Intent V Reality

The over the top coverage of the dress and makeup of a young fellow at a party some 20 years ago has reached the point of a media frenzy, whilst our society clearly needs a discussion about how we treat and view individuals who look or dress different from ourselves, the current media frenzy is motivated almost exclusively by political opportunists. Does anyone really believe that these obscure pictures were 'accidentally' found by someone who was genuinely concerned with the appearance of someone who is now almost two decades later in the public eye and were publicised just before said individual is up for reelection? Or is it more probable that one or more (and I think we know which 'one) political opponent was busy searching for something, anything, to spin the media coverage and public opinion to their advantage?

This whole discussion should NOT be about how we look or dress but how we ACT in our daily interaction with others, if our actions towards others is questionable it is the INTENT that needs to be examined not necessarily the perception given by the actions. Is a woman who wears a headscarf in the rain mocking one who wears a head covering for religious belief? I dont think so! On the other hand someone who takes to the streets to oppose immigration by those whos ethnic background is not the same as their own is clearly 'racist', dressing up as someone who looks different from ourselves at a party may be questionable given the sensitivity of such issues nowadays but circumstances must be examined. Are we to now to start being 'politically correct' and more closely examine our kids Halloween costumes for fear that our neighbours may be offended, where do YOU draw the line.

Perhaps the words of Calgary’s Muslim mayor Naheed Nenshi says it best …..
“I’m. “Canadians cannot stand on moral high ground calling out leaders for offensive things they did, years ago, if we’re not also willing to stand up to the racist and discriminatory behaviour that is directly in front of our faces in 2019,” He referred to the law in Quebec that bans some public sector employees from wearing religious symbols during work hours. “I, as a Muslim man, could hold any job I want, but under this law, a Muslim woman who covers with a headscarf cannot,” 

It is NOT about how we look or dress (except perhaps in Quebec) but how we treat others that may be a little different from what we are used to, its about respect towards others INCLUDING those with differing political views ….. enough said!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Rural Election Coverage Disappearing

“National media coverage of rural Canada during elections is thin, and local outlets are disappearing. The overall quality of Canadian debate suffers.” So says Barry Wilson in the online magazine policyoptions.irpp.org as a long time rural resident myself I cannot help but agree and so will highlight a few of Mr Wilsons valid points below, the link above will take you to the full article.

Reaching voters thinly spread across large areas with often-poor internet connectivity can be a daunting and expensive task. But rural voters represent a powerful electoral force. When the voter base in a constituency is just a fraction the size of densely populated urban ridings, winning over an individual rural voter can carry more election-day weight than garnering the support of three or four urban voters.

Certainly its harder for candidates to get their message out in rural areas be it via the internet or in person due to both the distances involved and the reduced communications infrastructure however I disagree that the voter base size has much impact. A quick look at the chart of voter populations vs individual riding reveals that there is little correlation within each province, there is a difference between provinces however with the less populated provinces having as much as half the number of voters per riding.

However, if election coverage in 2019 follows the well-established historic pattern, rural issues and analysis will receive scant detailed attention.... Besides, national election outcomes rarely are decided in rural Canada, and a commitment to spend limited resources on expensive, in-depth rural issues research is a hard sell. For rural voters, the scant coverage of their issues means their infrastructure, income or market access concerns will lack the broader political attention needed....

Even the rural candidates themselves rarely talk much about 'local' issues the order of the day for most candidates be in in rural areas or larger centers seems to be regurgitating the party line of their particular 'leader'. Given that said 'leader' (or more accurately his handlers) 'vetted' said candidate before letting him stand under their polotical banner this is hardly surprising!

Meanwhile, the challenges and costs of investing in infrastructure and services for low-density populations spread over vast distances add complexities that do not exist when programs are delivered to concentrated urban areas.

“The reality is that the per capita costs of providing services in rural areas is far higher than providing comparable services in urban areas and the political payback is less because there are fewer people benefiting,”

Its the old story, the squeaky wheel get the grease and noises from rural areas seem to get lost in the cacophony issuing from urban populations.

“The local community paper, although an increasingly rare breed, is the best vehicle for covering local issues, and people read it cover to cover,” he told me. “Urban outlets try, but they quickly find rural issues are complicated, demands and needs are different than in urban ridings and reporters don’t have the background.”

A factor in the limitations of rural election coverage is the steady erosion of rural media outlets and independent voices. As in urban Canada, the number of rural media outlets is falling, centralized ownership is increasing and newsroom budgets are tightening.

