Rob Ford and Lawrence Heights

"This was a very brazen, cowardly act in a community that has made great strides in the past few years to bring a sense of calm and safety to the area," Crone said of Lawrence Heights, a neighbourhood that has seen more than its fair share of gun violence in the past.

 

 

One dead, Toronto's 23rd murder this year, with two other lives still hanging in the balance.  A recovering community that has legitimately been doing a great deal to take ownership and strengthen their community, rocked by gun violence once again.

 

This happened in a community in Toronto, a stone's throw from the incredibly busy intersection of Lawrence and the Allen. 

 

Yet what's everyone talking about today?

 

Rob Ford and his rehab shenanigans.

 

Toronto's Mayor has broken the law, broken public trust, been abusive to staff, competitors and even people he was in rehab with.  He's a walking disaster, a parody of what's worst about politics, a circus side-show in a city facing a whole host of serious, structural issues, among which is postal-code stigma, poverty and related, crime and gun violence.

 

We love him for it.  We are addicted to Rob Ford.  Like true addicts, we are so focused on our next Ford fix that we ignore the destruction he leaves behind as much as we tune out the issues that mayors should be drawing attention to.

 

It's not just the general public that's rushing for their Ford fix, seeking spin-off celebrity.  The big-name mayoral candidates are quick to rush out press releases commenting on the latest Ford gaffes, like it somehow matters what they have to say about Ford's antics.

 

Where, pray tell, are statements from Oliva Chow or John Tory or Karen Stintz on the murder of Abshir Hassan?  Where is the empathy for a devastated community, the resolve to work with community leaders to solve the issues that lead to crimes like this?

 

Crickets.

 

Whether they know it's happened at all or whether their political staffers have told them there's no votes in Lawrence Heights, so don't bother, or the risk of speaking out outweighs the gains for some reason, I don't know.  What I do know is that this silence is exactly why communities like Lawrence Heights have good reason to be skeptical about the commitment their government has for their well-being.

 

Maybe they should take up golf, or maybe they should en-masse become crack-addicts that make homophobic slurs in public places.  That seems to be what it takes to get people's attention in this City.

 

For anyone who does care - one mayoral candidate who's expressed interest in sitting down with youth in Lawrence Heights and talking about community engagement is Morgan Baskin.  Hopefully, that happens. 

 

At the same time there are young leaders in Lawrence Heights itself working hard to develop leadership programs, entrepreneurship centres and the like - places that seek to empower residents to be masters of their own fate rather than passive recipients of programs.  These folk are reaching out to whoever can help them achieve their goals - including organizations like My SoJo.

 

There is so much potential in Lawrence Heights, as there is in "priority neighbourhoods" throughout the City.  With a bit if empowering help and peer support, there's no limit to what they can achieve.

 

But we live in a world where voices like these are expected to come all the way to decision-makers while buffoons like Rob Ford get international coverage for what they're doing wrong.  Even the criminals get off easy, so long as they can hide in Rob Ford's shadow.

 

It's a screwy, irrational, self-destructive paradigm we live in, folks. 

 

And it ain't going to change on its own.

 

Until we start saying no to the sideshow, roll up our sleeves and start leading from the front, we will continue to be stuck with leadership that focuses on sizzle more than steak.

 

It's a show we've been before, and it wasn't funny the first time.  It's time to change the channel, folks.

 

Occupy, Idle No More, Voices-Voix: Our Grassroots are Showing

Occupy wasn't/isn't very organized, nor did it mean to be.  More than anything, Occupy could be seen as a cri du coeur, a call for attention.  Idle No More was a bit more concrete - it had/has spokespeople, more nuanced positions and requests.  Then you have organizations and movements ranging from Anonymous to 404 Systems Error to Samara to Why Should I Care, all engaging new methods and new technologies to build awareness, engagement and accountability.

 

Call me crazy, but I very much see a pattern in all of this.

 

Is the Voices-Voix Coalition the next iteration is this ongoing evolution of grassroots engagement?  If so, what does it mean for politics as a whole?

 

 

 

 

Canadian government enemy list: Voices-Voix letter to PM Harper

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper

Prime Minister of Canada
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A2
By fax: 613-941-6900
July 24, 2013

Dear Prime Minister,

We are writing to you on behalf of Voices-Voix, a coalition of more than 200 national and local civil society organizations across the country.  We are seriously concerned about recent reports that your office had instructed government officials to compile “friend and enemy stakeholder” lists as part of the process of preparing briefing materials for new members of Cabinet.

Prime Minister, we are in particular deeply troubled about the use of the term “enemy”; seemingly to describe individuals or organizations with views critical of or in opposition to government policies and initiatives.  We call on you, as a matter of urgency, to make it clear that any such lists already compiled will not be used, no further lists will be prepared and that there is no place for such terminology in describing how the government perceives its critics.  Instead, it is vital that Canadians hear unequivocally and personally from you, acknowledging that your government accepts and welcomes opposition and disagreement as an essential dimension to developing strong public policy and maintaining a vibrant democracy.

Voices-Voix came together in 2010, reflective of growing concern that the space for civil society dissent and advocacy with respect to a range of critical social and public policy matters in Canada - including women’s equality, the environment and other human rights issues - has become significantly constrained, both directly and indirectly, through a variety of government decisions and actions in recent years.

We have researched and documented numerous instances of individuals and groups suffering serious financial, organizational and professional consequences because they have disagreed with the government.  We have also sought to engage with government, parliamentarians and the public with an eye to building deeper understanding of the crucial importance of ensuring that individuals, communities and organizations reflective of diverse and critical views are able to participate in public debates and discourse without fear of repercussion and with government support when necessary.

