Canadian Spring in Bloom

If that is the case then true democrats passionately opposed to Bill C-23 should plan the second phase of their campaign soon - that is, use the opportunity hidden in the crisis to turn the bill into a massive voter legitimization campaign focused on those groups Harper and his point man Pierre Poilievre want to disenfranchise.  But more on that later.

Dobbin spares no rhetorical flourish in his piece and makes a point of tying "true democrats" with the NDP, but he also makes a lot of interesting points.  

Like the fact the Conservatives seem hell-bent on catalyzing a movement against them and spitting sparks on our convoluted electoral/democratic system.  All because they've gotten it into they're heads that they are an empire now and therefore entitled to a Divine Right of Government.

I find it interesting, though, that like most commentators Murray is focusing on the aggressive, noise-making critics like Idle No More.  There's copy in this because such groups already have traction, but there's a broader shift in public consciousness that, thanks to social media, is fundamentally changing the way the political game is played.

People who sell and those who profit by highlighting them are not paying attention to the emerging notion of UGC - User-Generated Content.  This is something businesses have started capitalizing on and bureaucracies are proactively starting to harness through the Open Data movement.

What's the opposite of a functionally-fixed government pushing policy that works for it, but nobody else?  A conscious and engaged public/public service collaboratively designing the policies they want and demanding government to implement them.

2014 is going to be an interesting year in terms of various threads weaving together - Open Data, Civic Disengagement, Social unrest and of course, elections.

Making this summer a perfect time for a Road Trip to explore and connect these various movements and populations through collaborative discussions and social media promotion of OpenGov.

Should the political big dogs be paying attention to this?  Probably not - they have bigger fish to fry.

But more on that later.

Fair Elections Act, Fair Game: Reap What You Sow

"And if that independence from government is attacked or is viewed as not being there, I really think those institutions lose the credibility and the respect that they have from the public.  And then if people start to doubt about the elections process, where does that leave us in this country?

"In this era when everybody's talking about increased transparency and accountability, why would they not be subject to some kind of audit?"

Is the Fair Elections Act a sneaky, not-so-subtle ploy to rejig the way our electoral system works in their favour?  Or is it a misguided attempt to fix problems the Tories feel exists within our system and they're simply too stubborn to realize they're wrong?

Probably a bit of both, with heavy leanings on the former.  Remember - this is the Conservative Government whose leader misrepresent an opposition coalition as illegal and whose House Leader threatened to ignore the Constitutional process by "going over the heads of" Parliament, to whom Government is legally accountable.

Which is the underlying story in this.  Folk like Vic Toews, Dean del Mastro and Pierre Poilievre have a certain mindset which has made them valuable attack-dogs for Stephen Harper.  They all believe that strength and superiority are the only virtues that matter.  They could care less about Harper's former vision of a Conservative Canada with greater independence for all - they're all about Empire and the entitlement that comes with it.  

All else is justification.

The biggest failing of their perspective is that they've made the assumptions that all the Canadians who matter feel the same way as they do.  Del Mastro felt violated by Elections Canada because he got caught breaking the rules in the same way Rob Ford feels violated for the press exploring his law-breaking ways.  Poilievre has taken extreme relish in the message-focused, fact-ignoring riposte of Question Period and Press Scrums, assuming that the Canadians who matter like the fact that he's hard-nosed and admire him for it.

This is a Party that has fallen from grace.  It's strayed far from the path Preston Manning laid out not that long ago.  

The newer faces in the crowd, however, don't care.  They're no longer interested in shrinking government; they're focused on consolidating power and control.

Should we be concerned about this alarming trend?  Yes and no.  

Yes, in that all the critics are right; the Fair Elections Act, like closed committee meetings, withheld information, increased micro-management by government of the agencies meant to provide transparency and technical oversight of political decisions before it, are damaging to the well-being of our democracy and the sustainability of our country.  

But this is a trend that started before the Harper Tories took power and looks likely to continue after they're gone, too.  That's part of the structural problem no Political Party has yet addressed, because they have become the problem.  Parliament and Government are Church and State - they're meant to be separate entities.  How can Parliament hold Government to account when Government is dominated by Parliamentarians?  It can't work.

Which is why there is long-term promise in the way the Poilievres of the world are undermining the system we have.  They don't see it - they're not practicing the lessons of Sun-tzu - but they are actually helping to catalyze the replacement of this system with something else.

By making it harder for the average Canadian to even pretend they have a system that represent their best interests, the likes of Poilievre are simply encouraging more Canadians to decide the only way to protect their interests is to go over the heads of Parliament and Government itself.

Occupy was a lot of noise without action, but it rattled cages.  Idle No More had (has) some teeth.   Despite the fact it has been infiltrated by government agencies like the FBI, Anonymous is still keeping a watchful eye on miscarriages of justice.  And the Open Data movement is looking to open government from the inside out.

If control, dominance and fire superiority (costly attack ads) are the Conservative Government's priorities, they're going to find themselves stamping down harder on a growing number of foes, which is a slippery slope for any government to walk.  But the same will hold true for any other Party looking to wrest the reigns of power from the Tories.

If you're paying attention, things are looking worrisome right now as far as the health of our democracy goes.  They'll get downright frightening before enough people are motivated enough to do something about it.  When that happens, though, there is already a legitimate, democratic movement underway to replace our ancient system.  

Not everyone will want to take the slow road of structural change, though.  Some will just want to make someone pay for the injustices they feel.  

At that point, Government and Parliament both will have a choice - lump all the change-seekers together in one group and declare war on all of them (which would be a big mistake) or opt to work with those actually trying to help them.

You reap what you sow.  Right now, the Conservatives are clear-cutting democracy; fortunately, there are others who have already planted the seeds of a responsible society.

Spring is coming to Canada, and it's about time.

Sweet Home Alberta, Where the Ground's A Slick Hue

Well, I heard Mister Young sing about her
Well, I heard old Neil put her down
Well I hope Neil Young will remember
The CPC don't need him around anyhow

Neil Young has made some headlines of late.  He's declared the Alberta Oil Sands a man-made disaster, going so far as to compare Fort McMurray to a Hiroshima-like wasteland.

This was a bit over-the-top; Hiroshima was a crowded city that was flattened with the intent of massacring everyone in a demonstration of force to cow the Japanese military machine. 

Comparisons between the Oil Sands and Mordor are far more appropriate - it is a landscape rendered inhospitable by activity designed to grow profit and power.  Nobody (no human being, at any rate) was living there, so no direct effort to harm people has been at play.  

The Oil Companies are doing what they are supposed to do - finding easy ways to profit and maximize their profit through the cheapest means of production possible.  Alberta is benefiting from the oil-generated wealth, so from an economic point of view, they're happy.  

The Stephen Harper Government of Canada is determined to slay the deficit, reduce public services and get everyone focused where they should be - on profit and consumerism - so they're all for expansion in the Alberta Oil Sands.  Drill more, sell more, diversify markets, get all Canada working in the natural resource sector - what can go wrong in this picture?

Well, a lot, actually.  Lots has been written about the impact of Oil Sands development on the flora and fauna of the region (what was there before, not so much now), but it's the leakage and potential impact on people that's of gravest concern.  Since 2009, for instance, there have been correlations made between higher-than-usual cancer rates in First Nations communities around the Oil Sands development region.  It's taken years of intense lobbying to even get to a point where studies are being done on this correlation to see if and how a connection might be made.

This probably annoys the Feds to know end; they're trying to get out of the healthcare business and focus on the economy and all this health-and-oil stuff is a big inconvenience.  Like a dentist-weary patient with a growing cavity, it's one of those things best ignored in the hopes that the problem will just stay as it is and not get in the way of extracting all that black sugar.

So, through a spokesperson, Stephen Harper weighed in with his response to Mister Young:

"The resource sector creates economic opportunities and employs tens of thousands of Canadians in high-wage jobs, contributing to a standard of living that is envied around the world and helping fund programs and services Canadians rely on." 

It's so true.  If Albertans weren't making good money off the Oil Sands, who could the provincial government tax to pay for cancer treatments for First Nations folk?

Team Harper has gone on to criticize Neil Young as being a bit of the pot calling the kettle tar-black; 

"Even the lifestyle of a rock star relies, to some degree, on the resources developed by thousands of hard-working Canadians every day."

This is also true.  Just look at Mike Duffy, former fundraising superstar for the CPC - you think that sort of lifestyle comes cheap?  The same, incidentally, applies to former Ontario Conservative MPP Peter Shurman; his boss Tim Hudak wanted to keep Shurman's high-wattage star in Thornhill despite knowing he lived in Niagara; that kind of star power demands a certain privilege.  

If you want to talk about Canadian celebrities, though, even Neil Young has nothing on Rob Ford.  Celebrities are supposed to attract attention and catalyze opinion (Ford or against).  

Toronto's Mayor has become the world's most famous Canadian and loves the attention he gets; the problem is, being a a celebrity is really disruptive to the work of Toronto's Council.

More time is spent discussing Ford follies, more media ink is wasted on following the latest scandal than is being spent addressing the critical issues addressing the city - and the country.

Toronto has been repeatedly paralyzed due to the celebrity of its Mayor, much as Canadian Politics is often mired in the notoriety of its Senators.  Scrutiny is a good thing, but it's only part of the role of Parliaments and Councils - weighing the public's varied interests and setting direction and policy, one would think, are at least as important.

Yes, Neil Young has generated headlines over his comments.  Yes, policy makers like Stephen Harper are telling him to keep his nose out of business that's not his.  But the Oil Sands aren't just about the economic opportunities for Oil Companies, the province of Alberta or federal coffers; it's an environmental and health issue as well.  

In a democracy, such things are the public's business.  Given how cynical and disengaged Canadians have become due to the cynical spin of politicians and their spokespersons, any fan of transparency, dialogue and citizen engagement should welcome the intervention of non-political celebrities like Neil Young.

Love him or hate him, agree or disagree with what he says, Young's turning focus back to where in needs to be and catalyzing a conversation that our political celebrities and the Oil Companies themselves have failed to do.

So I hope Mister Harper will remember
As he puts old Neil down
That Canada's about more than money
That we're built on common ground.

An Old Tune Growing Progressively Louder

I've never seen Les Mis.

The songs are familiar, though - almost like regardless of where or when we come from, we've heard them before.

Do you hear the people sing?
Singing the song of angry men?
It is the music of a people 
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start 
When tomorrow comes!

Alas, if you're tired of the refrain and can't get no relief, there's only one way out.

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 

 

 

Idle No More - No, really!

 

 

We believe in healthy, just, equitable and sustainable communities and have a vision and plan of how to build them.

 

Ask pretty much anyone how they're doing these days, you're likely to hear the word "busy."  It's become a badge of honour, an excuse for not getting back to someone or a deer-in-headlights realization that the amount of expectation does not match the amount of time generally considered available for accomplishment.

 

My day today was busy, but no more so than any other day in that if I have a moment, I'm generally filling it up with a productive activity.  I try to do nothing that is of no use - sleep is regenerative, play is to refresh the body/mind or absorb new ideas and try out new conceptual combinations.  I'm always suspicious of the people who, when asked what they're thinking will say "nothing" because to me, non-thinking is about as feasible as non-breathing.  Multi-tasking is my normative state.

 

I'm hardly alone in this.  People walking down the street are texting or talking on the phone, or both, making deals or making plans at the same time as walking the dog and getting their daily dose of cardio.  I won't soon forget the young woman who went in search of a power source during the recent Toronto blackout in search of a power source, because she needed to plug in her phone - the concept of just being and not doing for a spell simply wasn't on her plate as an option.

 

We are an agitated people, reinforced by a society that wants us to be agitated.  If we're not working (to fuel the economy) we should be spending (to fuel the economy) - plunking down coin on goods or services, supporting our community, buying local, being good Samaritans or good citizens.  If we're not doing those things, or even while we're doing those things, we're on social media - tweeting while we write, blogging (or thinking about blogging) simultaneously with doing something else, composing the next instagram masterpiece as part of our daily ablutions.

 

There's a sidebar to this.  Since we're all engaged, all the time, we don't want to be missing out on something, particularly something that feels like we're being excluded from.  We equally have a hard time doing things that don't seem to have personal meaning (despite what the Andrew Keene's of the world tell us, this is nothing new - it just happens that concepts like King and Country have been diluted of their mass appeal through things like the Senate Scandal).  If political debate seems too much like inside baseball and we don't have the time to learn the signals, we're not interested.  That protest over there is much more interesting and gives a better chance to express oneself more personally.  The cause might be our own, or we might make it our own, but it's better than the alternative of waiting around while things get done to, not with us.

 

Idle no more, indeed. 

 

The Summer of Discontent

"They are not listening to us," he added. "This is the beginning of a summer of discontent."

 

It's gonna be a hot summer in Toronto.  It's getting hotter across Canada.  Even Finland is feeling the heat.

 

Social discontent resulted I Occupy and the Tea Party Movement, just as it did Arab Spring.  In Canada, the second wave of protest was a bit more focused - people began to decide they would be Idle No More.

 

None of the issues that fuelled this rising protest moment have been addressed.  In fact, if anything, they've gotten worse.  Those political leaders who dislike progress can delude themselves it's possible to stamp out the spark of civic engagement and ignore the rising political temperature.  That just makes them the frog in the pot. 

 

It's a cycle we've seen before.   It would be most appropriate if a tree were to catalyse something bigger, something coordinated through social media, something viral and transformative.

 

I picked this as my song for last year's summer, but then I'm notorious for straying too far ahead.