“The erosion of rural media outlets and independent voices.....” The 'erosion' hardly covers it, how about the elimination? Sure there are paper published is some larger rural communities but they are by enlarge owned by and much of the content 'controlled' by multinational newspaper chains. The truly independent LOCAL paper is a rare breed indeed, as is LOCAL online community news coverage (although I see some encouraging developments of 'citizen run initiatives' in this area). Is it little wonder that rural issues receive so little attention.

One final note here about what is meant by 'rural', Statscan defines it as settlements of under 1000 folks or with less than 400 folks per sq km which certainly does not include many areas in 'rural riding's' which include many communities defined as Rural and Small Town having less than 100,000 occupants which then included small cities which clearly are not rural. In short its hard to say what is and is not a 'rural riding' and even harder to separate issues of 'small town' residents from those from true 'rural' folks, each with somewhat different issues that need addressing. Is it any wonder that someone elected to represent this diverse population at a legislature overwhelming comprised of 'big city folks' has difficultly getting anyone to understand the various complexities of rural communities!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Democracy Delayed

 I regret that for the foreseeable future I will not be writing any commentary upon the state of our democracy on these pages due to personal family challenges that must be given a higher priority. This does not mean that I no longer have an ongoing and deep concern for the state of our democracy here in Canada and particularly more recently here in my home province of Ontario, the right wing mindset across much of our country seem determined to undermine and destroy many of our hard won democratic checks and balances. As with the gains we have made in that regard over the years, the largest of which in my humble opinion was ridding ourselves of of king Harper, the changes are generally so slow as to not raise any great debate, perhaps not so slow in recent months as King Frord polishes his sword.

I am no great scholar and will not attempt to point out the dangers that authoritative individuals in power can bring or lecture upon how few folks actual take the time to see what is happening behind various legislature closed doors but simply say this.... stay alert or you may be living in a country you do not recognize.

If you, the reader, feel strongly about protecting our democracy and have something to say but no place to say it I offer these pages as a place express your opinion. Whilst we are not read perhaps as much as some other bloggers who post more often, my years associated with Progressive Bloggers and their well read feeds do give some daylight to words placed here so feel free to submit you words for publication to cover for my absence.

Submit your articles directly to me at democracyunderfire@gmail.com generally there is no change in my conditions for publication as laid out in the front page link to Submitting Article . Responses from us may be a little delayed in actual publication please have patience but by all means participate in our struggle to protect our democracy.

Thanks for your support and reading over the last 10 years DMR (rural)

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Social Media, Good or Bad?

Recent events have brought the effect that 'social media' has upon our society in focus, perhaps it is a good thing that a sick individual has shown that it is possible to spread their sick views and actions world wide in seconds and is a wakeup call for society. The ease and speed with which information and opinions (accurate, inaccurate or plain hateful) can be disseminated is a relatively new phenomenon and largely unregulated, is that a good thing or something that needs to be more strictly controlled in a 'free' society?

If you search the phrase that titles this piece you will find numerous scholarly articles and opinion pieces covering this question and as a 'non user' of said platforms (unless you count blogger and email as such) I can hardly be counted as knowledgeable on its use. Does that make me and objective observer or an ignorant one, I will let you the reader decide!

Whilst the actions referenced above have perhaps brought this issue into focus it is far from the only similar atrocity, I suspect there is a much broader effect that modern communications are having upon our both our perceptions and our actions. Everything done or said by even the most obscure pundit or individual that is unusual, newsworthy, political or otherwise deemed worthy of being repeated is instantly spread via a few clicks on those insidious devices that most everyone now carries in their pocket.

“Social media has eliminated communication barriers and has paved the way for people to connect, collaborate and share their opinions and creations with anyone who is willing to listen. Social media is breaking down hierarchical, regional, age and cultural boundaries by providing a communication platform that spans across the globe and reaches us all. ..... Not being a part of “the movement” and specifically being targeted and/or excluded from such online networks has shown to be detrimental to a young adult’s mental and social wellbeing as it can lead to isolation and depression.” On the other hand given the main focus of my scribbling's over the last 10 years I cant help but wonder how much effect online media of all types have not only on our up and coming electorate but on the decisions all of us here in Canada will be making in a few months.

We are all addicted to the need for knowing what is going on around us (and I include myself here as although not on 'social media' I am no less addicted to google news and the like) as even some of those who administer said tool admit. 'Many studies have shown that the extensive use of social media can actually cause addiction to the users. Throughout their day, they feel to post something on their pages or check others posts as it has become an important part of our life. Facebook's former vice president for user growth, Chamath Palihapitiya, recently said "we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works,” and advised people to take a "hard break" from social media.'

