The Week of Revelations?

Its been a week of revelations, or perhaps that should be a week of confirmations of what we already knew, but either way the reports of the Auditor General and Ontario Ombudsman have given several thing a little more light of day. A number of other press releases and news reports this week have shown that Democracy is indeed Under Fire, I am not sure whether I should be depressed that such things are going on or glad that the manipulation of our system of government is being brought to light.

The following are but a few of the reports this week, if you can read these and then say that our democracy is not in trouble then you are either brain dead or so blind that you should not need those rose-coloured glasses that you are wearing!

Read them and weep.......

Prime Minister Stephen Harper nominated Ouimet as commissioner on June 12, 2007, saying her "unique combination of skills and experience [would] serve her well as she leads the implementation of the new regime for the protection of whistleblowers."

It didn't turn out that way, given the AG's findings, and one must question whether this was the intent of Mr. Harper all along, to undermine the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner position and let public sector whistleblowers twist in the wind.

http://impolitical.blogspot.com/2010/12/harpers-integrity-commissioner.html

“Our voting system creates a large risk of the most anti-democratic of all outcomes, which is a majority government that got the minority of public votes,” said Green Leader Elizabeth May. May was granted the right to intervene in a case before the Quebec Court of Appeal that argues the current electoral system in that province violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/890489--democracy-groups-take-aim-at-canada-s-electoral-system

“A full year after Parliament demanded those documents, this charade hasn’t made a single document public. It flies in the face of the Speaker’s ruling. Instead of holding this government to account, my opposition colleagues are helping to shield records at the heart of this investigation,” said Defence Critic Jack Harris. “If they couldn’t see it six months ago, surely they can see it now: We need a public inquiry.” http://farnwide.blogspot.com/2010/12/parliament-is-submissive.html

It will be twelve months ago Friday that the Commons passed a motion demanding the government release documents revealing what ministers and generals knew about Afghanistan prisoner abuse. Since then, an ugly fight that included the padlocking of Parliament and a celebrated ruling by Speaker Peter Milliken fizzled into a hapless skirmish, leaving Canadians none the wiser.

Conservative prospects were so bleak last December that Harper prorogued Parliament — thinly claiming the government needed time to recalibrate its agenda — rather than disclose documents widely believed to be damning. But oh what a difference a year makes. Today Conservatives are climbing opinion polls, pressure for an inquiry is below zero and Liberals along with the Bloc are mired in a glacial process that has yet to make a single document public.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/903851--travers-harper-escapes-political-control-prisoner-scrutiny

“By changing the legal landscape without fanfare in this way, regulation 233/10 operated as a trap for those who relied on their ordinary legal rights,” wrote Marin in his exhaustive post-mortem.....

“The effect of the regulation … was to infringe on the freedom of expression in ways that do not seem justifiable in a free and democratic society,”

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/902817

The Harper government is bracing for a backlash over a border security agreement it is negotiating with the United States, anticipating it will spark worries about eroding sovereignty and privacy rights, a document obtained by The Globe and Mail shows...............

The communications strategy for the perimeter security declaration – which the document says will be unveiled in January, 2011 – predicts one of the biggest potential critics will be the federal privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart. That’s because the deal is expected to increase the amount of data exchanged between law enforcement and other government authorities in both countries.

http://pov-mentarch1.blogspot.com/2010/12/welcome-to-your-authoritarian.html

Canada is under pressure from U.S. officials to further comply with American security rules which in some cases, threatens its sovereignty and the privacy of its citizens. As a result of the war on terrorism, the U.S. government now has more power to restrict air travel and is not only dictating North American, but also international security measures.
Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act would require Canadian airline carriers that fly over the U.S. to provide the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with passenger information. This includes name, date of birth, gender, as well as passport and itinerary details when applicable.

http://beyourownleader.blogspot.com/2010/11/canada-surrenders-sovereignty-and.html

If the concepts of power, representation, justice, equality, citizenship and human rights figured more prominently in public debate, then we would have at our fingertips an analytically rigorous set of ideas that both reveal and explain the uneven distribution of influence and resources that undermines democracy at this time. Taking transformative action to rebuild our political fabric would follow from each of those starting points. Yet all six themes have lost traction relative to the totemic markers of our time, notably competitiveness, productivity and economic growth.

http://reviewcanada.ca/essays/2010/12/01/canadian-political-science-missing-in-action/

There are times when all our politicians fail Canadians, and even the most partisan amongst us have to admit it they’re all behaving like fools. And the actions of the major three parties when it comes to Bill C-12 is one of those times.C-12 is a government bill that the Conservatives have been in no big hurry to pass, and the opposition parties have shown no particular desire to push them on.

http://bcinto.blogspot.com/2010/12/conservatives-liberals-and-ndp.html

A remote area of Mexican desert is popularly referred to as the 'Silent Zone'.  Radio communications are said to fail there due to local magnetic fields, and some claim that conversations cannot even be heard when people are in the Zone.  Is the Senate in danger of becoming a similarly afflicted zone?  Quite possibly, although not by reason of natural causes.
http://www.albertasenator.ca/hullabaloos/?article&542

Perhaps the whole of Canada is in a silent zone, because our political masters sure do not seem to be hearing us, or if they are our words are left drifting in the wind.........

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Fair Representation not coming anytime soon.

But for John Ibbitson's bit in the G&M the demise of the bill to bring just a little more proportional representation to our Canadian parliament would probably gone unnoticed. It seems that ALL our representatives in the HoC, or a least all their party bosses, have decided quietly amongst themselves that bill C12, a bill to bring the number of MPs more closely aligned with population growth will be shelved.

To quote Ibbison “Sources report that the Conservative, Liberal and NDP leadership encountered strong resistance to the bill among Quebec and Maritime MPs, who correctly argued that their regions would have relatively less influence in the House. The Bloc Québécois opposed the legislation from the start.

The Liberals and Conservatives especially feared that passing the bill could harm the electoral prospects of their Quebec MPs. Facing caucus revolts and potential electoral losses, the government shelved the bill.”

In other words who gives a shit about democracy or fair representation when we (the party) may loose a few seats in an already over represented area. What chance then of getting ANY support for the far wider electoral reform that is sorely needed in this country, those now in power along with those who think they may have a chance to regain power will fight tooth and nail to retain the status quo because it serves THEIR interest. When will these folks who are supposed to be representing the best interests of their Constituents and OUR Country start putting those interests before self and Party? Not until they are forced to I suspect.

The imbalance is highlighted by Ibbitson by pointing out some numbers from the recent by-election - “The need for the bill was manifest in Monday’s by-elections. In the exurban Toronto riding of Vaughan, 120,864 voters were entitled to cast ballots. But Winnipeg North has only 51,198 electors, making a vote in Greater Toronto worth less than half the value of a vote in Winnipeg.”

Even worse are these numbers from StageLeft -

“Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux will take his seat in parliament to represent the riding of Winnipeg North after collecting 7,303 of a possible 51,198 votes - that's 14.26% of the electorate.

Conservative MP Julian Fantino will take his seat in Parliament to represent the riding of Vaughan after collecting 19,260 of a possible 120,864 votes - that's 15.94% of the electorate.

Conservative MP Robert Sopuk will take his seat in Parliament to represent the riding of Dauphin--Swan River--Marquette after collecting 8,176 of a possible 53,549 votes - that's 15.27% of the electorate. “

No matter which side of the equation these MPs are on it would seem that they can hardly say that they have the support of their constituents or indeed truly represent the riding from which they come. True, the turn out was pathetic, not that such apathy is uncommon in by-elections, or for that matter general elections. If the question was asked “why do you not vote” I suspect many respondents would say “Because my vote makes no difference, even if the person I vote for wins the 'party' will dictate how he votes anyway, so why bother”!

I maintain (despite that I am one of those minorities whose vote will have less clout should proportional representation ever take hold, a rural resident) that representation that more closely follows the actual wishes of our citizens can do nothing but improve the way in which our democracy works. I will mean a broader range of views will actually see the light of day in parliament, it will mean less of a monopoly of power by the long established partys, it will mean more citizens will feel they have greater control over who gets elected and may even wrest a little power back from those Political Partys who think their way is the highway and everyone else is to be ignored.

Returning to the killing of Bill C12, its not all bad. In these times of fiscal restraint the addition of 30 new MPs would cost us a minimum of 18 to 20 Million a year if we include salaries, pensions, office budgets, allowances and services provided by the House. Its hard to gain any perspective when our government proposes to spend millions on fighter jets designed for war when our search and rescue folks still do not have new helicopters and our navy still does not have any heavy ice breakers to patrol our northern waters. When our prime minister and his ministers have increased their own spending by 16.5%, when Harper's office expenses ballooned to $9,894,370 (Yes, thats almost 10 MILLION in “office expenses”) in 2009, when the Conservative government spent $100 million on polling over the past five years.

It seems to me it is not MORE MPs we need, but BETTER MPs working for the betterment of our citizens rater than the “Party”, representing a more evenly distributed number of citizens and elected in a more representative way!

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Defending Democracy

In any civilized society there must be rules which we all generally follow, in a democracy hopefully we have at least some input at to what those rules are even if only by selecting those who make them. There will always be those who do not fully agree with such rules and whilst we all have a problem with some of them we generally follow them as to do otherwise leads to anarchy and chaos. We have in such a democratic civilized society a number of ways to indicate our displeasure when such rules are not to our liking, voicing our opinion to those that make the rules or kicking them out at the first opportunity or pressuring those responsible by publicly making our views known in letters, blogs, print or in the streets.

Non of these methods is particularly effective for the individual citizen and sometimes such protests get out of hand and a few individuals go 'over the top' and promote or participate in violence and / or property damage in order to 'get attention'. Whilst I perhaps understand such frustration I do not condone it, again I believe this is the path to chaos.

This brings me to the point of this post, the lack of respect on BOTH sides, protester and law enforcement, by a few individuals that brings into question our ability to remain a peaceful and cohesive society. Recent reports have clearly shown that there are SOME who are tasked with upholding the rules that our governments have placed upon us (whether we agree with them or not) have been abusing the power vested in them to enable them to do this difficult and sometimes dangerous job. Worse, their colleagues, who cannot help but be aware of such abuses, stand back and do nothing, either at the time or after the fact. There have been a number of well documented cases where such abuses of power have either been highlighted in court or in official inquiries but little if anything has been done to correct the problem or penalize those responsible. I view such lack of accountability a real problem for our democracy, for our society depends upon us having at least a passing respect for our legal system, not only from the average citizen but also from those who enforce it and from those who decide upon the penalties for 'breaking the rules'. If the majority of citizens come to believe that the legal system, of which our police are part of, does not work or is biased then it clearly will not work and cannot help but eventually fail. As with government if those at the top do not respect the rules then what incentive is there for the citizen to follow them? Is this why we need more jails?

How can our system of law enforcement (or government) survive, as other than an arm of a dictatorship, if there are no repercussions for those responsible for upholding the rules, and they are not subject to the same rules and same punishment as the average citizen who does the same thing. Not only must there be equal treatment but such treatment must be seen to be done openly, equally and investigated independently of the very system that these folks are part of. When fellow officers either through a sense of loyalty, fear of repercussion from colleagues, or some other repercussion of speaking out, remain silent in such situations they are no less responsible for the ever decreasing respect with which their job is held than those that abuse the power that such jobs hold. Continuing in this direction is a recipe for more civil unrest not less, its a difficult job, do your job with as much restraint as possible officers, but do not protect those amongst you that clearly cannot be trusted with such power.

Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers