamentarians and the general population should be taking
note as this pivotal moment in our governance arrives.
A few more details of their system
follow, will we ever adopt such a system …. not anytime soon the
way things are going but I suspect that we are about to get a taste
of coalition governance whether we are ready for it or not. Let the
games begin.......
New Zealand Parliament
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Parliament
| Mixed-member proportional (MMP) era | ||
| 45th Parliament | 1996 election | Fourth National (in coalition) |
| 46th Parliament | 1999 election | Fifth Labour (in coalition) |
| 47th Parliament | 2002 election | |
| 48th Parliament | 2005 election | |
| 49th Parliament | 2008 election | Fifth National (in coalition) |
| 50th Parliament | 2011 election | |
| 51st Parliament | 2014 election | |
| 52nd Parliament | 2017 election | Sixth Labour (in coalition) |
The New Zealand Parliament was
established in 1854 and is one of the oldest continuously functioning
legislatures in the world. The New Zealand Parliament is consciously
modelled on the Westminster system of parliamentary representation,
developed in the United Kingdom.
New Zealand had representatives of the
indigenous population in its parliament from an early date. Reserved
Māori seats were created in 1867 during the term of the 4th
Parliament; Māori men aged 21 and over, whether or not they owned
property, could vote to elect four Māori members of the House of
Representatives
A member of Parliament is a member of
the House of Representatives, which has a minimum of 120 members,
elected at a general election for a three-year term. There are 70
electorate MPs, of which seven are elected only by Māori who have
chosen to be registered on a separate Māori electoral roll. The
remaining members are elected by proportional representation from
published party lists.
Finally for those who may be still
considering voting for a Conservative representative I offer the
following links that highlight the mindset of such people as shown by
past and current 'leaders' within those partys.
Sunday, March 3, 2019
Much ado about nothing?
Does anyone believe that most, if not
all, large national and international companies seeking to do business
with overseas entities such as Saudi Arabia do not provide
'incentives' to the principals involved?
Does anyone believe that without such
'incentives' said companies would not receive the contracts but would
be passed over in favor of those that do 'grease the wheels'?
Does anyone believe that all
governments, past, present and of any political stripe do not
'encourage' and / or turn a blind eye to such practices when large
contracts that benefit Canadian companies and jobs are at stake?
Does anyone believe the the opposition
Conservatives who signed a deal with said corrupt overseas government
for a London, Ontario company to supply military equipment to them
will not pretend moral outrage at such actions.
Does anyone believe that JWR was not
under immense pressure to find a way to avoid having such a large
employer of Canadians be effectively removed from carrying on
government related business in Canada?
Does anyone believe that JWR was not
removed from her post as AG in direct response to her unmoving
decision regarding the SNC-Lavalin
prosecution?
Does anyone believe that much of the
'outrage' by both the Conservatives and the NDP is not politically
motivated and will be kept 'in play' right up to election time?
Does
anyone believe that the AG's role should not be separated from
government control and influence and any political influence and not
be a member of cabinet?
The
whole fiasco is not over yet by a long shot and I predict that the
court proceedings will drag on till AFTER the election at which time,
irregardless of what party is then in power, a way will be found to
'rescue' SNC-Lavalin
and save Quebec jobs.
'A
deal to allow SNC-Lavalin to avoid criminal liability could still be
on the table amid a furor over whether the Trudeau government tried
to meddle in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, the Star has learned.
“My
understanding is when criminal proceedings are ongoing that that
option is always available,” Public Services and Procurement
Minister Carla Qualtrough said in an interview.
The
requirement to continually assess the strength of the prosecution
case, evidence, witnesses, and changing circumstances are “an
ongoing obligation” within the DPA (deferred prosecution agreement)
regime, as in any prosecution, she said.'
Enough
said!
Saturday, February 9, 2019
A Green Revolution?
In a recent interview on CTV Question
Period Elizabeth May, the Green Party federal leader
said that they had been getting an increased interest,
and donations, in the party. Hardly a surprise as the choices
otherwise are becoming increasingly hard to endorse, the Cons are
IMHO so far off the wall both federally and provincially (when Doug
Frord is reinforcing their unsuitability to rule anything) that its
no contest. The NDP seem to be stumbling around in the dark both
leadership wise and policy wise but the big hit for me in these days
of folks struggling to make a living is there insistence of
supporting (mostly government) unionized employees in their ever cry
for more, more, more. We know that such position is based upon the
need for money, money, money from said unions but that does not make
it right!
That leads us to the Liberals whom I
had great respect for and have refrained from criticizing because I
thought that they were in fact trying to do the right thing, I can
even forgive their inability to bring electoral reform to it final
conclusion for as we have seen time and time again the various
players will NEVER find a middle ground that satisfies even close to
a majority of the electorate. What really turned me off was (as
seems to be an increasing point of view) the support and eventual
purchase of the old 'oil' pipeline from Alberta to the west coast and
the ongoing support of the expansion of shipment of mixed tar and
toxic thinners to be shipped via tanker from the waters of BC.
In short I see little alternatives
despite my feeling that a vote for other than the Libs may spin the
roulette wheel called electoral democracy towards the very scary and
previously power hungry Conservative authoritarian regime. My
reluctance to go all out and endorse all Green candidates is colored
by my involvement with the local Green movement here in Grey Bruce,
not that this was in any way a bad experience, they were in fact all
good and caring people and their cause well worth supporting. I,
along with a number of caring and concerned local folks spent
considerable volunteer time updating the web presence of the
GBOS Greens EDA web site in order that both
members and the public could see where things stood locally as
regards to to said organization. Unfortunately local supporters
failed to make use of said resource and both it and the local
organization seem to have faded into obscurity.
As the federal election approaches
perhaps the (now largely defunct) local executive will make use of
said resource (still available online) to promote and resurrect the
local green movement which has seen no new content in many, many
months (years in fact) but to expect a viable candidate who can do
anything other than split the vote after being dormant for so long in
this district is dreaming in technicolor. That all said I do hope
that Greens across our nation vote in a sufficient number of MPs to
shake up the status quo and perhaps even have the balance of power in
what may well be a minority government. Wouldn't that be much needed
a shake up!
Sunday, November 18, 2018
Who is running Ontario?
Dean French was Mr. Ford’s campaign chair. The day after the PCs
won power in June, Mr. Ford named him his chief of staff. Since then,
he has emerged as something even that job title can’t fully
capture: an omnipresent force seen by some of the new government’s
members as more powerful than the Premier who employs him.
So says an article in the G & M after said Mr French after he forced the firing of Alykhan Velshi from a job at the energy utility Ontario Power Generation on his first day on the job at a possible cost of $500,000 to Ontario taxpayers.
There is the unusual control that Mr. French appears to exert over
his government’s appointments processes. He is said to have a
tendency to conduct negotiations for high-profile public positions
presenting them to Mr. Ford as done deals. The reported $350,000
salary for Conservative insider Ian Todd to serve as Ontario’s
trade representative in Washington was cited by multiple sources as
an example.
In proceedings where political staff usually aren’t welcome to participate, he has taken a lead role including actively engaging in cabinet meetings, as well as the smaller committee of senior ministers who are supposed to set the government’s agenda. And he uses those positions to clamp down on any semblance of dissent both there and at caucus meetings..
With the above in mind I have to ask who exactly is the Ontario Conservatives 'Leader' the Premier or his chief of staff, I believe that Ford has never been more that a loud mouth 'figurehead' as evidenced by his refusal to interact with the Press in any meaningful way during the pre-election process. What we appear to have is an unelected 'aide' effectively running Ontario, giving the 'Premier' his speaking notes and effectively silencing those few conservative MPPs who dare to question any 'policies' Mr Ford has been told to bring forward.
A bit harsh you say? Time will tell, meanwhile keep your safety belts buckled for we are in for a rough ride!
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
So says an article in the G & M after said Mr French after he forced the firing of Alykhan Velshi from a job at the energy utility Ontario Power Generation on his first day on the job at a possible cost of $500,000 to Ontario taxpayers.
Mr. French is portrayed by insiders
almost precisely as Mr. Ford’s critics perceive the new Premier to
be: mercurial, bent on settling scores and indifferent to boundaries
that his job usually involves. Most chiefs of staff keep relatively
low profiles and make some show of deferring to elected
representatives. Mr. French is an extreme exception!
In proceedings where political staff usually aren’t welcome to participate, he has taken a lead role including actively engaging in cabinet meetings, as well as the smaller committee of senior ministers who are supposed to set the government’s agenda. And he uses those positions to clamp down on any semblance of dissent both there and at caucus meetings..
With the above in mind I have to ask who exactly is the Ontario Conservatives 'Leader' the Premier or his chief of staff, I believe that Ford has never been more that a loud mouth 'figurehead' as evidenced by his refusal to interact with the Press in any meaningful way during the pre-election process. What we appear to have is an unelected 'aide' effectively running Ontario, giving the 'Premier' his speaking notes and effectively silencing those few conservative MPPs who dare to question any 'policies' Mr Ford has been told to bring forward.
A bit harsh you say? Time will tell, meanwhile keep your safety belts buckled for we are in for a rough ride!
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Sunday, November 4, 2018
Enough said...
In
a longish op-ed published in
iPolitics
Michael
Harris says
the next election is Trudeau's
to loose, I cannot help but agree for
the other choices are bleak.
“By
insisting on making war on the carbon tax his call to political arms,
Scheer couldn’t say more clearly that he is yesterday’s man.
That
doesn’t mean Trudeau is politically bullet-proof in 2019. Just
that, should he lose, it will not be because Canadians suddenly want
a Ford prototype in 24 Sussex Drive.
Whatever
his shortcomings, the PM’s greatest strength is aspiring to
something his father once aimed for: a just society.
Despite
the broken promises, the awful lapses of judgment, and a few policy
face-plants, Trudeau is arm-in-arm with Canadians on values. Scheer
continues to hold hands with Harper on everything from climate change
to immigration. And both of them continue to cast loving eyes
southward to marvel at the power of lies.
Bottom
line? Canadians won’t be flocking to populists in 2019 because they
suddenly become climate-change-deniers, anti-immigrant, or bow down
to a fact-free universe.
Short
of a five-alarm scandal for the Liberals, or a serious abdication of
the social values Trudeau stands for, they will choose the Liberals
over Republican wannabes.
Which
is just to say that, populist waves notwithstanding, the next
election is Trudeau’s to win — or lose — all by himself.”
Whilst
NO politician is going to be gods gift to the population and some,
possible all, may have SOME proposals worth consideration at this
point in time I see little choice but the liberals unless the slash
and burn policies of the likes of Ford, Scheer, Kenny, Trump etc are
your preference. The only thing that we can be certain of for the
upcoming federal election is that the rhetoric is going to come thick
and fast and be over the top and in all probability very ugly.
At
this point in our collective history both nationally and world wide
we need leaders who seek to unite us not divide. I very much fear
that such voices will be drowned out by those for whom political
expediency comes long before such things as social and environmental
concerns or cooperation and consensus building.
Sunday, October 7, 2018
Our Unsung Hero.
Now that much of the initial commentary
on the US – Canada – Mexico trade deal has run its course and the
usual right wing suspects continue to nit pick the few things that
were not resolved 100% in our favor its time to thank our team for
their work. To remain calm and focused in the face of the ever
increasing over the top rhetoric from the head of state of one of the
county's involved, namely the unpredictable, divisive, blowhard,
demagogue and megalomaniac called Donald Trump, is in and of itself a
major accomplishment. For over a year our representative the strong,
competent and patent Chrystia Freeland and her team has been dashing
back and forth between here the U.S. 'negotiating' with an immensely
more 'powerful' opponent.
Even if you do not fully endorse the
outcome of said 'negotiations' (and I put that in apostrophes
for how do you effectively negotiate in such an unequal position?)
the work of the Canadian team and Ms Freeland cannot help but be
admired. They deserve a medal for remaining calm and focused in the
face of the crap coming out of the unstable sociopath to the south,
in particular the retention of the 'dispute mechanism' is IMHO a
major accomplishment for without such any 'agreement' would not be
worth the paper on which it was written. (A point which has been
driven home several times over the life of the current NAFTA
agreement).
The
other major plus from this agreement I believe is the removal of the
Chapter 11, Section B., or the Investors-State Dispute Settlement
(ISDS) mechanism. This mechanism allowed foreign investors to bypass
the domestic courts and sue governments before private international
tribunals and cost Canada more than $95 million in legal costs
defending itself against investor-state claims and paid out over $219
million in damages and settlements. It effectively gave foreign
corporations control over our domestic policy as to whom we dealt with. Good
riddance I say!
No doubt there will be further efforts
to curb the megalomaniac's wish to have the entire world, including
Canada, bend over and kiss his arse without question, the only
question being how long we and the rest of the world will have to put
up with this idiot. Will he last his full term, will his brain dead
supporters continue to believe his crap …. probably, but I hope for
the sake of our neighbors to the south and the world order his days
are numbered!
"If you can't resolve disputes in
a fair and balanced way, then what is the use of the agreement? If
you can't have some curb on the arbitrary use of tariffs under the
guise of national security with a member of NORAD and somebody who is
your closest defence partner, then I don't think it is much of an
agreement."
Amen to that and thanks for your work
Chrystia.
Sunday, April 22, 2018
Weeding the Garden
"You have to tend to this garden of democracy, otherwise things can fall apart fairly quickly. And we've seen societies where that happens,"
Former president Barack Obama
And we have now seen how quickly that can happen by simply looking to the south of us, no one should think that we here in Canada are immune from the kind of democratic decline that electing the wrong leader can bring in just a few months. With a provincial election coming shortly to Ontario and a small war started by politicians to the west be careful which weeds you allow to flourish.
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Sunday, January 15, 2017
Obama on Democracy
Last Tuesday President Obama presented his final speech of his presidency before the incoming Twit in Chief take power this coming
Friday. The focus of his speech was as he said “the state of our
democracy.”, meaning the state of democracy in the U.S. which
surely looks bleak given the Twits recent twittering, however many of
Obamas comments are relevant to all democracy’s across the world
including our own here in Canada. I make no apologies for cherry
picking a few of the most relevant sections of his remarks and
presenting them here for your consideration. He says it so much
better than I ever could........
Our youth and drive, our diversity and openness, our boundless capacity for risk and reinvention mean that the future should be ours.
But that potential will be realized only if our democracy works. Only if our politics reflects the decency of the people. Only if all of us, regardless of our party affiliation or particular interest, help restore the sense of common purpose that we so badly need right now.............
........stark inequality is also corrosive to our democratic principles. While the top one percent has amassed a bigger share of wealth and income, too many families, in inner cities and rural counties, have been left behind - the laid-off factory worker; the waitress and health care worker who struggle to pay the bills - convinced that the game is fixed against them, that their government only serves the interests of the powerful - a recipe for more cynicism and polarization in our politics..........
.......we must forge a new social compact - to guarantee all our kids the education they need; to give workers the power to unionize for better wages; to update the social safety net to reflect the way we live now and make more reforms to the tax code so corporations and individuals who reap the most from the new economy don't avoid their obligations to the country that's made their success possible. We can argue about how to best achieve these goals. But we can't be complacent about the goals themselves. For if we don't create opportunity for all people, the disaffection and division that has stalled our progress will only sharpen in years to come...........
For too many of us, it's become safer to retreat into our own bubbles, whether in our neighborhoods or college campuses or places of worship or our social media feeds, surrounded by people who look like us and share the same political outlook and never challenge our assumptions. The rise of naked partisanship, increasing economic and regional stratification, the splintering of our media into a channel for every taste - all this makes this great sorting seem natural, even inevitable. And increasingly, we become so secure in our bubbles that we accept only information, whether true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that's out there...............
How can elected officials rage about deficits when we propose to spend money on preschool for kids, but not when we're cutting taxes for corporations? How do we excuse ethical lapses in our own party, but pounce when the other party does the same thing? It's not just dishonest, this selective sorting of the facts; it's self-defeating. Because as my mother used to tell me, reality has a way of catching up with you............
..........protecting our way of life requires more than our military. Democracy can buckle when we give in to fear. So just as we, as citizens, must remain vigilant against external aggression, we must guard against a weakening of the values that make us who we are. ...........
........the fight against extremism and intolerance and sectarianism are of a piece with the fight against authoritarianism and nationalist aggression. If the scope of freedom and respect for the rule of law shrinks around the world, the likelihood of war within and between nations increases, and our own freedoms will eventually be threatened.........
...........our democracy is threatened whenever we take it for granted. All of us, regardless of party, should throw ourselves into the task of rebuilding our democratic institutions. When voting rates are some of the lowest among advanced democracies, we should make it easier, not harder, to vote. When trust in our institutions is low, we should reduce the corrosive influence of money in our politics, and insist on the principles of transparency and ethics in public service. .............
It falls to each of us to be those anxious, jealous guardians of our democracy; to embrace the joyous task we've been given to continually try to improve this great nation of ours. Because for all our outward differences, we all share the same proud title: Citizen.
Ultimately, that's what our democracy demands. It needs you. Not just when there's an election, not just when your own narrow interest is at stake, but over the full span of a lifetime.
Somehow I don’t think the incoming Twits acceptance speech will address any of these issues in any meaningful way, I truly hope that our neighbours to the south do not slide back into a place where democracy and diversity take second place to authoritarianism and exclusion but am not very optimistic in that regard.
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Our youth and drive, our diversity and openness, our boundless capacity for risk and reinvention mean that the future should be ours.
But that potential will be realized only if our democracy works. Only if our politics reflects the decency of the people. Only if all of us, regardless of our party affiliation or particular interest, help restore the sense of common purpose that we so badly need right now.............
........stark inequality is also corrosive to our democratic principles. While the top one percent has amassed a bigger share of wealth and income, too many families, in inner cities and rural counties, have been left behind - the laid-off factory worker; the waitress and health care worker who struggle to pay the bills - convinced that the game is fixed against them, that their government only serves the interests of the powerful - a recipe for more cynicism and polarization in our politics..........
.......we must forge a new social compact - to guarantee all our kids the education they need; to give workers the power to unionize for better wages; to update the social safety net to reflect the way we live now and make more reforms to the tax code so corporations and individuals who reap the most from the new economy don't avoid their obligations to the country that's made their success possible. We can argue about how to best achieve these goals. But we can't be complacent about the goals themselves. For if we don't create opportunity for all people, the disaffection and division that has stalled our progress will only sharpen in years to come...........
For too many of us, it's become safer to retreat into our own bubbles, whether in our neighborhoods or college campuses or places of worship or our social media feeds, surrounded by people who look like us and share the same political outlook and never challenge our assumptions. The rise of naked partisanship, increasing economic and regional stratification, the splintering of our media into a channel for every taste - all this makes this great sorting seem natural, even inevitable. And increasingly, we become so secure in our bubbles that we accept only information, whether true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that's out there...............
How can elected officials rage about deficits when we propose to spend money on preschool for kids, but not when we're cutting taxes for corporations? How do we excuse ethical lapses in our own party, but pounce when the other party does the same thing? It's not just dishonest, this selective sorting of the facts; it's self-defeating. Because as my mother used to tell me, reality has a way of catching up with you............
..........protecting our way of life requires more than our military. Democracy can buckle when we give in to fear. So just as we, as citizens, must remain vigilant against external aggression, we must guard against a weakening of the values that make us who we are. ...........
........the fight against extremism and intolerance and sectarianism are of a piece with the fight against authoritarianism and nationalist aggression. If the scope of freedom and respect for the rule of law shrinks around the world, the likelihood of war within and between nations increases, and our own freedoms will eventually be threatened.........
...........our democracy is threatened whenever we take it for granted. All of us, regardless of party, should throw ourselves into the task of rebuilding our democratic institutions. When voting rates are some of the lowest among advanced democracies, we should make it easier, not harder, to vote. When trust in our institutions is low, we should reduce the corrosive influence of money in our politics, and insist on the principles of transparency and ethics in public service. .............
It falls to each of us to be those anxious, jealous guardians of our democracy; to embrace the joyous task we've been given to continually try to improve this great nation of ours. Because for all our outward differences, we all share the same proud title: Citizen.
Ultimately, that's what our democracy demands. It needs you. Not just when there's an election, not just when your own narrow interest is at stake, but over the full span of a lifetime.
Somehow I don’t think the incoming Twits acceptance speech will address any of these issues in any meaningful way, I truly hope that our neighbours to the south do not slide back into a place where democracy and diversity take second place to authoritarianism and exclusion but am not very optimistic in that regard.
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Sunday, February 14, 2016
An Antidote to Cynicism
I was not going to post my regular “Sunday Sermon” this week,
little in the news having grabbed my attention but then I saw this
thanks
to Montreal Simon. It sums up my current feelings quite well so
here are a couple of extracts from Heather
Mallick's article in the Star.
Canada has changed so much in the 100 days since the Liberal cabinet was sworn in that I don’t quite know how to describe it. It’s not a sea change, which is a gradual encrustation at full fathom five, or a reversion, which would let us pretend those 10 Harper years had never happened. Don’t ever forget that lost decade.
But as I write this, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is live on Twitter, asking us to ask him anything. Tell me that’s not new. If Harper had had anything to say to citizens, it would have been, “Stay away from me. I have guards both human and dog,” or “We are watching you from apertures.”
She goes on to say....
Climate change is now taken seriously and can be discussed without fear. Government scientists can speak freely without stigma.
There will be an inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women, and it will be well-designed and purposeful. Their shameful treatment cannot go on forever. If we don’t make things right, will we become like the U.S., padlocked into hate since the Civil War with no end in sight? Intolerable.
The cabinet is half female. I don’t think anything has given strength to Canadian women more than that, and the male half of cabinet is honoured to work with them. And Ottawa no longer persecutes Muslim women in head scarves. There is no longer a hotline for snitching on self-defined “barbaric cultural practices.”
And concludes like this.....
I like the new tone, although the rule of no heckling/racism in the Commons will likely have to be enforced.
I like Trudeau’s personality. Imagine Harper joking with the Queen or being invited by U.S. President Barack Obama to a state dinner.
We have four Liberal years ahead of us and I don’t feel cynical about the future. My cynicism has always been my worst quality. It’s good to shrug it off.
Yes Heather, I also feel my cynicism with government dwindling and it does feel good. Let us hope it lasts!
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Canada has changed so much in the 100 days since the Liberal cabinet was sworn in that I don’t quite know how to describe it. It’s not a sea change, which is a gradual encrustation at full fathom five, or a reversion, which would let us pretend those 10 Harper years had never happened. Don’t ever forget that lost decade.
But as I write this, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is live on Twitter, asking us to ask him anything. Tell me that’s not new. If Harper had had anything to say to citizens, it would have been, “Stay away from me. I have guards both human and dog,” or “We are watching you from apertures.”
She goes on to say....
Climate change is now taken seriously and can be discussed without fear. Government scientists can speak freely without stigma.
There will be an inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women, and it will be well-designed and purposeful. Their shameful treatment cannot go on forever. If we don’t make things right, will we become like the U.S., padlocked into hate since the Civil War with no end in sight? Intolerable.
The cabinet is half female. I don’t think anything has given strength to Canadian women more than that, and the male half of cabinet is honoured to work with them. And Ottawa no longer persecutes Muslim women in head scarves. There is no longer a hotline for snitching on self-defined “barbaric cultural practices.”
And concludes like this.....
I like the new tone, although the rule of no heckling/racism in the Commons will likely have to be enforced.
I like Trudeau’s personality. Imagine Harper joking with the Queen or being invited by U.S. President Barack Obama to a state dinner.
We have four Liberal years ahead of us and I don’t feel cynical about the future. My cynicism has always been my worst quality. It’s good to shrug it off.
Yes Heather, I also feel my cynicism with government dwindling and it does feel good. Let us hope it lasts!
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Sunday, December 13, 2015
Goodby Harper, Hello Canada
I am going to be taking a short break from my weekly blogging over
the holidays but before I do I wanted to write a little of my
personal thoughts as to what I hope the new year will bring. I will
admit to being very optimistic, perhaps too much so, for a return to
a kinder, more inclusive, caring Canada as detailed by our new
governments many proposed changes to things that were ignored,
closed, silenced or abused by the previous regime. Just the tone of
the PM and his various ministers gives me a renewed sense of hope for
the future, a positive outlook and the reinvesting in people, the
openness in listening to, and inviting such dialogue from, the
provinces, the scientific community, our environmental groups and our
native peoples is so refreshing.
I am not so naive as to believe that all the promises will be achieved in the next year or more, or even ever, but the fact that they are trying thus far for that “open and accountable” government promised to us so many times before is to be supported and encouraged. The reinstatement of the census, the unmuzzleing of our scientists and diplomats, the freedom of our charities to express an opinion without fear, the invitation to all Partys and Provinces to join the delegation at the climate change talks all show a real desire to actually fulfil such promises.
Its not going to be all plain sailing, the very practical proposals for appointing Senators (something that must be done if we are going to have a functional parliamentary system) is already being criticized by some of the very people who would have an increased say in such appointments, namely the Provinces. In trying to ensure a non partisan Senate but still be able to introduce government bills to that chamber previous procedures will need to be changed and some Senators are trying to do just that but some outside the chamber are going to do everything they can to block any efforts to make such changes. The new opposition, who are now in the same position as the Liberals were just a few brief weeks ago, are naturally against almost any move to undo legislation or decisions forced through whist they were in power. I hope they will learn to be a little less partisan with their rhetoric and debate future bills upon their merit, but I doubt that will happen. Just trying to form parliamentary committees has already turned into a squabble as to who can serve on or attend meetings.
So here is my message for 2016. Let us support and encourage the positive change that the new government is proposing, let us ensure that they keep their promises of consulting with the Provinces on shared issues, let us make sure that that open and accountable thing does not drop from sight again and, yes, let us hope for more 'Sunny Days' ahead for Canada.
I will be back in January with some thoughts upon the choices to be made in bringing in Electoral Reform. As Peter Lowry says “What we really need in considering these questions is people with open minds. You simply cannot consider solutions to the voting system until you have a clear idea of why you want to change it and what really are the options available. This is not as simple as people think.”
Meanwhile I wish all my readers Happy Holidays and a productive
and prosperous 2016
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
I am not so naive as to believe that all the promises will be achieved in the next year or more, or even ever, but the fact that they are trying thus far for that “open and accountable” government promised to us so many times before is to be supported and encouraged. The reinstatement of the census, the unmuzzleing of our scientists and diplomats, the freedom of our charities to express an opinion without fear, the invitation to all Partys and Provinces to join the delegation at the climate change talks all show a real desire to actually fulfil such promises.
Its not going to be all plain sailing, the very practical proposals for appointing Senators (something that must be done if we are going to have a functional parliamentary system) is already being criticized by some of the very people who would have an increased say in such appointments, namely the Provinces. In trying to ensure a non partisan Senate but still be able to introduce government bills to that chamber previous procedures will need to be changed and some Senators are trying to do just that but some outside the chamber are going to do everything they can to block any efforts to make such changes. The new opposition, who are now in the same position as the Liberals were just a few brief weeks ago, are naturally against almost any move to undo legislation or decisions forced through whist they were in power. I hope they will learn to be a little less partisan with their rhetoric and debate future bills upon their merit, but I doubt that will happen. Just trying to form parliamentary committees has already turned into a squabble as to who can serve on or attend meetings.
So here is my message for 2016. Let us support and encourage the positive change that the new government is proposing, let us ensure that they keep their promises of consulting with the Provinces on shared issues, let us make sure that that open and accountable thing does not drop from sight again and, yes, let us hope for more 'Sunny Days' ahead for Canada.
I will be back in January with some thoughts upon the choices to be made in bringing in Electoral Reform. As Peter Lowry says “What we really need in considering these questions is people with open minds. You simply cannot consider solutions to the voting system until you have a clear idea of why you want to change it and what really are the options available. This is not as simple as people think.”
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Democracy's Future
After 5 years of writing about democracy's decline and the impact
of one particular individual had in that regard I am now faced with
the question of 'what do I write about now'. The choice is not hard
for there is much to be done not only to return from where we came,
but to move forward with improving our democratic systems and
establish into law such systems so that they cannot again be twisted
and ignored by future leaders and their followers.
A good place to start seems to be the Liberal platform on Democratic Reform which seems to say all the right things but as always it will be the details and implementation that will be the stumbling blocks. With it improbable that any legislation in this regard will be introduced anytime soon this leaves me lots of time to go over their 32 point plan some of which they can implement right away like unmuzzling our bureaucrats, scientists and federal departments so that we see the true details of the task ahead of us.
Before I get into that I am going to take a look at some of the problems that arose around the country at the polls both from the point of view of the elector and from that of an election worker. It was good to see a central place to report problems at #pollwatch and I shall use some of the things posted there as a basis for some suggestions of both what went wrong and how to correct them. Given the millions of voters and the thousands of folks on twitter (I am not one of them) the volume of complaints was not that large, however if even one voters was turned away (and many more than that were) then it is something that must be fixed. I do hope that EC will be looking into such matters but have yet to see any commitment to do so.
This then is the task I have set myself in the coming weeks and months, one part of which will be reexamining, once again, the various voting methods that may be part of the promised study of electoral reform that is a big part of that 32 point plan, and the implementation of which is high on the agenda of a large majority of out population.
So from a pessimistic view of our democracy’s future I now must change my mindset to an optimistic outlook, this view will not be shared by all readers particularly highly partisan individuals who's political aspirations took a hit last week. I urge all Canadians to look upon this an opportunity to put partisan rhetoric aside and do everything we can to enhance and secure our democratic systems for future generations. A recent very good sign is the invitation by Justin for all the premiers and opposition leaders to join him at December's climate change summit in Paris both from an environmental point of view and a governmental cooperation perspective.
“Democracy can be messy but democracy doesn’t exist to make leaders look good. It exists to do good for the people.” - Justin Trudeau
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
A good place to start seems to be the Liberal platform on Democratic Reform which seems to say all the right things but as always it will be the details and implementation that will be the stumbling blocks. With it improbable that any legislation in this regard will be introduced anytime soon this leaves me lots of time to go over their 32 point plan some of which they can implement right away like unmuzzling our bureaucrats, scientists and federal departments so that we see the true details of the task ahead of us.
Before I get into that I am going to take a look at some of the problems that arose around the country at the polls both from the point of view of the elector and from that of an election worker. It was good to see a central place to report problems at #pollwatch and I shall use some of the things posted there as a basis for some suggestions of both what went wrong and how to correct them. Given the millions of voters and the thousands of folks on twitter (I am not one of them) the volume of complaints was not that large, however if even one voters was turned away (and many more than that were) then it is something that must be fixed. I do hope that EC will be looking into such matters but have yet to see any commitment to do so.
This then is the task I have set myself in the coming weeks and months, one part of which will be reexamining, once again, the various voting methods that may be part of the promised study of electoral reform that is a big part of that 32 point plan, and the implementation of which is high on the agenda of a large majority of out population.
So from a pessimistic view of our democracy’s future I now must change my mindset to an optimistic outlook, this view will not be shared by all readers particularly highly partisan individuals who's political aspirations took a hit last week. I urge all Canadians to look upon this an opportunity to put partisan rhetoric aside and do everything we can to enhance and secure our democratic systems for future generations. A recent very good sign is the invitation by Justin for all the premiers and opposition leaders to join him at December's climate change summit in Paris both from an environmental point of view and a governmental cooperation perspective.
“Democracy can be messy but democracy doesn’t exist to make leaders look good. It exists to do good for the people.” - Justin Trudeau
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Party Platforms, some thoughts!
If the choice is between fixing the hole in the roof and
remortgaging the house then the choice is obvious, particularly with
the interest rates so low. Throwing a tarp over it and putting a
bucket under the drips is not a long term viable solution, that for
so many of us finding a job to even purchase a tarp is a major
problem simply highlights the position we are in both individually
and as a country. If the roof has been leaking for some time and just
moving the buckets around as needed was the solution chosen then
simply doing more of the same is equally illogical. When your
accountant then proposes that you go out and buy a shiny new Caddy
with the money you did not know you had, saved by not fixing the
roof, would you rehire him!
With Harper promising billions in funding for various projects across the country despite the numbers that put us in recession whilst at the same time saying that there is / will be a surplus of income over spending is troubling enough but that Mulclair is echoing that scenario is bizarre. Anyone who thinks that the books will be shown to be in the black when the 'new' government is sworn in must be drinking more than coolaid and to promise that all the goodies being proposed can then be paid for without substantial new income is a fantasy. The fantasy includes the recently announced $1.9-billion surplus for 2014-15, a $4 billion jump from the announced deficit just a few months ago and revealed just a month before the election....are you kidding?. The deficit still exists even if only in unfulfilled promises and programs! Of course close examination of many of the promises reveal that the amounts flaunted are to be trickled out over several years, in some cases even decades, and thus can be reduced, redirected or cancelled as required. It is the promise of big bucks for this or that that gets the attention of far too many voters.
It is understandable that all the partys (except the Greens) are reluctant to talk about minority and / or coalition government, they all want the power to pass legislation of their choice without having to 'comprise' by 'cooperating' with those damned folk from other partys who have been elected by their constituents to represent then in our search for a better Canada. We have seen what majority government has brought about, and it has not been pretty, whilst the Cons have been particularly destructive of process and ideologically rigid I suspect any party with a majority will not embrace 'comprise' and 'cooperation' which to my mind is what we need to move forward.
I will be very surprised if we are not in a minority situation come October and that will at a minimum require two or more partys to work together to undo the Havoc that Harper has wrought be it on a case by case basis or on a more formal agreement. I applaud Elizabeth May's efforts to get a conversation started about this possibility (probability?) BEFORE we find ourselves in another constitutional crisis. We cannot forget that despite Harper & Mulclair having said they will not appoint senators and that they want to abolish it, it still is part of our parliamentary process and legislation must be passed in the senate before becoming law. That as it sits now it is a body dominated by Conservative appointees who can be counted upon to oppose just about anything that does not fit their view of the world will be difficult enough without adding further dis-functionality to that body by calling in to doubt its legitimacy.
All the opposition partys are promising to move towards election reform, the Libs say they will introduce a new voting system in time for the 2019 election, are leaning towards a preferential voting system but will form a committee to study it first. The NDP say that they will impose a Mixed Member Proportional system and the Greens have long advocated for change and say that they will “establish an all-party Democratic Voting Commission to review past research and conduct a public consultation on the style of proportional representation best suited to Canada.” With even those of us who strongly flavor electoral reform unable to agree on which of the several systems and variations of same is the best option this one is going to be difficult for all concerned. Then there is parliamentary reform, the return to following the traditional rules and strengthening the system so it cannot be abused as it has been in recent years. Little has been said about that by the partys, they are all too busy trying to GET power rather than restrict and share it!
Finally, little has been said about reinstating our scientific research, Census Canada data collecting, environmental protections, search and rescue capability, social support mechanisms etc etc etc gutted by the Con Regime. These things will all take time and money and require a vibrant “economy” with folks able to finds jobs and pay taxes, stopping the exodus of corporations to other jurisdictions and ensuring those that do stay pay their fair share. In short we need a leader and a government that instills confidence in Canada both internally and overseas, are any of the partys going to provide this dramatic change so desperately needed? Frankly I see a few glimmers of light but still await the rising of the sun over Canada bringing a new era of our 'representatives' working together to bring a new day to our diverse country.
Who is going to be that bright light, I have no idea!
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
With Harper promising billions in funding for various projects across the country despite the numbers that put us in recession whilst at the same time saying that there is / will be a surplus of income over spending is troubling enough but that Mulclair is echoing that scenario is bizarre. Anyone who thinks that the books will be shown to be in the black when the 'new' government is sworn in must be drinking more than coolaid and to promise that all the goodies being proposed can then be paid for without substantial new income is a fantasy. The fantasy includes the recently announced $1.9-billion surplus for 2014-15, a $4 billion jump from the announced deficit just a few months ago and revealed just a month before the election....are you kidding?. The deficit still exists even if only in unfulfilled promises and programs! Of course close examination of many of the promises reveal that the amounts flaunted are to be trickled out over several years, in some cases even decades, and thus can be reduced, redirected or cancelled as required. It is the promise of big bucks for this or that that gets the attention of far too many voters.
It is understandable that all the partys (except the Greens) are reluctant to talk about minority and / or coalition government, they all want the power to pass legislation of their choice without having to 'comprise' by 'cooperating' with those damned folk from other partys who have been elected by their constituents to represent then in our search for a better Canada. We have seen what majority government has brought about, and it has not been pretty, whilst the Cons have been particularly destructive of process and ideologically rigid I suspect any party with a majority will not embrace 'comprise' and 'cooperation' which to my mind is what we need to move forward.
I will be very surprised if we are not in a minority situation come October and that will at a minimum require two or more partys to work together to undo the Havoc that Harper has wrought be it on a case by case basis or on a more formal agreement. I applaud Elizabeth May's efforts to get a conversation started about this possibility (probability?) BEFORE we find ourselves in another constitutional crisis. We cannot forget that despite Harper & Mulclair having said they will not appoint senators and that they want to abolish it, it still is part of our parliamentary process and legislation must be passed in the senate before becoming law. That as it sits now it is a body dominated by Conservative appointees who can be counted upon to oppose just about anything that does not fit their view of the world will be difficult enough without adding further dis-functionality to that body by calling in to doubt its legitimacy.
All the opposition partys are promising to move towards election reform, the Libs say they will introduce a new voting system in time for the 2019 election, are leaning towards a preferential voting system but will form a committee to study it first. The NDP say that they will impose a Mixed Member Proportional system and the Greens have long advocated for change and say that they will “establish an all-party Democratic Voting Commission to review past research and conduct a public consultation on the style of proportional representation best suited to Canada.” With even those of us who strongly flavor electoral reform unable to agree on which of the several systems and variations of same is the best option this one is going to be difficult for all concerned. Then there is parliamentary reform, the return to following the traditional rules and strengthening the system so it cannot be abused as it has been in recent years. Little has been said about that by the partys, they are all too busy trying to GET power rather than restrict and share it!
Finally, little has been said about reinstating our scientific research, Census Canada data collecting, environmental protections, search and rescue capability, social support mechanisms etc etc etc gutted by the Con Regime. These things will all take time and money and require a vibrant “economy” with folks able to finds jobs and pay taxes, stopping the exodus of corporations to other jurisdictions and ensuring those that do stay pay their fair share. In short we need a leader and a government that instills confidence in Canada both internally and overseas, are any of the partys going to provide this dramatic change so desperately needed? Frankly I see a few glimmers of light but still await the rising of the sun over Canada bringing a new era of our 'representatives' working together to bring a new day to our diverse country.
Who is going to be that bright light, I have no idea!
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Sunday, August 9, 2015
Gob-smacking!
“It was possibly the most gob-smacking election
launch in modern Canadian history.”
So says much respected parliamentary reporter Susanna Kelley
“The shockers began almost immediately after Stephen Harper announced he'd asked the Governor General to dissolve parliament and call an election for October 19 — at 78 days, it will be among the longest in Canadian history.
"I feel very strongly ... that ... campaigns need to be conducted under the rules of the law. That the money come from the parties themselves, not from government resources, parliamentary resources or taxpayer resources," he said. That statement came to the slack-jawed shock of every Canadian who is aware of two simple facts: the machinery of elections are paid for the most part with taxpayers' money, so the longer they are the more they cost; and that donations to political parties and their candidates are heavily subsidized by taxpayers as well.”
IMPORTANT NOTE – Apparently if you write critical stuff like the above you will not be let anywhere near King Harper even if you are a well know, recognizable, accredited reporter......
“In a departure from how campaign events involving Prime Ministers before Stephen Harper have been conducted, Conservative Party handlers refused a journalist admission to one of his campaign events this week because the RCMP and its search dogs weren't available to search her. Full disclosure: that journalist was me. (Susanna Kelly)
The Conservative Party apparently think the fourth estate are so dangerous that the protocol at the Prime Minister's election campaign events is to have them searched by the RCMP dogs if they are anywhere near Stephen Harper physically.”
Dont think I will be attending any of his events anytime soon.... but back to the main point.......
I will admit that when I downloaded and read a transcript of his statement upon emerging from the Governor Generals residence after dissolving parliament and launching us into an extend taxpayer subsidized 11 week campaign I was totally speechless. Then Angry, Frustrated, Disgusted, and yes like Susanna totally Gob-smacked!
One must give Mr Harper credit he can lie with a perfectly straight face, or should I say a perfectly smirking face. Below please find some extracts from his remarks and the things that he omitted to tell us:-
As it is my intention to begin campaign-related activities, as is also the case for the other party leaders, it is important that these campaigns be funded by the parties themselves rather than taxpayers..........
.....and my use of taxpayers dollars to inundate them with advertisements promoting our “Economic Action Plan” and our “Bribe Families with Kids Plan” was not partisan at all. It is just coincidence that our MPs have been out handing out more funding cheques in the last few days than in many years. Also I will not be accepting the 50% taxpayer funded reimbursement of our expenses.
It is an election about who will protect our economy......A national election is not a popularity contest.......
Our choices have been prudent and our actions have been
disciplined........
........the closure of scientific library’s, coast guard stations etc and the defunding of organizations supporting democracy and womens rights etc were not ideologically driven at all.
As a result, our economy and our employment have grown steadily over six years......
.........and those studies and charts that say that the economy is tanking and 1000s of Canadians have given up even trying to find a full time job and similar reports were not dreamed up by us and therefore must be wrong.
Our budget is balanced........
........ and we have a pristine island for sale in an Albertan tar sands effluent pond.
Our social programs have been preserved.,,,,,,,
.......the veterans, womens groups and others that say they are not getting federal support are just a bunch of whining sissy’s.
Jihadi terrorists have declared war on Canada and Canadians by name, and last October violent attacks were carried out on our soil.......
...........I know because I heard the shooting from the single disturbed gunman from inside the closet I was hiding in.
Now is not the time for political correctness, inexperienced governance or an ideological unwillingness to act...........Now is the time to face those who threaten us with moral clarity, strength, and resolve.........
.........those threats include opposition politicians, environmentalists, scientists, charitable organizations and anyone who does not agree with me. My dismantling of our parliamentary democracy and refusal to debate these issues is a measure of my resolve to finish totally destroying Canada as you once knew it.
I will be asking Canadians for their support to continue to deliver sound economic management, and to take the difficult decisions necessary to protect our country’s security...........
...........and if that fails we will lie, cheat, ignore the rules and try and buy you votes in any way possible because we are the only ones who know anything and all others are terrorists trying to kill you.
Update:- Please also see Politics and Discontents and Northern Reflections for more upon restricting details of Harpers Campaign events.
Next week I will post part 8 of my Harper History Series featuring more lies and anti-democratic actions by the Harper regime in the past decade.
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
So says much respected parliamentary reporter Susanna Kelley
“The shockers began almost immediately after Stephen Harper announced he'd asked the Governor General to dissolve parliament and call an election for October 19 — at 78 days, it will be among the longest in Canadian history.
"I feel very strongly ... that ... campaigns need to be conducted under the rules of the law. That the money come from the parties themselves, not from government resources, parliamentary resources or taxpayer resources," he said. That statement came to the slack-jawed shock of every Canadian who is aware of two simple facts: the machinery of elections are paid for the most part with taxpayers' money, so the longer they are the more they cost; and that donations to political parties and their candidates are heavily subsidized by taxpayers as well.”
IMPORTANT NOTE – Apparently if you write critical stuff like the above you will not be let anywhere near King Harper even if you are a well know, recognizable, accredited reporter......
“In a departure from how campaign events involving Prime Ministers before Stephen Harper have been conducted, Conservative Party handlers refused a journalist admission to one of his campaign events this week because the RCMP and its search dogs weren't available to search her. Full disclosure: that journalist was me. (Susanna Kelly)
The Conservative Party apparently think the fourth estate are so dangerous that the protocol at the Prime Minister's election campaign events is to have them searched by the RCMP dogs if they are anywhere near Stephen Harper physically.”
Dont think I will be attending any of his events anytime soon.... but back to the main point.......
I will admit that when I downloaded and read a transcript of his statement upon emerging from the Governor Generals residence after dissolving parliament and launching us into an extend taxpayer subsidized 11 week campaign I was totally speechless. Then Angry, Frustrated, Disgusted, and yes like Susanna totally Gob-smacked!
One must give Mr Harper credit he can lie with a perfectly straight face, or should I say a perfectly smirking face. Below please find some extracts from his remarks and the things that he omitted to tell us:-
As it is my intention to begin campaign-related activities, as is also the case for the other party leaders, it is important that these campaigns be funded by the parties themselves rather than taxpayers..........
.....and my use of taxpayers dollars to inundate them with advertisements promoting our “Economic Action Plan” and our “Bribe Families with Kids Plan” was not partisan at all. It is just coincidence that our MPs have been out handing out more funding cheques in the last few days than in many years. Also I will not be accepting the 50% taxpayer funded reimbursement of our expenses.
It is an election about who will protect our economy......A national election is not a popularity contest.......
.....which is why we have spent
millions trying to reduce the popularity of Justin and ignored the
fact that the Economy still has not recovered from the recession.
........the closure of scientific library’s, coast guard stations etc and the defunding of organizations supporting democracy and womens rights etc were not ideologically driven at all.
As a result, our economy and our employment have grown steadily over six years......
.........and those studies and charts that say that the economy is tanking and 1000s of Canadians have given up even trying to find a full time job and similar reports were not dreamed up by us and therefore must be wrong.
Our budget is balanced........
........ and we have a pristine island for sale in an Albertan tar sands effluent pond.
Our social programs have been preserved.,,,,,,,
.......the veterans, womens groups and others that say they are not getting federal support are just a bunch of whining sissy’s.
Jihadi terrorists have declared war on Canada and Canadians by name, and last October violent attacks were carried out on our soil.......
...........I know because I heard the shooting from the single disturbed gunman from inside the closet I was hiding in.
Now is not the time for political correctness, inexperienced governance or an ideological unwillingness to act...........Now is the time to face those who threaten us with moral clarity, strength, and resolve.........
.........those threats include opposition politicians, environmentalists, scientists, charitable organizations and anyone who does not agree with me. My dismantling of our parliamentary democracy and refusal to debate these issues is a measure of my resolve to finish totally destroying Canada as you once knew it.
I will be asking Canadians for their support to continue to deliver sound economic management, and to take the difficult decisions necessary to protect our country’s security...........
...........and if that fails we will lie, cheat, ignore the rules and try and buy you votes in any way possible because we are the only ones who know anything and all others are terrorists trying to kill you.
Update:- Please also see Politics and Discontents and Northern Reflections for more upon restricting details of Harpers Campaign events.
Next week I will post part 8 of my Harper History Series featuring more lies and anti-democratic actions by the Harper regime in the past decade.
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Sunday, July 12, 2015
National Televised Debate set for October.
The group of networks known as the broadcast consortium, including
CBC News, has
set the English-language debate for Thursday, Oct. 8, from 6 to 7:30
p.m. ET, and the French-language debate for Wednesday, Oct. 7, from
8 to 10 p.m. ET...... despite an
ongoing boycott by the Conservative Party.
In a news release, the consortium which includes CTV News, Global News, Radio-Canada and Télé-Québec and CBC News, said the broadcasters maintain their invitation to the Conservative Party, who have thus far declined, to participate.
Some criticism has been heard regarding the time slot allocated, particularly from the western provinces where it will be aired in the late afternoon, however they will also be distributed to all social media including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Vine, Google, YouTube, and CPAC.
A number of other debates have been planned by various organizations some of which have excluded both the Greens and the Bloc. Most notably Elizabeth May has not been invited to an exchange of views on the economy hosted by the Globe and Mail newspaper and Google Canada, nor one on foreign policy planned by the Munk Debates.
May has however agreed to participate in the Aug. 6 leaders debate organized by Maclean’s that will be broadcast on several television and radio outlets and stream via Facebook and YouTube and has received an invitation this week from the venerable Empire Club of Canada to a debate with other party leaders on business and financial issues – the same general focus as the Globe and Google event.
Julian Morelli, Green Party Director of Communications said “The decision to exclude Elizabeth May from the Globe and Mail and Munk debates is unbelievable given that these two institutions proclaim to be fair, open, and unbiased. “Is it coincidental that only parties that support the fossil fuel industry and pipeline expansion are invited to these debates? Add to this that the Globe and Mail has in the past endorsed Stephen Harper – so it is not a neutral sponsor.
In an effort to shame the two organizations into changing their minds the Green Party has released a series of emails between them selves and the organizers of these debates in which they point out “this upcoming election will be the most unpredictable in history and one that will have a lasting impact on the character and makeup of Canada. At this time, public opinion suggests a minority government is probable, which provides further rationale for the inclusion of the Green Party as another voice in the development and implementation of good public policy.”
They also refer to the letter send by Stephen Harper in 2008 supporting the inclusion of “parties with at least one Member of Parliament elected” where he says:-
“The Conservative Party has always supported the concept of televised national leaders’
debates during a federal election. The only condition that we have attached has been the
participants represent parties with at least one Member of Parliament elected under their
party banner. Having one elected member is not a high bar to obtain and it helps to
ensure that the party leaders represent democratically elected representatives in the
House of Commons.”
How things have change since then, now despite the Greens meeting that criteria and Elizabeth May having led or been a significant voice in the national conversation on a wide range of important issues including C51, FIPA, democracy, proportional representation, accountability and transparency, parliamentary reform, climate change, etc she continues to be sidelined.
This despite the fact that she was also recognized this year as “Best Orator” and in the two previous years as “Hardest Working MP” as well as “Parliamentarian of the Year”.
It is unclear at this point whether Harper and May will face each other directly in any debate and we wonder how much control Harper has exerted over the G&M and Monk debates in this regard, what we wonder is he scared of, guess there is no closet to hide in at the G&M
Update – It appears that the Macleans’ magazine’s debate scheduled to take place in Toronto on August 6th and carried on City TV and CPAC will include Stephen Harper, Tom Mulcair, Justin Trudeau and Elizabeth May. This is the only debate in which all four leaders are scheduled to attend.
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
In a news release, the consortium which includes CTV News, Global News, Radio-Canada and Télé-Québec and CBC News, said the broadcasters maintain their invitation to the Conservative Party, who have thus far declined, to participate.
Some criticism has been heard regarding the time slot allocated, particularly from the western provinces where it will be aired in the late afternoon, however they will also be distributed to all social media including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Vine, Google, YouTube, and CPAC.
A number of other debates have been planned by various organizations some of which have excluded both the Greens and the Bloc. Most notably Elizabeth May has not been invited to an exchange of views on the economy hosted by the Globe and Mail newspaper and Google Canada, nor one on foreign policy planned by the Munk Debates.
May has however agreed to participate in the Aug. 6 leaders debate organized by Maclean’s that will be broadcast on several television and radio outlets and stream via Facebook and YouTube and has received an invitation this week from the venerable Empire Club of Canada to a debate with other party leaders on business and financial issues – the same general focus as the Globe and Google event.
Julian Morelli, Green Party Director of Communications said “The decision to exclude Elizabeth May from the Globe and Mail and Munk debates is unbelievable given that these two institutions proclaim to be fair, open, and unbiased. “Is it coincidental that only parties that support the fossil fuel industry and pipeline expansion are invited to these debates? Add to this that the Globe and Mail has in the past endorsed Stephen Harper – so it is not a neutral sponsor.
In an effort to shame the two organizations into changing their minds the Green Party has released a series of emails between them selves and the organizers of these debates in which they point out “this upcoming election will be the most unpredictable in history and one that will have a lasting impact on the character and makeup of Canada. At this time, public opinion suggests a minority government is probable, which provides further rationale for the inclusion of the Green Party as another voice in the development and implementation of good public policy.”
They also refer to the letter send by Stephen Harper in 2008 supporting the inclusion of “parties with at least one Member of Parliament elected” where he says:-
“The Conservative Party has always supported the concept of televised national leaders’
debates during a federal election. The only condition that we have attached has been the
participants represent parties with at least one Member of Parliament elected under their
party banner. Having one elected member is not a high bar to obtain and it helps to
ensure that the party leaders represent democratically elected representatives in the
House of Commons.”
How things have change since then, now despite the Greens meeting that criteria and Elizabeth May having led or been a significant voice in the national conversation on a wide range of important issues including C51, FIPA, democracy, proportional representation, accountability and transparency, parliamentary reform, climate change, etc she continues to be sidelined.
This despite the fact that she was also recognized this year as “Best Orator” and in the two previous years as “Hardest Working MP” as well as “Parliamentarian of the Year”.
It is unclear at this point whether Harper and May will face each other directly in any debate and we wonder how much control Harper has exerted over the G&M and Monk debates in this regard, what we wonder is he scared of, guess there is no closet to hide in at the G&M
Update – It appears that the Macleans’ magazine’s debate scheduled to take place in Toronto on August 6th and carried on City TV and CPAC will include Stephen Harper, Tom Mulcair, Justin Trudeau and Elizabeth May. This is the only debate in which all four leaders are scheduled to attend.
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Sunday, March 8, 2015
The Debate about the Debate has started!
With the Conservatives quietly
considering a proposal to hold up to five regional televised debates
in the upcoming federal election to contrast
Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s experience with rookie Liberal
Leader Justin Trudeau the debate about the debates has started.
Hoping to exploit Trudeau’s shoot-from-the-lip style, some
Conservative insiders believe Harper could benefit from additional
debates.
In my opinion that very much depends upon how much said leaders (particularly Harper) are held to account for untruths and inaccurate assertions & allegations. One way to see that such things do not go unchallenged is to ensure that the “Hardest Working MP” in the House of Commons is there to rebut the three traditional debaters. The fact that the 2012 Parliamentarian of the year also happens to be one of the Best Orator's according to her colleagues in the House may well be why none of those three will commit to insisting that the Green Party Leader participate.
It seems that the Conservatives think they can gain advantage from extra debates by “exploiting Trudeau’s shoot-from-the-lip style”, If a politician actually straying from the scripted talking points is a liability then we have indeed reach a point where truth, openness and accountability is a victim of political spin. Without becoming too partisan I can only say this is one reason why Ms May must be included for she has yet to fall victim to this insidious disease, not only that but she regularity dispenses an antidote to it. Its called support for parliamentary democracy and involves fighting tooth and nail against any who would remove power from our elected MPs and place it in the hands of one individual and his unelected office boys. She also recognizes a cheater when she sees one, something the 'moguls' don’t seem to understand. “Stephen Harper’s staff took care to print out background notes (something specifically not allowed during the 2008 debate) on index cards, but they picked the wrong-sized cards. And no one writes in printer font. Looking over from my seat, I remember the shock of realizing he was cheating,”
It seems the Conservatives and the NDP want many debates, but sources in both parties say they also want to limit the number of participants to the “main parties,” believing that the contrast between Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and the NDP’s Thomas Mulcair would be sharper without the three other party leaders on stage. I dont know about that but I am not sure how much I could take of Mulclair and Harper attacking each other and Trudeau who I hope will not fall into that trap and instead stick to a positive message. I do know that if a sitting Leader of a party with candidates in every province across this country and support of millions of Canadians is deliberately excluded for a televised national debate then her fight for democracy has already taken a mortal blow.
The 'Leaders' would have us believe that such decisions are entirely up to the 'consortium' of TV moguls however that is not entirely true as earlier attempts from Ms May to be included in the debate reveal.
In 2008 Editor-In-Chief of CBC TV News, Tony Burman, characterized the debate process as a sham, stating that, "Some networks worried that adding a fifth leader would make the debate 'unwatchable' but we all knew that the elephant in the room was actually living at 24 Sussex Drive. And he – the Prime Minister – would effectively have veto power. Within days of the [Media Consortium] meeting, we were privately told by the Conservative Party representative that Prime Minister Harper would not participate in the debates if the Green Party leader was there.
In this instance Ms May was eventualy included and “Many commentators proclaimed May’s debut in the leaders debates to be a major breakthrough for the party, and were surprised that she proved to be a strong debater on a wide range of issues.” However in 2011 Harper and the other leaders got their way and the Green Party leader was excluded with the excuse that “her party did not have representation in the House of Commons.” That excuse no longer is available so what excuse do they all have now?
If ANY of those 'leaders or media moguls care one whit for democracy they will not only 'allow' Elizabeth May to join the debate but insist right from the start that she do so. Instead we see this:=
Recently, Mulcair refused to say who should be part of the debate.
“That is something that is completely left up to the consortium, and I will follow whatever they decide,”
Trudeau said. “I look forward to having discussions about that with the consortium of broadcasters as it comes closer to it. Right now, it’s too early to say who should be in,”
Troy Reeb, the vice-president of news for Shaw Media, said Global News’ position is that the more debates that can be organized, the better it is for Canadian democracy.
“If, however, the parties determine, as they have in the past, that they are unwilling to have their leaders attend multiple debates,” Reeb said in an email, “then we stand prepared to work again with other broadcasters to ensure any single English-language debate reaches the widest audience possible.
“Questions of format and who would be invited would obviously be up for discussion at that time.”
“who would be invited would obviously be up for discussion at that time.”
So its NOT just up the the Media but is the subject of 'discussion', come on Trudeau and Mulclair step up and speak out for democracy and insist upon the debates include all sitting party leaders (with national support?) participate, we know Harper will not!
EDIT It is interesting to note in the context of the above that the CBC (and other TV conglomerates) has refused to air an advertisement from The Friends of Canadian Broadcasting that is critical of Stephen Harper and his cuts to everything.
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
In my opinion that very much depends upon how much said leaders (particularly Harper) are held to account for untruths and inaccurate assertions & allegations. One way to see that such things do not go unchallenged is to ensure that the “Hardest Working MP” in the House of Commons is there to rebut the three traditional debaters. The fact that the 2012 Parliamentarian of the year also happens to be one of the Best Orator's according to her colleagues in the House may well be why none of those three will commit to insisting that the Green Party Leader participate.
It seems that the Conservatives think they can gain advantage from extra debates by “exploiting Trudeau’s shoot-from-the-lip style”, If a politician actually straying from the scripted talking points is a liability then we have indeed reach a point where truth, openness and accountability is a victim of political spin. Without becoming too partisan I can only say this is one reason why Ms May must be included for she has yet to fall victim to this insidious disease, not only that but she regularity dispenses an antidote to it. Its called support for parliamentary democracy and involves fighting tooth and nail against any who would remove power from our elected MPs and place it in the hands of one individual and his unelected office boys. She also recognizes a cheater when she sees one, something the 'moguls' don’t seem to understand. “Stephen Harper’s staff took care to print out background notes (something specifically not allowed during the 2008 debate) on index cards, but they picked the wrong-sized cards. And no one writes in printer font. Looking over from my seat, I remember the shock of realizing he was cheating,”
It seems the Conservatives and the NDP want many debates, but sources in both parties say they also want to limit the number of participants to the “main parties,” believing that the contrast between Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and the NDP’s Thomas Mulcair would be sharper without the three other party leaders on stage. I dont know about that but I am not sure how much I could take of Mulclair and Harper attacking each other and Trudeau who I hope will not fall into that trap and instead stick to a positive message. I do know that if a sitting Leader of a party with candidates in every province across this country and support of millions of Canadians is deliberately excluded for a televised national debate then her fight for democracy has already taken a mortal blow.
The 'Leaders' would have us believe that such decisions are entirely up to the 'consortium' of TV moguls however that is not entirely true as earlier attempts from Ms May to be included in the debate reveal.
In 2008 Editor-In-Chief of CBC TV News, Tony Burman, characterized the debate process as a sham, stating that, "Some networks worried that adding a fifth leader would make the debate 'unwatchable' but we all knew that the elephant in the room was actually living at 24 Sussex Drive. And he – the Prime Minister – would effectively have veto power. Within days of the [Media Consortium] meeting, we were privately told by the Conservative Party representative that Prime Minister Harper would not participate in the debates if the Green Party leader was there.
In this instance Ms May was eventualy included and “Many commentators proclaimed May’s debut in the leaders debates to be a major breakthrough for the party, and were surprised that she proved to be a strong debater on a wide range of issues.” However in 2011 Harper and the other leaders got their way and the Green Party leader was excluded with the excuse that “her party did not have representation in the House of Commons.” That excuse no longer is available so what excuse do they all have now?
If ANY of those 'leaders or media moguls care one whit for democracy they will not only 'allow' Elizabeth May to join the debate but insist right from the start that she do so. Instead we see this:=
Recently, Mulcair refused to say who should be part of the debate.
“That is something that is completely left up to the consortium, and I will follow whatever they decide,”
Trudeau said. “I look forward to having discussions about that with the consortium of broadcasters as it comes closer to it. Right now, it’s too early to say who should be in,”
Troy Reeb, the vice-president of news for Shaw Media, said Global News’ position is that the more debates that can be organized, the better it is for Canadian democracy.
“If, however, the parties determine, as they have in the past, that they are unwilling to have their leaders attend multiple debates,” Reeb said in an email, “then we stand prepared to work again with other broadcasters to ensure any single English-language debate reaches the widest audience possible.
“Questions of format and who would be invited would obviously be up for discussion at that time.”
“who would be invited would obviously be up for discussion at that time.”
So its NOT just up the the Media but is the subject of 'discussion', come on Trudeau and Mulclair step up and speak out for democracy and insist upon the debates include all sitting party leaders (with national support?) participate, we know Harper will not!
EDIT It is interesting to note in the context of the above that the CBC (and other TV conglomerates) has refused to air an advertisement from The Friends of Canadian Broadcasting that is critical of Stephen Harper and his cuts to everything.
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Sunday, December 21, 2014
An Open Letter to Tom Mulcair.
Dear Sir
I am in receipt of you self congratulatory email boasting of how you have just signed the Fair Vote Canada's Politicians' Pledge, I congratulate you on doing so and would hope that many other MPs from all parties join you in doing so but have a number of concerns with the other issues raised in you communications.
Firstly your “commitment to make 2015 the last unfair election — and 2019 the first election to use a truly democratic electoral system” is clearly unobtainable...... unless you intend to either impose a new system upon Canadians without public consultation and a referendum on the issue or propose to hold a national referendum (with its extensive cost and logistics) BEFORE the 1019 election. This assumes that the NDP would be in a position to bring such a thing to pass which seems highly improbable. It is in fact highly improbable in any case unless and until the Liberals and the NDP stop sniping at each other and cooperate on this issues, including recognizing who the real enemy is – namely the Harper Regime.
I am further concerned with your statement that you “will be seeking a mandate to adopt a mixed member proportional representation system (MMP)”, NOT I note a mandate to seek public consultation (as the pledge says) for which system of electoral reform should be put before the citizens. There are several types of voting systems that each bring their own degree of 'proportionality' and with their own set of assets and difficulties, each of these systems can be further influenced by the manner in which they are implemented. It is insufficient to just say we support MMP (or for that matter any of the other possibilities) without detailing the particular version of that system to be considered. It is in fact premature and presumptuous to limit the choice to one system before any public consultation has taken place. I urge you to change you position and lobby for electoral reform as a whole and fully cooperate with those Parties that have also elected for this approach which of course include the Liberals and the Green Party of Canada who have long held this position.
If we are to ever reform our electorate system it will require Consultation, Cooperation, and Consensus among those political parties who are not supporters of the status quot in order that the public does not simply become frustrated with the whole thing. I would hope that you and your colleagues and indeed ALL other MPs can put their political thirst for power aside and put our democracy at the top of their agendas.
The blogger known as 'Rural'.
Owner of the site 'Democracy Under Fire'.
CC Justin Trudeau, Elizabeth May
I note that any parliamentary email address in the 'CC' line was-
What Gives?
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
I am in receipt of you self congratulatory email boasting of how you have just signed the Fair Vote Canada's Politicians' Pledge, I congratulate you on doing so and would hope that many other MPs from all parties join you in doing so but have a number of concerns with the other issues raised in you communications.
Firstly your “commitment to make 2015 the last unfair election — and 2019 the first election to use a truly democratic electoral system” is clearly unobtainable...... unless you intend to either impose a new system upon Canadians without public consultation and a referendum on the issue or propose to hold a national referendum (with its extensive cost and logistics) BEFORE the 1019 election. This assumes that the NDP would be in a position to bring such a thing to pass which seems highly improbable. It is in fact highly improbable in any case unless and until the Liberals and the NDP stop sniping at each other and cooperate on this issues, including recognizing who the real enemy is – namely the Harper Regime.
I am further concerned with your statement that you “will be seeking a mandate to adopt a mixed member proportional representation system (MMP)”, NOT I note a mandate to seek public consultation (as the pledge says) for which system of electoral reform should be put before the citizens. There are several types of voting systems that each bring their own degree of 'proportionality' and with their own set of assets and difficulties, each of these systems can be further influenced by the manner in which they are implemented. It is insufficient to just say we support MMP (or for that matter any of the other possibilities) without detailing the particular version of that system to be considered. It is in fact premature and presumptuous to limit the choice to one system before any public consultation has taken place. I urge you to change you position and lobby for electoral reform as a whole and fully cooperate with those Parties that have also elected for this approach which of course include the Liberals and the Green Party of Canada who have long held this position.
If we are to ever reform our electorate system it will require Consultation, Cooperation, and Consensus among those political parties who are not supporters of the status quot in order that the public does not simply become frustrated with the whole thing. I would hope that you and your colleagues and indeed ALL other MPs can put their political thirst for power aside and put our democracy at the top of their agendas.
The blogger known as 'Rural'.
Owner of the site 'Democracy Under Fire'.
CC Justin Trudeau, Elizabeth May
I note that any parliamentary email address in the 'CC' line was-
rejected by the server for the recipient domain parl.gc.ca. by mailer88.parl.gc.ca. [192.197.82.88]. The error that the other server returned was: 550 Denied by policy
What Gives?
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Vitriolic nastiness does not breed respect.
Stephen Lewis , the former Ontario NDP leader, United Nations
ambassador and lifelong human rights advocate recently took aim at
the “pre-paleolithic Neanderthals” in office and their role in
the decline of Parliament, the suppression of dissent, the plight of
First Nations, their blinkered climate-change policy and our
plummeting world status.
That his words have been picked up by numerous newspapers and bloggers this week makes it no less important that his assessment of the Harper Regime be repeated here, they are words that need repeating time and time again.
Lewis told the Symons Lecture on the future of confederation: that Canada’s world standing is in free fall, the Harper government’s contempt for Parliament and its traditions has degraded political life and fostered voter cynicism and that its attitude to aboriginals is not paternalistic, it is racist. Also that Harper’s refusal to join the rest of the world and move toward renewable energy sources is endangering future generations and contributing to a looming planetary meltdown and that civil society and the ideas it fosters have been slapped down and censored, subverting democratic norms.
In comparing the current atmosphere in Ottawa to that of the Ontario legislature when he served there during William Davis years he said that there was then a respect in that chamber and that it was fostered by the premier.
“Vitriolic nastiness in debate does not breed respect, nor does adolescent partisanship, nor do pieces of legislation of encyclopedic length that hide contentious issues, nor does the sudden emergence of frenzied TV attack ads, nor does the spectre of a Prime Minister’s Office exercising authoritarian control.”Stephen Lewis
Another more recent politician who's scars from some of that “vitriolic nastiness” are still relatively fresh says that in his opinion there is no longer any expectation in politics of debating the message but just attacks upon the messenger
Michael Ignatieff says “I went into politics thinking that, if I made arguments in good faith, I’d get a hearing. It’s a reasonable assumption, but it’s wrong. In five and a half years in politics up north, no one really bothered to criticize my ideas, such as they were. It was never my message that was the issue. It was always the messenger.”
"They will not attack what you say, so much as your right to say anything at all.........”
He goes on to praise those that still come to work every day in the face of such abuse, which in any other place would be subject to numerous allegations of personal defamation or workplace harassment.
“The worst of them—the careerists and predators—you find in all professions. The best of them were a credit to democracy. They knew the difference between an adversary and an enemy, knew when to take half a loaf and when to insist on the whole bakery, knew when to trust their own judgment and when to listen to the people.
As I learned while watching wiser colleagues than I in a democratic legislature, it is really something in life to be utterly disabused about human motive, venality, capacity for double-crossing, and yet still come to work every day, trying to get something done.”
I start to wonder who would subject themselves to these working conditions and is this why we have so few honest, principled and truly dedicated MPs in the house. Unless you are one of those people, as Mr Ignatieff puts it, 'with outsized ambition, have a sense of vocation, a belief that something must be done, that you can make life better for a lot of people' why would you bother. Or is it just a place for those with an overblown desire for glory and fame?
Certainly the quality of the leadership, the respect for both democracy and opposing views, and in many cases the honesty of those charged with representing us in the Legislature seems to be diminishing daily. I can only hope that Stephen Lewis's 'possibility' becomes to pass – but somehow I dont see it happening any time soon, if ever!
“Somewhere in my soul, I cherish the possibility of a return to a vibrant democracy, where equality is the watchword, where people of different ideological conviction have respect for each other, where policy is debated rather than demeaned, where the great issues of the day are given thoughtful consideration, where Canada’s place on the world stage is seen as principled and laudatory, where human rights for all is the emblem of a decent civilized society.” Stephen Lewis
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
That his words have been picked up by numerous newspapers and bloggers this week makes it no less important that his assessment of the Harper Regime be repeated here, they are words that need repeating time and time again.
Lewis told the Symons Lecture on the future of confederation: that Canada’s world standing is in free fall, the Harper government’s contempt for Parliament and its traditions has degraded political life and fostered voter cynicism and that its attitude to aboriginals is not paternalistic, it is racist. Also that Harper’s refusal to join the rest of the world and move toward renewable energy sources is endangering future generations and contributing to a looming planetary meltdown and that civil society and the ideas it fosters have been slapped down and censored, subverting democratic norms.
In comparing the current atmosphere in Ottawa to that of the Ontario legislature when he served there during William Davis years he said that there was then a respect in that chamber and that it was fostered by the premier.
“Vitriolic nastiness in debate does not breed respect, nor does adolescent partisanship, nor do pieces of legislation of encyclopedic length that hide contentious issues, nor does the sudden emergence of frenzied TV attack ads, nor does the spectre of a Prime Minister’s Office exercising authoritarian control.”Stephen Lewis
Another more recent politician who's scars from some of that “vitriolic nastiness” are still relatively fresh says that in his opinion there is no longer any expectation in politics of debating the message but just attacks upon the messenger
Michael Ignatieff says “I went into politics thinking that, if I made arguments in good faith, I’d get a hearing. It’s a reasonable assumption, but it’s wrong. In five and a half years in politics up north, no one really bothered to criticize my ideas, such as they were. It was never my message that was the issue. It was always the messenger.”
"They will not attack what you say, so much as your right to say anything at all.........”
He goes on to praise those that still come to work every day in the face of such abuse, which in any other place would be subject to numerous allegations of personal defamation or workplace harassment.
“The worst of them—the careerists and predators—you find in all professions. The best of them were a credit to democracy. They knew the difference between an adversary and an enemy, knew when to take half a loaf and when to insist on the whole bakery, knew when to trust their own judgment and when to listen to the people.
As I learned while watching wiser colleagues than I in a democratic legislature, it is really something in life to be utterly disabused about human motive, venality, capacity for double-crossing, and yet still come to work every day, trying to get something done.”
I start to wonder who would subject themselves to these working conditions and is this why we have so few honest, principled and truly dedicated MPs in the house. Unless you are one of those people, as Mr Ignatieff puts it, 'with outsized ambition, have a sense of vocation, a belief that something must be done, that you can make life better for a lot of people' why would you bother. Or is it just a place for those with an overblown desire for glory and fame?
Certainly the quality of the leadership, the respect for both democracy and opposing views, and in many cases the honesty of those charged with representing us in the Legislature seems to be diminishing daily. I can only hope that Stephen Lewis's 'possibility' becomes to pass – but somehow I dont see it happening any time soon, if ever!
“Somewhere in my soul, I cherish the possibility of a return to a vibrant democracy, where equality is the watchword, where people of different ideological conviction have respect for each other, where policy is debated rather than demeaned, where the great issues of the day are given thoughtful consideration, where Canada’s place on the world stage is seen as principled and laudatory, where human rights for all is the emblem of a decent civilized society.” Stephen Lewis
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Blind Obedience, the Tool of Tyrants
A guest post by Pamela Mac Neil
“Here is how you're going to vote and here are your talking points”
On capital hill the above line is the kind of conversation, probably repeated many times, initiated by junior in the PMO's office, to Harpers backbenchers and various cabinet MP's. He/she may continue to say, the PM wants this bill passed at tomorrows question period and by the way, junior may add to the selected MP, usually a back bencher, the PM would also like you to ask this question in the House. Could the PM elaborate on "unconfirmed reports of a possible terrorist attack." There have been other scripted questions asked by various Conservative MP's that Harper has answered for the simple reason of manipulating the listening public to his agenda. This discourse usually precludes some policy or unconstitutional legislation he wants to enact. I'm sure that all departments come under Harpers thumb, but the two most troubling to me is Harpers Caucus and Cabinet. Harpers pursuit of power is not achieved, even if only some of the time, in isolation. His Caucus and Cabinet support that pursuit. They are his enablers. Caucus is supposed to hold the government to account, instead they follow orders abandoning their thinking and responsibility. The communications between the PMO and Harpers MP's has become a world of obedience and unity..
I've had a question that has bothered me for many years and I have answered it in part, but not in whole. The question is: Why do people in a free society obey? It's one thing for a person to obey in their personal life. It's another thing when people's obedience control the power of our democracy and in most cases, their decisions jeopardize the very freedom of our democracy, when these are the people who have been elected to protect our democracy. Why do MP's, some middle aged with alot of experience, obey a man like Harper. Part of the reason lies in the Evangelical Christian fundamentalists in Harpers caucus and cabinet. Anyone who's beliefs are completely lacking in any evidential proof and are accepted with unquestioning compliance, have shut down their minds and are in fact opposed to critical thinking. Being an Evangelical Christian does not require independent thought, but it does require obedience. What they call morals is simply blind obedience to commands. Obeying Harper is easy, because it's already a part of their identity. There are other reasons that MP's who are not religious or at the very least are not religious fundamentalists also obey, but how can any of these MP's not know that Harper is a dictatorial wanna be. This for me is what is so disturbing, that they do know that Harper is a tyrant and they still support his authoritarian agenda through their obedience. Why would free men and woman vote Canada into a dictatorship, ruled by a man whose total sense of worth is defined by how much power he has.
It is these MP's who in their support literally provide the power to Harper. They operate on one principle, obedience. They have given Harper the power to punish or reward them and our democracy is being destroyed so that MP's may have a chance to rise preferably to a cabinet post. They do not achieve success in their careers by merit, but rather by pull. Why does it not matter to these men and woman that they along with Harper, those we have entrusted with power, have perverted that power into tyranny. People who live under existing dictatorships obey out of fear, fear of imprisonment or death by the state. In a free society like Canada what are these MP's afraid of? What will happen to them if they choose to say no to Harper? Could it be that they are quite prepared to live in a dictatorship of there own making, under the rule of Harper? They cannot, not know, that with the present regime, that this is where Canada is heading. The power that these MP's are helping to create, if continued, will totally disempower the Canadian people. Power not supported by a nation is gotten through deceit, founded mainly in secrecy. Obedience to a political authority is voluntary slavery.
I watch from a distance because as a Canadian who is not a member of Stephen Harpers base even though I am one of the majority in Canada, I am not considered, nor am I included, along with the rest of the majority, as an integral part of the governmental process. Everything with Harper is at arms length, there are no close-up views. Regardless of the distance I have to remind myself that I am watching, almost daily, the govenment of the Canada, literally dismantling our democracy. I sometimes wish there was an alarm I could set off that would warn Canadians of the impending disaster. In the culture of Harpers government there is no negotiations, no discussions, only "grinding mediocrity" and conformity . It is a place where obedience is highly valued and bowed subservience is the position of the day. It is a place where thinking and confidence go to die. For the Canadian who is indifferent to this dictatorial power that is unfolding in our present government, I would suggest that you take a closer look at Harper and the people in his government, people who have targeted you as the enemy, so you will know how small, how mindless, how worthless, how insignifigant the people in this regime, those who you have sacrificed your freedom to, truly are, also you have not given away your freedom to a powerful, influential dynamic leader, but to a corner thug. Next year I will still be wondering ,in part anyway, why people in a free society obey, but I'd like to be able to add, but not the Canadian electorate in 2015. The Conservative MP's doctrine of blind obedience to Harper is a doctrine of despotism and has no place in Canadian society.
Below I have included several quotes from Pierre Trudeau purely for contrast.
"Let us overthrow the totems, break the taboo's, or better still, let us consider them cancelled. Coldly, let us be intelligent."
"I speak of a country where every person is free to fulfill himself or herself to the utmost, unhindered by the arbritrary actions of government."
"There is no such thing as a model or ideal Canadian. What would be more absurd than the concept of an "all Canadian" boy or girl? A society which emphasizes uniformity is one which creates intolerance and hate."
"The attainment of a just society is the cherished hope of civilized men."
Pamela Mac Neil's main interest is studying how ideas from philosophy and history shape politics, particularly Canadian politics.
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
“Here is how you're going to vote and here are your talking points”
On capital hill the above line is the kind of conversation, probably repeated many times, initiated by junior in the PMO's office, to Harpers backbenchers and various cabinet MP's. He/she may continue to say, the PM wants this bill passed at tomorrows question period and by the way, junior may add to the selected MP, usually a back bencher, the PM would also like you to ask this question in the House. Could the PM elaborate on "unconfirmed reports of a possible terrorist attack." There have been other scripted questions asked by various Conservative MP's that Harper has answered for the simple reason of manipulating the listening public to his agenda. This discourse usually precludes some policy or unconstitutional legislation he wants to enact. I'm sure that all departments come under Harpers thumb, but the two most troubling to me is Harpers Caucus and Cabinet. Harpers pursuit of power is not achieved, even if only some of the time, in isolation. His Caucus and Cabinet support that pursuit. They are his enablers. Caucus is supposed to hold the government to account, instead they follow orders abandoning their thinking and responsibility. The communications between the PMO and Harpers MP's has become a world of obedience and unity..
I've had a question that has bothered me for many years and I have answered it in part, but not in whole. The question is: Why do people in a free society obey? It's one thing for a person to obey in their personal life. It's another thing when people's obedience control the power of our democracy and in most cases, their decisions jeopardize the very freedom of our democracy, when these are the people who have been elected to protect our democracy. Why do MP's, some middle aged with alot of experience, obey a man like Harper. Part of the reason lies in the Evangelical Christian fundamentalists in Harpers caucus and cabinet. Anyone who's beliefs are completely lacking in any evidential proof and are accepted with unquestioning compliance, have shut down their minds and are in fact opposed to critical thinking. Being an Evangelical Christian does not require independent thought, but it does require obedience. What they call morals is simply blind obedience to commands. Obeying Harper is easy, because it's already a part of their identity. There are other reasons that MP's who are not religious or at the very least are not religious fundamentalists also obey, but how can any of these MP's not know that Harper is a dictatorial wanna be. This for me is what is so disturbing, that they do know that Harper is a tyrant and they still support his authoritarian agenda through their obedience. Why would free men and woman vote Canada into a dictatorship, ruled by a man whose total sense of worth is defined by how much power he has.
It is these MP's who in their support literally provide the power to Harper. They operate on one principle, obedience. They have given Harper the power to punish or reward them and our democracy is being destroyed so that MP's may have a chance to rise preferably to a cabinet post. They do not achieve success in their careers by merit, but rather by pull. Why does it not matter to these men and woman that they along with Harper, those we have entrusted with power, have perverted that power into tyranny. People who live under existing dictatorships obey out of fear, fear of imprisonment or death by the state. In a free society like Canada what are these MP's afraid of? What will happen to them if they choose to say no to Harper? Could it be that they are quite prepared to live in a dictatorship of there own making, under the rule of Harper? They cannot, not know, that with the present regime, that this is where Canada is heading. The power that these MP's are helping to create, if continued, will totally disempower the Canadian people. Power not supported by a nation is gotten through deceit, founded mainly in secrecy. Obedience to a political authority is voluntary slavery.
I watch from a distance because as a Canadian who is not a member of Stephen Harpers base even though I am one of the majority in Canada, I am not considered, nor am I included, along with the rest of the majority, as an integral part of the governmental process. Everything with Harper is at arms length, there are no close-up views. Regardless of the distance I have to remind myself that I am watching, almost daily, the govenment of the Canada, literally dismantling our democracy. I sometimes wish there was an alarm I could set off that would warn Canadians of the impending disaster. In the culture of Harpers government there is no negotiations, no discussions, only "grinding mediocrity" and conformity . It is a place where obedience is highly valued and bowed subservience is the position of the day. It is a place where thinking and confidence go to die. For the Canadian who is indifferent to this dictatorial power that is unfolding in our present government, I would suggest that you take a closer look at Harper and the people in his government, people who have targeted you as the enemy, so you will know how small, how mindless, how worthless, how insignifigant the people in this regime, those who you have sacrificed your freedom to, truly are, also you have not given away your freedom to a powerful, influential dynamic leader, but to a corner thug. Next year I will still be wondering ,in part anyway, why people in a free society obey, but I'd like to be able to add, but not the Canadian electorate in 2015. The Conservative MP's doctrine of blind obedience to Harper is a doctrine of despotism and has no place in Canadian society.
Below I have included several quotes from Pierre Trudeau purely for contrast.
"Let us overthrow the totems, break the taboo's, or better still, let us consider them cancelled. Coldly, let us be intelligent."
"I speak of a country where every person is free to fulfill himself or herself to the utmost, unhindered by the arbritrary actions of government."
"There is no such thing as a model or ideal Canadian. What would be more absurd than the concept of an "all Canadian" boy or girl? A society which emphasizes uniformity is one which creates intolerance and hate."
"The attainment of a just society is the cherished hope of civilized men."
Pamela Mac Neil's main interest is studying how ideas from philosophy and history shape politics, particularly Canadian politics.
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