As with is usual in sharing my thoughts with you my limited number of readers (as I said I'm NOT facebook and the like!) I have few answers but I do have many questions. I will leave you with this one....

Is the ease with which the actions of sick individuals who choose to demean, harass, attack and even kill other human beings can be spread on public forums being used by said people either as a guide and / or an encouragement to do the same? Is social media and the 'information age' part of the problem or part of the solution, should it be more closely 'regulated'?

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

The Echo Chamber....

Is 'Social Media an asset or an intrusive addiction? Is the ability to instantly access this stream of unfiltered information an asset or simply spreading misinformation? As someone who could be said to be addicted to the internet but is not 'on' any 'social media' I have mixed feelings about whether having the world in your hand is a good thing or a path to misinformation.

With well over 90% of adult Canadians using the internet regularly in one form or another and about 80% of those 'on' Facebook or some similar platform it can be seen how quickly 'news' (good, bad, or simply wrong) can be spread.

According to a new Nanos Research survey for The Globe and Mail more than seven in 10 Canadians think Facebook does a poor or very poor job of monitoring how the platform is used to influence politics. It also found that more than eight in 10 Canadians think Facebook is untrustworthy or somewhat untrustworthy with people’s personal data. Also, more than six in 10 Canadians say Facebook will have a negative or somewhat negative effect on the next federal election.

Twitter trolls linked to suspected foreign influence campaigns stoked controversy over pipelines and immigration in Canada, according to a CBC/Radio-Canada analysis of 9.6 million tweets from accounts since deleted. Roughly 21,600 tweets from those troll accounts directly targeted Canadians — many of them with messages critical of Canadian pipeline projects and tweets that highlighted divisions over Canada's policies on immigration and refugees......

"While social media and digital platforms create forums that allow Canadians to engage in a dialogue about important issues, they also have a record of being manipulated to spread disinformation, create confusion and exploit existing societal tensions," said Amy Butcher, a spokesperson for Minister of Democratic Institutions Karina Gould. "We expect [social media] companies to take concrete actions to combat manipulation."

And yet so many folks think everything they read there is gospel but as we have now found out there are those out there both foreign and domestic that would try to subvert our very democracy by spreading false information via these platforms. Even our own government is jumping on the bandwagon but how much of that content is unbiased 'information' and how much is self promoting spin is debatable.

Social media websites like Facebook and Twitter now take in the lion's share of federal advertising dollars, thanks to an ongoing increase in the use of digital advertising by government departments and agencies, new figures show. Of the $39.2 million spent on government advertisements last year, federal departments spent almost $18.2 million on digital ads — roughly 46 per cent of the total budget, which doesn't include production costs.

And, for the first time ever, social media ads made up the biggest slice of digital spending — 43 per cent, or roughly $7.8 million.

Make no mistake even this 'over 70 old fart' who is one of the very few NOT on social media but who is very much aware of its power is not advocating for ditching your cell phone but think that perhaps some of those platforms should come with the same sort of warning that comes with some other equipment “Danger extended use of Social media can set unrealistic expectations and create feelings of inadequacy and low self-esteem”! . Finally there is little doubt that the outcome of our upcoming Federal election will be greatly influenced by 'millennials' who in turn will be greatly influenced by what they read on their smart phones, let us hope they are smart enough to not believe everything they read.

Millennials are also digital natives. We (they) grew up with technology and have made it a central part of our lives. To the 94% of millennials who own a smart phone, that device is our most trusted assistant. It’s our bank, our travel agent, our newspaper, our telephone, our music player, and our weather person. That device lets us watch the video content we crave, order food, and get us from one place to the next (by using the Uber app in many cities).
And to the 85% of Canadian Millennials who check Facebook at least once a day, social media is how we stay connected, find out what’s happening in the world, and increasingly the way we learn about and connect with brands.

The question is whether its the information age or the disinformation age?

 

Update

A British MP committee has just released a report that mirrors my concerns regarding Social media and Facebook in particular..

"Democracy is at risk from the malicious and relentless targeting of citizens with disinformation and personalised 'dark adverts' from unidentifiable sources, delivered through the major social media platforms we use every day," concluded the report.

"The big tech companies are failing in the duty of care they owe to their users to act against harmful content, and to respect their data privacy rights."

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Falsehood Flies, especialy on Twitter

Falsehoods almost always beat out the truth on Twitter, penetrating further, faster, and deeper into the social network than accurate information. So says Soroush Vosoughi, a data scientist at MIT who has studied fake news since 2013 and who led the study referenced here.

A massive new study analyzes every major contested news story in English across the span of Twitter’s existence—some 126,000 stories, tweeted by 3 million users, over more than 10 years—and finds that the truth simply cannot compete with hoax and rumor. By every common metric, falsehood consistently dominates the truth on Twitter, the study finds: Fake news and false rumors reach more people, penetrate deeper into the social network, and spread much faster than accurate stories.................

A false story is much more likely to go viral than a real story, the authors find. A false story reaches 1,500 people six times quicker, on average, than a true story does. And while false stories outperform the truth on every subject—including business, terrorism and war, science and technology, and entertainment—fake news about politics regularly does best.

Twitter users seem almost to prefer sharing falsehoods. Even when the researchers controlled for every difference between the accounts originating rumors—like whether that person had more followers or was verified—falsehoods were still 70 percent more likely to get retweeted than accurate news............

It suggests that social-media platforms do not encourage the kind of behavior that anchors a democratic government. On platforms where every user is at once a reader, a writer, and a publisher, falsehoods are too seductive not to succeed: ..........

No being a twitter user myself I am no doubt somewhat biased on this subject however I wonder how much the content is influenced by the ease with which users can post (or repost) short clips f what should be a more in depth conversation of the subject under discussion. Is this leading to a society that communicates, and even thinks, in sound bites? I know that I am just as guilty as many others when viewing articles published on line in quickly scanning the first few lines and rarely actualy reading the full article unless it is particularly compelling.

It is unclear which interventions, if any, could reverse this tendency toward falsehood. “We don’t know enough to say what works and what doesn’t,” Aral told me. There is little evidence that people change their opinion because they see a fact-checking site reject one of their beliefs, for instance. Labeling fake news as such, on a social network or search engine, may do little to deter it as well.

In short, social media seems to systematically amplify falsehood at the expense of the truth, and no one—neither experts nor politicians nor tech companies—knows how to reverse that trend. It is a dangerous moment for any system of government premised on a common public reality.

The full quote from Jonathan Swift some three centurys ago is no less relevant now as it was back then, the difference being that now that afterthought , be it true or false, is circulated forever on the internet.

“Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: like a man, who hath thought of a good repartee when the discourse is changed, or the company parted; or like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.”

On the internet the patient never dies they just are transformed into multiple , often distorted, reflections of themselves! Then we have the Twit in Chief to the south of us busy making a mockery of what little value this 'platform' had left by daily using it to spread his strange vertion of the 'truth' (untruth?)

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Policticialy correct or a step backwards?

A group of activists called on the Ontario government to ban the practice of stationing uniformed police officers at high schools across the province after the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) voted to permanently end the program...... TDSB staff released a report recommending the elimination of the program because it left some students feeling intimidated or uncomfortable.


So because a few students feel intimidated by police presence this outreach by the police is 'banned'!


The School Resource Officer program, which the TDSB suspended at the end of August, saw police officers deployed at 45 of its high schools in an effort to improve safety and perceptions of police. ........ the majority of those surveyed had a generally positive impression. However, it noted, about 10 per cent felt intimidated, uncomfortable or that they were being watched at school.


Whilst a majority of the students had a positive view of the program the 10 or 15% who did not (supported by a few vocal anti police acctivists) diminish the work done by these officers to improve the relationship between kids and police in these schools.


Rodney Diverlus, a member of Black Lives Matter, said there are better supports for students than having officers in schools.
“We believe the removal of the program puts an emphasis on the Ministry of Education to actually give adequate funding to the TDSB and other boards to support in having child and youth workers, equity-based social workers, more guidance counsellors and more time for teachers and teaching staff,” Diverlus said. “A wide range of educators and community-based workers would better support students, student safety and student achievement.”


One cannot disagree that some schools need more resources to guide and support 'troubled' students however to remove the officers from these schools without a viable alternative in place is a step backwards. The idea that school boards already pressed for funds will provide such extra resources in the forseeable future is dreaming in tecniclouur


Toronto Police Association president Mike McCormack, however, said the board’s decision did not come as a surprise, adding that he thinks it was politically motivated.
“I think there is a lot of value in the program and now that value has been squandered or lost,” “here’s an opportunity to look at that 10 per cent and say, ‘Why do you have these perceptions?’” “For me, someone who has worked in community-based policing, this is the type of group where you want ... to understand what’s going on and you want to improve the relationship,” “For me, someone who has worked in community-based policing, this is the type of group where you want ... to understand what’s going on and you want to improve the relationship,” McCormack said.