Given Voices-Voix’ focus on shoring up and bolstering the space for civil society advocacy and dissent in Canada, the news of the “enemy stakeholder” list is obviously of very serious concern.  At a time when many organizations and individuals are already nervous about publicly expressing disagreement with the government, additional hesitation that they may be labelled an “enemy” for doing so will inevitably increase that level of trepidation.  That in turn has very real implications for fundamental rights protected under international human rights law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly.  This is of course worrying when it comes to the discussion and debate that is needed regarding the particular environmental, human rights and other issues that may be at stake; it is worrying more widely as well though with respect to the state of democracy in Canada.  Plain and simple, in a healthy democracy government does not publicly talk of its critics and detractors as enemies.

Prime Minister, civil society organizations across the country are waiting to see you demonstrate and assert the urgent leadership that is needed in the wake of the revelation of this intention to prepare enemy stakeholder lists; leadership that affirms and appreciates the work we do.  As such, we call on you to:   

1. Make public any “enemy stakeholder” lists that may already have been compiled, confirm that such lists will not be used by the government, and make an unequivocal commitment to prepare no other such lists.
2. State publicly that the government acknowledges and unequivocally welcomes the essential role of civil society in Canada across a range of activities, including service delivery, research and advocacy.
3. Proactively seek regular opportunities to clearly state that the government does not see civil society groups that may be critical of government policies or initiatives as enemies, but rather as important partners in developing and delivering sound public policy and programs.
4. Convene a multi-sector government/civil society roundtable process tasked with identifying measures that would strengthen the independence and better support the work of civil society groups in Canada.

The news that some members of government view civil society critics as enemies has become a source of considerable worry and consternation.  It can now serve as an opportunity for the government to renew that relationship, so as to bolster the many essential contributions that civil society groups make to both developing better understanding and addressing pressing social needs locally and nationally right across the country.

Representatives of the Voices-Voix Coalition would welcome an opportunity to meet with you and/or other government representatives to discuss our concerns and recommendations further.  A meeting can be arranged by contacting the Voices-Voix Coordinator Aurore Fauret by email at communications@voices-voix.ca or by phone at 514 770 4950.

Sincerely,

On behalf of the Voices-Voix Coalition Steering Committee
 

Alex Neve
Secretary General
Amnesty International Canada
Béatrice Vaugrante
Directrice Générale
Amnistie International Canada francophone
Robert Fox
Executive Director
Oxfam Canada
Leilani Farha
Executive Director
Canada Without Poverty Advocacy Network
Pearl Eliadis
Barrister and Solicitor
Lecturer, Faculty of Law, McGill University
Charis Kamphuis
Convener
Research Network on Dissent, Democracy and the Law
Julia Sanchez
President-CEO
Canadian Council for International Cooperation
Michel Lambert
Directeur général
Alternatives 

 

 

When Innovation Fails (by John Kotter)

Incremental changes are referred to as innovations. Tweaks to products are considered innovations. Reorganizations to “better serve customers and markets” or to “align internal capabilities” are intended to make companies more innovative; in fact, they are often touted as innovations in and of themselves. We have missed the point. These are not “innovations” – rather they are simply “improvements.”

First, we lacked enthusiasm. None of us went into the process with a sense of passion that we could, or even should, find something new and different. We were appointed, and as we all know, when you are tapped on the shoulder, you don’t say no, lest you jeopardize your next promotion.

Second, we were all senior. Way too senior. Yes, a senior leader’s perspective is useful, but much more important is that of the many customer-facing people who are dealing with these issues everyday, trying to fix what is broken, seeing what others are doing, and who know (almost without thinking about it) what is wrong with how the company does what it does. They have less to lose by challenging and questioning, and it doesn’t form the basis of what made them successful. Conversely, how eager are leaders to challenge that which made them successful in the first instance?

Third, no-one knew what we were trying to do. Who cared if we had spent 100 hours working on building something new and exciting? The other 14 people, maybe. And those who did know about our little initiative? They looked at us as though we had all the answers; by being placed on the “Innovation Board,” we were seen as the innovative thinkers — and, as a result, others were left feeling that they lacked what it took to generate fresh, game-changing ideas. How wrong.

The way we tried to create innovation — organizing, prescribing, and delegating it — didn’t work. Yes, these groups may improve things — maybe even a lot of things — but rarely is this “innovation.” Producing the next product (like the iPod) or creating a new market (Instagram, without a big team) that had never existed before — that is innovation. Microsoft creating the Surface — not so much innovation, and more catch up? Thinking once an innovator, always an innovator — not a path to success.

Innovation does not come out of a controlled situation. If you want more innovation, allow more chaos. Follow these steps to create that chaos.

1) Use only volunteers. Who in your organization feels excited about trying to build that next product or market? Let THEM — the people on the front lines, who are doing their day jobs, who happen to know your business better than anyone else — into the process. Jim Whitehurst of Red Hat figured this out. Others have too.

2) Sponsor an environment that encourages risk-taking. It’s fantastic if an employee takes initiative and risks making innovation. What do you do if they fail? Are they punished? You can be certain if an employee is punished for taking a risk toward innovation, that other employees will not be taking any risks.

3) Make time for brainstorming. It takes time, and sometimes it takes creating a particular environment to get employees into an innovative mindset.

This approach will foster some truly transformative ideas, and there will be an enthusiastic base of supporters ready to turn those ideas into action.

Now that’s a novel approach. Maybe, dare I say, an innovation.

Russell Raath is a senior engagement leader at Kotter International, a firm that helps leaders accelerate strategy implementation in their organizations.

You can't blame me for enjoying it when what I say fits in with what smarter people are suggesting.  But either way, there it is.