Indeed this program appeared to have a positive impact with many kids and seemed to improve the relationship between law enforcement and the youth involved for the most part. Its a shame that a greater effort was not made to address the concerns of the vocal few that did not see it that way without the discontinuation of this attempt to improve the interaction between students and police.


Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

A Farce of a Electoral “Consultation”?

Last week I posted the details of out local Mp's (Larry Miller) upcoming Telephone Town Hall re Electoral Reform not to promote him but to promote discussion about this important initiative. Well said teleconference is now history and the reports are in and they are not good. I had said in my previous post that I had little faith in Mr Miller accurately forwarding the broad range of opinion that could well ensue and that the number of folks actually getting to express their view would be limited.
Apparently that will not be a problem in that allegedly those that wished to express a view that did not coincide with Mr Millers FPTP and referendum views did not get a chance to speak and thus 100% of the callers did in fact, as Mr Miller previously alleged did the callers to his office, “support the current first-past-the-post voting system.”

This from our local news blog “The Hub”
Anyone who listened in on Larry Miller's tele-forum Tuesday evening, Sept. 27, was treated to a Miller kiss fest and a merry orgy of misinformation. Larry got what he wanted. Sure enough, one hundred percent of his constituents were opposed to proportional representation. No doubt we'll hear him trumpeting this "fact" soon enough.
Perhaps all the supporters of PR were smarter than I was and just stayed away knowing it would be a farce. Or they were, like me evidently, screened out by Larry's operators, with only clapping seals who wouldn't challenge him being let through.
I was waiting in the queue for 40 minutes. At one point toward the end, we heard him say, "I see another call has come in," and he took the other person. What about the queue? My call was already in. Why wasn't I next? Was it because his operator had earlier asked me what I intend to say and I foolishly blurted out the truth that I wanted to provide some information about proportional representation?
Fortunately the results are so lopsided that they shoot him in his own foot. That not one person was heard to support PR advertises the lack of credibility of the whole vain exercise. Like those third world despots hated by their people who are elected with 99 per cent of the vote every time.............
Read more


Interestingly, it not being a 'live' meeting there is no direct report from any other local media for comparison, we wonder if this was a deliberate move by Mr Miller to avoid such reporting? Mr Miller however continues to defend his 'no change' position and says the 30 or so people who did get to express their views were not 'filtered'!


As previously posted at The Rural Canadian

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Local MP to hold Teleconference.

September 27th, 2016 - MP Larry Miller will be hosting a community TeleForum for residents in the riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound. 7pm-8pm. Residents will receive a phone call at approximately 7pm and will be given instructions on how to participate.

Larry Miller, Member of Parliament for Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, will be hosting a telephone town hall meeting (teleforum) with residents of the riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound on the topic of electoral reform. The teleforum will take place on Tuesday, September 27th from 7:00p.m. – 8:00p.m.
Residents will have the opportunity to listen to and join in a discussion with Mr. Miller on the topic of electoral reform including: whether a national referendum is required to change the voting system, alternative voting systems, mandatory voting and online voting. The discussion from the teleforum will inform a submission from Mr. Miller to the Special Committee on Electoral Reform (ERRE).
Residents will receive an automated phone call shortly before 7:00p.m. on the 27th and will be prompted to remain on the line. Those wishing to participate must simply remain on the line. Those who miss the call but receive a message on their answering machine will be given instructions on how to participate.
"I am looking forward to hearing a number of different concerns, questions, and opinions on electoral reform," said Miller. "It is my hope that a community teleforum will allow for the greatest number of participants possible. I hope that all will take the time to participate in this important discussion."
Those with questions or concerns about how to participate are encouraged to contact Mr. Miller's office.
The Sun Times reports that....
“Miller said there should be a full national referendum before changes are made to the electoral system.
He said about 80 per cent of the people he has heard from share that view.
Miller said about two-thirds of the constituents who have contacted him or responded to a question that was sent in a recent mail-out from his office have said they support the current first-past-the-post voting system.”
Personalty I am not going to bother, I have made my views known directly to the committee and I have little faith that Mr Millers report to them will accurately represent the wide variety of opinions that will no doubt been pressed by those that manage to get a minute or two to speak in the hour allowed at his teleconference.
As for the majority contacting him “supporting the current first-past-the-post voting system.” that may well be true in that the Conservative mantra is just that however this does not reflect the general feeling a cording to a number of national polls. The only reason for supporting a referendum on any changes is to further support this position in that those that do not understand a new system will undoubtedly vote for the status quo, and make no mistake some of the options currently on the table are fully understood by very few citizens.

Cross posted at The Rural Canadian
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Special Committee on Electoral Reform to travel across Canada

With a mandate to broadly consult Canadians from all walks of life, the Special Committee on Electoral Reform will criss-cross Canada this coming September and October. The Committee will use this opportunity to hold formal hearings and public sessions where members of the public may share their views on electoral reform, online voting and mandatory voting. For the open-mic sessions, it will be first come, first served. The format for these public sessions and the specific locations for the sessions remain to be determined. A press release providing further details will be issued at a later date.

The Committee’s mandate was set out in the motion adopted by the House of Commons on Tuesday, June 7, 2016. The Committee must present its report to the House of Commons no later than December 1, 2016.

Committee’s Travel Schedule (Tentative)

Monday, September 19	Regina, Saskatchewan
Tuesday, September 20	St-Pierre-Jolys, Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba
Wednesday, September 21	Toronto, Ontario
Thursday, September 22	Québec, Québec
Friday, September 23	Joliette, Québec
Monday, September 26	Whitehorse, Yukon
Tuesday, September 27	Site visit (to be determined) Victoria, British Columbia
Wednesday, September 28	Vancouver, British Columbia
Thursday, September 29	Leduc, Alberta
Friday, September 30	Yellowknife, Northwest Territories
Monday, October 3	Montréal, Québec
Tuesday, October 4	Halifax, Nova Scotia
Wednesday, October 5	St. John’s, Newfoundland
Thursday, October 6	Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island
Friday, October 7	Fredericton, New Brunswick
To be determined	Iqaluit, Nunavut

Those wishing to contribute to the Committee’s discussions may find out how do so by reading the full news release on the Parliament of Canada website..


We wonder exactly how useful these few meetings where the committee members will hear a few opinions from a limited number of people on a first come first heard basis, I would suggest a written submission would be to the committal to be much easier and more effective for most folks. I also wonder about the above proposed schedule which details one meeting per province or territory EXCEPT Quebec where 3 are scheduled and BC where 2 are on the list, I wonder what criteria such inequality was based upon?


We know that each MP is expected to hold a 'Town Hall' to permit some of their constituents to express their views on electoral reform and many have done so already and been reported upon in various local news media. It will be interesting to see how closely the subsequent reports from those MP’s match the actual general tone of said meetings and how much of the various 'party lines' colour these synopsis of the meetings!


Finally for those not following such thing closely one of the Conservative members of the committee has withdrawn, it is unclear if a replacement has been named or if he or she will be equally wasting the committee’s time bellyaching about having a referendum!


According to the Hill Times’s report, Mr. Kenney “quietly gave up his spot on the key federal reform committee in the middle of August.” How quietly? According to the publication, his resignation was “unbeknownst to journalists who at the time were covering testimony” to the committee on Aug. 22, and also “even unknown to at least two MPs on the busy panel” until last week.
No loss I would say given his confrontational style both in this instance and elsewhere.



Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Electoral Reform Committee Now More Democratic

“Liberal MPs will throw their support behind NDP MP Nathan Cullen’s counter-proposal to divvy up the seats around the committee table based on the share of the vote parties received in the last election.
That works out to five Liberals, three Conservatives, two New Democrats and one each for the Bloc Quebecois and the Green Party’s Elizabeth May, all of whom will have full voting rights.
That means the government will have to garner the support of at least one other party to win a vote at the committee table.”

I am very pleased to see that the Liberals have finaly seen the wisdom of NOT having a majority vote on the committee to recommend changes to our voting system. As I have said before it is important that any decision must not only be non partisan but must be seen to be non partisan, the new makeup of the committee goes a long way to ensuring that.


Perhaps now the committee can have a discussion about ALL the various systems available without the spurious allegations that this system or that flavors this party or that. There is little doubt that 'proportional systems will enhance the possibility of smaller partys (particularly the Greens) of getting more seats in The House but I believe that the more diverse make up of voting members will result in a much better outcome.


Now lets get the process started and not rush the public consultation part of the deliberations where almost everyone who has really studied the options is just as torn between the choices as will be the committee members. I do not envy then their work on this!


Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

The Silence is Becoming Deafening.

A few weeks ago I reported that my local Conservative MP “will be declining to participate in any all-candidates meeting that follows the traditional format, one he says simply does not work. He says he would prefer a format where each candidate is given a few minutes for opening statements and then they go to a corner and take questions directly from voters.” This follows closely the mantra coming out of Con mouthpieces during the 2011 election where there was a very long list of Con candidates who refused to partake in all candidates meetings.
Here's what spokesman Ryan Sparrow wrote  in 2011 about the direction given to local candidates when it comes to all-candidates' forums:

We provide support for candidates to participate in candidates debates, but we don't instruct them not to attend debates. Most candidates would prefer to meet with voters one on one though instead of debating their opponents in crowds of committed supporters of the different parties. (I would have thought that the whole point of attending an all candidates meeting would be that you were NOT committed and wanted to hear alternative ideas and plans).

This time however it seems they are being instructed to avoid not only any public debate but also any interviews where their words may be quoted..............


Conservatives running in the federal election have been advised not to attend all-candidates’ meetings or speak to reporters during the campaign, a party source says.
A Conservative insider said Wednesday that most of Stephen Harper’s flag-bearers have “been told no debates and no media.”
The informal edict appears to affect Tory candidates across the country, which explains why so many press interviews are being rebuffed.
“They’re getting pulled out of everything,” the source said, noting even some experienced cabinet ministers are being instructed to avoid candidates’ forums before the Oct. 19 election.

Andrew MacDougall, Harper’s director of communications from 2012 to 2013, said “The number one job of a candidate is to meet voters and identify votes,” Apparently forums where the party line can be challenged by knowledgeable opponents and where opinions and platforms can be shared with a wider audience is verboten but meeting individuals at the door where it is much easier to bury them in party line bullshit is OK.
During the time I have lived in this rural riding (through two previous federal elections and several provincial elections) I have not once seen ANY candidate at my door, without public debates, the reporting thereof, and press interviews of the candidates, I may as well pull a name out of my hat. No candidate can personally visit every household in his riding and to suggest that this should be the ONLY way for a candidate to make his views known to the voters is patently ridiculous. There is only one reason for this edict and that is the Conservative record of destroying our democratic institutions, massive cutbacks to social programs, science, environmental protections etc etc simply cannot be defended and the pre-programmed lines dictated from above start to sound as meaningless as they actually are when repeated in the press time and time again.
The only real question is why these supposedly intelligent Con candidates obey the word of their master, have they all been lobotomized?



Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

Abraham Lincoln

And if you want to see how vindictive and petty the HarperCons can be see this https://youtu.be/Ei50lM6ab1c then this Cons suspend writer of Harperman song







Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Too Much Money?

With much speculation (Harper, will meet with Governor General David Johnston, Queen Elizabeth II’s representative in Canada, Sunday at 9:55 a.m., according to a statement released late Saturday by the prime minister’s office.) that today is the day that Harper will go to the GG and dissolve parliament thus resulting in a record 11 week election period (or not) here is a quick review of the inordinate amount of money that will be spent during that time. No attempt has been made to estimate the millions spent by the Harper regime in recent months assassinating one particular opposition leader or how much of our money was spent promoting their various taxable bribes for families with children and other self promotion on our dime.

With longer campaign possible taxpayers could be on the hook for more than ususal since they subsidize the donations that fuel campaigns and then subsidize parties and their candidates again for spending that money during a campaign.

“Most of the money parties and candidates will be throwing around during the campaign comes from donations, which are worth a generous tax credit of 75 per cent on the first $400, 50 per cent on the next $350 and 33.3 per cent on the next $500.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation estimates those tax credits are worth somewhere between $16 million and $36 million per year in foregone revenue.
Each party running a full slate of candidates is entitled to spend a maximum of about $25 million for a five-week campaign; each candidate an average of about $100,000.
But, under the recently passed Fair Elections Act, those spending limits will increase by 1/37 for each day a campaign exceeds 37 days. That’s an extra $675,000 per day for each party’s national campaign, an additional $2,700 per day for their candidates.
A campaign that is double the minimum length would effectively double the spending limits and, theoretically, double the amount of money parties and candidates stand to be reimbursed, at up to 50 per cent for parties and up to 60 per cent for candidates, — by taxpayers — when it’s all over.
The rebates handed out to parties and candidates after the five-week election campaign in 2011 were estimated by Elections Canada to be over $60 million, presuming most of their funding came from individual donations a further $60 million or so in tax deductions would also be available to those individuals. With an extended election period the various rebates, tax deductions and extra administrative costs of longer office leases for returning offices, staff and equipment, estimated at $375 million for a 37day campaign, could easily approach $100 million.
A third party can spend a total of $205,800 across Canada during a 37-day campaign, and no more than $4,116 in any riding, this total however would increase by a little over $5500 per day for a longer election period. A number of rules as to what and who falls into this category exist.


Then there is this courtesy of Montreal Simon

Many, if not most, of these cheques will go towards community projects that desperately need some federal funding, some of which have been waiting for years for funding, its not the expenditure thats the problem its the timing! This ploy to buy votes is so obvious and blatant that no one should fall for it, but many will actually believe that line “well now we have balanced the budget we can afford it” line, this despite the PBO assertion that that we are in fact in the hole still and that the economy is tanking!

As I have said here before I am coming to the conclusion that the limits on party and candidate spending, contributors tax deductions, and party and candidate reimbursement, should all be further restricted not increased as was brought in by that “Fair” Elections Act. If we are to have “Fair” elections the impact that “big money” has upon what the electorate hears about a particular party or candidate must be restricted and the ability of parties or candidates with less access to large war chests, such as those with support in less affluent riding’s, to put their platform before the public must be enhanced.

There are ways that they can put their ideas and platforms before the general public across the country without any cost to the public purse or their own coffers – one such is called 'debates' and although many will have limited circulation there WAS one that was available across the country. Now it seems that Mulclair has joined Harper in laying down 'conditions' tor any debates that he participates in that will kill the TV Consortium’s proposed October debate and further sideline the only Leader whom they all seem scared to debate. How can any leader who supports democracy (we know Harper does not, but Mulclair purports to) agree to debates that do not include ALL party leaders who have a seat in The House and support in every province.

Unfortunately little can be done to restrict advertising by individuals, groups or parties outside the election period, in a democracy folks are free to express their opinion and spend their money how they wish, but I sure want MUCH stronger, enforceable, rules upon government self promotion advertising and an independent body to vet such advertising BEFORE it hits the airwaves. Well I guy can dream cant he?

Sadly there is a real danger that the guys who spend the most money on attack Ads, self promotion and spreading lies and innuendo will be the ones to buy the most votes, would but that were not true but far too many folks are easily fooled.


Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

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 6^th 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

Conservative MP Declines Debate

Bruce Grey Owen Sound MP Larry Miller is declining an invite to take part in an all candidates debate sponsored by the Owen Sound and District Chamber of Commerce.
He says he will be declining to participate in any all-candidates meeting that follows the traditional format, one he says simply does not work. He says he would prefer a format where each candidate is given a few minutes for opening statements and then they go to a corner and take questions directly from voters.

And so it starts where Conservative candidates, many of whom avoided all candidates debates in 2011, play follow the leader and will only “debate” where the format suits them. Certainty in smaller communities where a limited number of voters show up for such debates the ability of voters to directly ask the candidates questions is helpful but with much more than a handful of folk present the table to table private chats that Miller prefers is hardly practical. Such a format also permits candidates of any party to make promises and assertions without being challenged by their opponents and without the press being able to properly cover such statements.
We wonder if Mr Miller is perhaps not so comfortable spouting the lines provided by the PMO and various ministers, wants to avoid making publicly embarrassing statements as he has in the past or simply cant remember his lines! Certainly there is nothing wrong with requesting changes to debate format but to avoid debates that dont suit your personal preference seems to very much reflect the conservatives and their leaders mind set of my way or no way.

The Conservative MP issued a statement in May of 2011 just after his re-election to Parliament, saying these debates have simply become a contest between candidates to see who can get the greatest number of supporters out to cheer and jeer. He says they are only attending to cheer louder than the supporters of other parties or embarrass another candidate with planted questions. Miller says this was made clear to him at a debate during the last campaign when he asked the crowd of 300 people if anyone was still undecided on who to vote for, and only about a dozen people put up their hands.
See his letter to the Editor and hear his statement to Bayshore news.

Look for much more of this sort of attempt to control the dialogue from the Conservatives as the election approaches and increased pressure is put upon all candidates to put their positions before the public so that they can make an informed choice.

UPDATE June 24th

Miller now says he'll take part in the one urban debate in Owen Sound on October 1st and likely one rural one. However he says he won't take part in a series of debates like there was in 2011. He says the fact that the debate will be televised several times by Rogers means it will be available to people who normally can't get out to these meetings and that swayed his decision.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers