There is a very clever thing that politicians, mostly on the right, but probably all across the political spectrum, do when trying to build support for an idea that would be very unpopular if presented in clear and honest terms. They spin it.
They take a concept like, say, keeping people they don't like because of their religion or skin colour or sexual orientation, out of the country. Now, most people in Canada would say, "That's terrible! That is racist/homophobic/xenophobic! That is not what we do in Canada! In fact, that is un-Canadian!"
"Un-Canadian" There it is. That's the hook. Based on some focus groups and watching social media, the spin doctors realize that Canadians are concerned about and actively dislike things they perceive as un-Canadian behaviour. Like racism. And hatred based on religion. And homophobia.
Alright then, they think. How do we frame what is a de facto filter to keep these people of colour, Muslims, and others we don't agree with out of the country in a way that sounds like we are actually supporting Canadian values and protecting the country from un-Canadian ideas?
To start with, let's talk about really abhorrent things that most people will agree are un-Canadian. Honour killings. Marrying 12 year old girls to old men. Female genital mutilation. Terrorism. Never mind that these things are already fully covered under our criminal code. Never mind that it is almost impossible to test people for their values. Never mind that if anyone is actually thinking, "Gee, I think I will move to Canada and do heinous deeds", they will probably lie about their values and intentions to get in. Never mind that the kind of in-depth interview process this screening would require would effectively shut off immigration because of the time and manpower it would take to conduct.
Because none of that is the point. The end-game here is to a) stir up hostility towards minorities (because the CPC is well aware that many of their base harbour deep suspicions about those who dress, look, speak, or worship differently from themselves), b) clog up the the immigration system to ensure that only those the CPC approves of can get in, and c) move public sentiment more in line with the alt-right nationalist view that Canada should be a white, Christian country.
And the strategy is brilliant. None of us want murderers, torturers, rapists, child abusers coming here to do their thing. Which makes this proposition so difficult to argue against. As a vague concept, screening immigrants for un-Canadian values seems like a good idea. But, what exactly, are un-Canadian values? Who gets to decide? Would prospective immigrants be asked if they are willing to convert to Christianity? If they accept creationism as a theory equal to or better than evolution? If they support pro-life and teaching abstinence in sex ed instead of teaching real biology? In short, will they be screened for "social conservative" values? Seems like a crackerjack way to increase the voter base.
Much talk has been given to "tolerance" and "diversity" being Canadian values that would be screened for. But, seriously, how tolerant and accepting of diversity is screening people to find out if they think just like you?
In practice, it is an unworkable plan. But that isn't the point. The point is to get Canadians dredging their deep subconscious for those racist, xenophobic, homophobic feelings and dragging them out. Putting them on display, much as the Trump campaign did in the US. Appeal to people's baser instincts under the guise of keeping us all safe. But, safe from what? If someone has a different complexion, believes in a different religion (or no religion), loves a different gender than the traditional, it does not mean they pose any threat to you. Tolerance, acceptance, and celebrating diversity are Canadian values. Screening for those who are different is not. Nor is stirring up latent fear, dividing people, plumbing for hatred.
We have to keep our eyes on the puck here and not be hornswoggled by clever spinning.
Showing posts with label Canadian politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canadian politics. Show all posts
Monday, 14 November 2016
Wednesday, 17 June 2015
I know it's a lot to ask...
Can we just calm down and take a deep breath and think this through?
In October 2014, one raggedy, drug-addicted, mentally ill man tried to take Parliament Hill with a pump action shotgun. He shot one person, an unarmed honour guard who was facing the other way, before he was taken down in a hail of bullets.
The RCMP and any other security, clearly screwed up in that the guy was able to make it into the hall outside the caucus rooms and almost all the way to the Parliamentary library...
But the media and politicians have ramped this up. The rhetoric suggests a Rambo-like character armed with a Kalishnikov stormed the very heart of the House of Commons. And that is why Harper says we need to give up our rights and freedoms. So he can protect us from the bogey-men.
"ISIS is in our midst!", "The jihadists have attacked the core of Canada!", "We are at war!"
Please... Breathe.
They immediately called it a terrorist attack. They didn't call the killing of 3 Mounties in Moncton a terrorist attack. Maybe because Justin Bourque was white. Maybe because he had more mainstream mental health issues, like rage.
To say a person is "radicalized" is not really a very good descriptor of their mental state. Was the person "radicalized" by someone? Or did the person happen upon some online propaganda that appealed to their deep sense of alienation so much that they latched onto it and made it their mantra? Did you know Charles Manson thought the Beatles were telling him to kill people in their song lyrics? Effectively, he was radicalized...
And then, there is the case of the couple recently found guilty of terrorism in BC. The RCMP all but dug the holes to bury the pressure cooker bombs for them. Did Michael Zehaf-Bibeau have RCMP handlers? Did they give him the gun, the ammo, the script for his final cell-phone video, and the car to get to Parliament Hill? We will likely never know. That it is not outside the bounds of possibility is more than disturbing, though.
And how did it happen that the PM and members of his cabinet were able to identify the driver of a car that hit and killed another soldier in Quebec a couple of weeks earlier as a jihadi terrorist before the story even hit the news? The timing was such that it almost was like they knew it was going to happen. They jumped the gun, just a teensy bit, but enough to raise some questions.
So where are we now? Bill C-51 will take away our privacy. It will make it possible for the various law enforcement agencies to make judgements on us based on our communications with others, either in public forums such as social media or in so-called private communications, and it is at their discretion to determine whether we may pose a potential risk to the security of Canada. Or is that a threat to the security of Harper as PM? Hard to know, really.
They can share our information with a very long list of other organizations. That would include health records, income tax information, legal information, and what you had for lunch on Thursday. Are you really ok with that?
Other goodies in C-51 include being able to intercept and alter your communications, disrupt or shut down your blog or web-site, and detain you without charges for at least a week without you having actually done anything. Just because they think you might, maybe, do something that would constitute some kind of risk to someone. Still ok with it?
They are curtailed by the restriction that they may not rape or kill you. But there are ever so many other things they could do to make your life hell that are excluded from that. That restriction, de facto, authorizes torture. Just not sexual or lethal torture. Still all cool with C-51?
There is no recourse to the law. It is up to CSIS to decide if their infringement of your rights is egregious enough to seek a warrant from a judge. And let's not forget, Harper made Vic Toews a judge, so there is very little reassurance in them seeking a warrant to violate your human rights. Hearings will be in private, with secret evidence and witnesses. There is no appeal.
If you are an immigrant with Canadian citizenship, they can strip your citizenship (thanks to bill C-24). They can also do that if you were born here but either have acquired dual citizenship through the citizenship of your parents or by applying for it for work, study, etc. If there is some chance you might be eligible to claim citizenship anywhere by virtue of your grandparents being born somewhere else, they can take your citizenship and deport you.
And with their mandatory minimum sentences for all manner of things they can snoop on your communications and lock you up and throw away they key for all manner of offences.
There has been a slow but insidious build-up of tools for the Harper government to get rid of critics and opponents one way or another. They say terrorist threat, but many say the real targets are First Nations, environmentalists, and critics.
Last I heard, you were far more likely to be killed by lightening, or moose, or geese, or coyotes in Canada than by a terrorist.
In closing, if a lost, homeless, muddled guy with a gun like the kind country kids use to shoot gophers is the best ISIS can come up with to attack Canada, I would rather keep my freedoms and privacy, thanks ever so...
In October 2014, one raggedy, drug-addicted, mentally ill man tried to take Parliament Hill with a pump action shotgun. He shot one person, an unarmed honour guard who was facing the other way, before he was taken down in a hail of bullets.
The RCMP and any other security, clearly screwed up in that the guy was able to make it into the hall outside the caucus rooms and almost all the way to the Parliamentary library...
But the media and politicians have ramped this up. The rhetoric suggests a Rambo-like character armed with a Kalishnikov stormed the very heart of the House of Commons. And that is why Harper says we need to give up our rights and freedoms. So he can protect us from the bogey-men.
"ISIS is in our midst!", "The jihadists have attacked the core of Canada!", "We are at war!"
Please... Breathe.
They immediately called it a terrorist attack. They didn't call the killing of 3 Mounties in Moncton a terrorist attack. Maybe because Justin Bourque was white. Maybe because he had more mainstream mental health issues, like rage.
To say a person is "radicalized" is not really a very good descriptor of their mental state. Was the person "radicalized" by someone? Or did the person happen upon some online propaganda that appealed to their deep sense of alienation so much that they latched onto it and made it their mantra? Did you know Charles Manson thought the Beatles were telling him to kill people in their song lyrics? Effectively, he was radicalized...
And then, there is the case of the couple recently found guilty of terrorism in BC. The RCMP all but dug the holes to bury the pressure cooker bombs for them. Did Michael Zehaf-Bibeau have RCMP handlers? Did they give him the gun, the ammo, the script for his final cell-phone video, and the car to get to Parliament Hill? We will likely never know. That it is not outside the bounds of possibility is more than disturbing, though.
And how did it happen that the PM and members of his cabinet were able to identify the driver of a car that hit and killed another soldier in Quebec a couple of weeks earlier as a jihadi terrorist before the story even hit the news? The timing was such that it almost was like they knew it was going to happen. They jumped the gun, just a teensy bit, but enough to raise some questions.
So where are we now? Bill C-51 will take away our privacy. It will make it possible for the various law enforcement agencies to make judgements on us based on our communications with others, either in public forums such as social media or in so-called private communications, and it is at their discretion to determine whether we may pose a potential risk to the security of Canada. Or is that a threat to the security of Harper as PM? Hard to know, really.
They can share our information with a very long list of other organizations. That would include health records, income tax information, legal information, and what you had for lunch on Thursday. Are you really ok with that?
Other goodies in C-51 include being able to intercept and alter your communications, disrupt or shut down your blog or web-site, and detain you without charges for at least a week without you having actually done anything. Just because they think you might, maybe, do something that would constitute some kind of risk to someone. Still ok with it?
They are curtailed by the restriction that they may not rape or kill you. But there are ever so many other things they could do to make your life hell that are excluded from that. That restriction, de facto, authorizes torture. Just not sexual or lethal torture. Still all cool with C-51?
There is no recourse to the law. It is up to CSIS to decide if their infringement of your rights is egregious enough to seek a warrant from a judge. And let's not forget, Harper made Vic Toews a judge, so there is very little reassurance in them seeking a warrant to violate your human rights. Hearings will be in private, with secret evidence and witnesses. There is no appeal.
If you are an immigrant with Canadian citizenship, they can strip your citizenship (thanks to bill C-24). They can also do that if you were born here but either have acquired dual citizenship through the citizenship of your parents or by applying for it for work, study, etc. If there is some chance you might be eligible to claim citizenship anywhere by virtue of your grandparents being born somewhere else, they can take your citizenship and deport you.
And with their mandatory minimum sentences for all manner of things they can snoop on your communications and lock you up and throw away they key for all manner of offences.
There has been a slow but insidious build-up of tools for the Harper government to get rid of critics and opponents one way or another. They say terrorist threat, but many say the real targets are First Nations, environmentalists, and critics.
Last I heard, you were far more likely to be killed by lightening, or moose, or geese, or coyotes in Canada than by a terrorist.
In closing, if a lost, homeless, muddled guy with a gun like the kind country kids use to shoot gophers is the best ISIS can come up with to attack Canada, I would rather keep my freedoms and privacy, thanks ever so...
Thoughts on the Death of a Police Officer
Dear Mainstream Canadian Media: Is it really necessary to engage in this orgy of grief every time someone in uniform dies? It is a terrible tragedy, yes. Possibly one that could have been averted if guns were more tightly controlled, or if there was some way for police to know there are firearms behind the door they are approaching.
But do we really need to see every parade of police through the streets, hear from the mothers of other officers, hear from every first responder willing to talk to your camera crew? Do we need to intrude on the funeral itself, like a nation of voyeurs? It is sensationalizing what is really a personal tragedy for his family, and for his friends. More than that, it conveys the impression that the world is a very dark and dangerous place. It supports the increased militarization of police services in the minds of viewers.
Fear is not a positive social norm. Regardless of the current government's enthusiasm for instilling dread in the public, thus justifying their draconian laws, CBC, the national broadcaster, the PUBLIC broadcaster, is doing us a great disservice by reinforcing the fear message, as are the privately controlled media. There is a place for respectful recognition and tribute. But continuous coverage of the funeral all day is over the top, and enters the realm of the lurid.
Generations past would be utterly horrified by this conversion of personal tragedy into public spectacle. Workers who die in accidents on the job also die "in the line of duty", but they do not get massive death pageants. The glorification of the police and military, just like the many over-sized flags that Harper likes to festoon any place he speaks, and the military monuments that are springing up around the country, are all part of the psychological take-over that is being perpetrated on Canada.
I, like every one else in Canada, feel very sad for this family that has had husband, son, father ripped from them. This is not a negation of their pain, or the support the Edmonton community has offered them. This is about the manipulation of this tragedy for political ends.
Tuesday, 20 January 2015
Myth and Meaning: Deconstructing a Conservative Party of Canada Fundraising Letter
This is an actual CPC fund-raising letter that has been floating around on the internet over the past few days. It is similar in many ways to most other CPC fundraising letters.
Now, let's have a good look at what they say.
I'm sorry to have to do this, but I have some disturbing news to share with you.
Here they are setting the stage. "Disturbing news" sets up a sense of anxiety, perhaps alarm. In psychology this is known as "priming". It's a technique designed to put the subject (the letter recipient) into a certain frame of mind which will enhance the impact of the subsequent information. The use of the phrase "to share with you" implies familiarity. It is intended to make the recipient feel like a part of something, an insider.
I was recently made aware of a plan by Quebec's largest trade union, the FTQ, to attack Conservative candidates in 8 ridings. Even worse, this is part of a larger plan by a group of unions to unseat Conservatives in 60 ridings across Canada!
"I was recently made aware of a plan" makes it sound like this is some sort of dark ops that CPC intelligence has uncovered. The use of the word "attack" makes it seem like something violent and unsavoury is about to occur. "Even worse" - this transfers negativity on the first part. People who receive CPC fund-raising letters frequently are already primed to respond to the word "union" with mistrust, outrage and condemnation. Unions are a central theme common to many CPC requests for money. Unions, media, special interest groups (like First Nations, environmentalists, veterans, women...) are among the favourite CPC bogeymen used to elicit funds.
The plan, called "Beat the Conservatives," is a clear attack on a fundamental Canadian principle of democracy.
"Beat the Conservatives" is a pretty lame slogan. I would have thought the unions could have come up with something catchier. Be that as it may, the rest of the sentence is twisted. "A clear attack on a fundamental Canadian principle of democracy" - so, if anyone challenges or campaigns against the CPC, they are being undemocratic. This is clearly a use of the word "democracy" with which we are unfamiliar. The suggestion is that not only is the CPC the bastion of Canadian principles, but anyone who opposed this "truth" is opposed to democracy. Take a moment to get your head around that.
We're fighting back - but we won't be able to do so without your help. Please donate $15 to help us in this fight.
And here is the ask. $15, they say, is essential to beat back this undemocratic evil conspiracy.
It's this simple. We're up against a secretive group of union leaders who have access to millions of dollars and a single goal - to defeat Prime Minister Harper and Canada's Conservatives.
They reference "a secretive group of union leaders" - it is really hard to argue that anyone in politics in Canada is more secretive than Stephen Harper and the CPC. This is amusing. This nefarious group "have access to millions of dollars and a single goal" - it's almost as though they were describing themselves! And what is this dreadful goal? "To defeat Prime Minister Harper and Canada's Conservatives" Gasp! How could anyone want that? Well, for many reasons. And, as we thus far live in a democracy (more and more questionable all the time, but let's make the assumption), it is the nature of a democracy for different groups with different ideas of how the country should be run, to compete against one another for the minds of the voters. Who will then, again theoretically, be allowed to cast ballots indicating their preferred representative in Ottawa.
We do not vote for the Prime Minister. They vote for the President in the US, but this is Canada and we just vote for a local representative who may, or may not, be a member of a party. The Prime Minister is only the leader of the party that won the most seats. First among equals, with equals being the most important part of that description. Stephen Harper is not a king by divine right, and opposing him is not treason, even if the spin doctors in the PMO would like to make it sound that way. Finally, Canada's Conservatives are not the Conservative Party of Canada, and vice versa. The CPC co-opted (or stole, if you prefer) the word Conservative to use in their name when Peter MacKay welched on a promise to David Orchard that he would not turn the Progressive Conservative Party over to Stephen Harper and his Reform/Alliance cronies.
They are nothing like the Conservatives of Diefenbaker. If your grandad voted conservative, wonderful. But you don't have a real conservative party to vote for. This lot has confused "conservative" with mean-spirited, uncaring, and riding roughshod over the environment, the people, and the institutions that many associate with Canada, all for the benefit of big business. Real conservatives know the value of a dollar and look to use money wisely, for the greatest benefit. The CPC like to spend a lot of money on advertising and ceremonies and photo-ops and flying their chums around the world... Things that do no tangible good, other than supporting their egos and increasing their control of the message and the minds of Canadians. This is not conservative. They cheat and lie. These are not conservative values. So it is actually insulting to real conservatives for the CPC to claim to represent them.
And we can't count on the Liberals and NDP to speak out against this, as they are the ones who stand to benefit.
Ummm. Yeah. Well, let's go back and think about the common usage of the term "democracy". The opposing parties are not going to side with the CPC against anyone trying to encourage a vote against them. That is just not how the game is played.
We can win this fight - but not without your help. Contribute $15 right now to stand with us.
Again with the bold. the underlining and changing the ink colour to heighten the sense of urgency and reinforce the $15 ask. "Stand with us" - they close as they began, encouraging the reader to feel a part of something, an ally.
The underlying premise of this, and most other CPC fund-raising letters, is not only to rake in piles more money, but to reinforce the notion in people's minds that the CPC is the rightful government and any suggestion that someone else should be elected is somehow seditious. I find it scary that some people read these things and actually just absorb this message and close their minds to other perspectives.
Thank you
At least they are polite, if a bit presumptuous. Canadians really need to think critically when confronted with fund-raising letters, public announcements, talking points, etc...
Don't let the CPC spin doctors bamboozle you with their mind-control tactics!
Now, let's have a good look at what they say.
I'm sorry to have to do this, but I have some disturbing news to share with you.
Here they are setting the stage. "Disturbing news" sets up a sense of anxiety, perhaps alarm. In psychology this is known as "priming". It's a technique designed to put the subject (the letter recipient) into a certain frame of mind which will enhance the impact of the subsequent information. The use of the phrase "to share with you" implies familiarity. It is intended to make the recipient feel like a part of something, an insider.
I was recently made aware of a plan by Quebec's largest trade union, the FTQ, to attack Conservative candidates in 8 ridings. Even worse, this is part of a larger plan by a group of unions to unseat Conservatives in 60 ridings across Canada!
"I was recently made aware of a plan" makes it sound like this is some sort of dark ops that CPC intelligence has uncovered. The use of the word "attack" makes it seem like something violent and unsavoury is about to occur. "Even worse" - this transfers negativity on the first part. People who receive CPC fund-raising letters frequently are already primed to respond to the word "union" with mistrust, outrage and condemnation. Unions are a central theme common to many CPC requests for money. Unions, media, special interest groups (like First Nations, environmentalists, veterans, women...) are among the favourite CPC bogeymen used to elicit funds.
The plan, called "Beat the Conservatives," is a clear attack on a fundamental Canadian principle of democracy.
"Beat the Conservatives" is a pretty lame slogan. I would have thought the unions could have come up with something catchier. Be that as it may, the rest of the sentence is twisted. "A clear attack on a fundamental Canadian principle of democracy" - so, if anyone challenges or campaigns against the CPC, they are being undemocratic. This is clearly a use of the word "democracy" with which we are unfamiliar. The suggestion is that not only is the CPC the bastion of Canadian principles, but anyone who opposed this "truth" is opposed to democracy. Take a moment to get your head around that.
We're fighting back - but we won't be able to do so without your help. Please donate $15 to help us in this fight.
And here is the ask. $15, they say, is essential to beat back this undemocratic evil conspiracy.
It's this simple. We're up against a secretive group of union leaders who have access to millions of dollars and a single goal - to defeat Prime Minister Harper and Canada's Conservatives.
They reference "a secretive group of union leaders" - it is really hard to argue that anyone in politics in Canada is more secretive than Stephen Harper and the CPC. This is amusing. This nefarious group "have access to millions of dollars and a single goal" - it's almost as though they were describing themselves! And what is this dreadful goal? "To defeat Prime Minister Harper and Canada's Conservatives" Gasp! How could anyone want that? Well, for many reasons. And, as we thus far live in a democracy (more and more questionable all the time, but let's make the assumption), it is the nature of a democracy for different groups with different ideas of how the country should be run, to compete against one another for the minds of the voters. Who will then, again theoretically, be allowed to cast ballots indicating their preferred representative in Ottawa.
We do not vote for the Prime Minister. They vote for the President in the US, but this is Canada and we just vote for a local representative who may, or may not, be a member of a party. The Prime Minister is only the leader of the party that won the most seats. First among equals, with equals being the most important part of that description. Stephen Harper is not a king by divine right, and opposing him is not treason, even if the spin doctors in the PMO would like to make it sound that way. Finally, Canada's Conservatives are not the Conservative Party of Canada, and vice versa. The CPC co-opted (or stole, if you prefer) the word Conservative to use in their name when Peter MacKay welched on a promise to David Orchard that he would not turn the Progressive Conservative Party over to Stephen Harper and his Reform/Alliance cronies.
They are nothing like the Conservatives of Diefenbaker. If your grandad voted conservative, wonderful. But you don't have a real conservative party to vote for. This lot has confused "conservative" with mean-spirited, uncaring, and riding roughshod over the environment, the people, and the institutions that many associate with Canada, all for the benefit of big business. Real conservatives know the value of a dollar and look to use money wisely, for the greatest benefit. The CPC like to spend a lot of money on advertising and ceremonies and photo-ops and flying their chums around the world... Things that do no tangible good, other than supporting their egos and increasing their control of the message and the minds of Canadians. This is not conservative. They cheat and lie. These are not conservative values. So it is actually insulting to real conservatives for the CPC to claim to represent them.
And we can't count on the Liberals and NDP to speak out against this, as they are the ones who stand to benefit.
Ummm. Yeah. Well, let's go back and think about the common usage of the term "democracy". The opposing parties are not going to side with the CPC against anyone trying to encourage a vote against them. That is just not how the game is played.
We can win this fight - but not without your help. Contribute $15 right now to stand with us.
Again with the bold. the underlining and changing the ink colour to heighten the sense of urgency and reinforce the $15 ask. "Stand with us" - they close as they began, encouraging the reader to feel a part of something, an ally.
The underlying premise of this, and most other CPC fund-raising letters, is not only to rake in piles more money, but to reinforce the notion in people's minds that the CPC is the rightful government and any suggestion that someone else should be elected is somehow seditious. I find it scary that some people read these things and actually just absorb this message and close their minds to other perspectives.
Thank you
At least they are polite, if a bit presumptuous. Canadians really need to think critically when confronted with fund-raising letters, public announcements, talking points, etc...
Don't let the CPC spin doctors bamboozle you with their mind-control tactics!
Monday, 5 January 2015
The "FREE" Press in Canada: An obituary
Today Prime Minister Harper shuffled Julian Fantino out of his post as Minister of Veterans' Affairs and into a less visible spot in his cabinet. Clearly, the PM is cleaning house, dealing with irritants that might get in the way of getting votes. He is assuming a) Canadians are stupid and will forget all about the various gaffes and atrocities in Veterans' Affairs over the past few years and b) Canadians are stupid and don't realize that, as odious as Mr. Fantino appears to be, he is not running anything, everything that happens in this government comes from the PMO and starts in Mr. Harper's head.
CBC news network covered the announcement of this shuffle by reading the press release from the government. That is not journalism. That is reciting the government's talking points. Even when pressed to discuss the implications of this move, the reporter seemed to suggest that now Fantino was gone from this post, everything was hunky dory and all that bad blood between veterans and the government could be put to rest.
Fortunately Tom Mulcair had the guts to get in front of the cameras and come right out and say that what happened in Veterans' Affairs happened because Stephen Harper wanted it to happen. Even so, the commentary on Mulcair's speech was hesitant and careful to stick to repeating what he had said, rather than examining this issue.
In other news... It appears that a video clip of CTV anchor, Don Martin, saying that Harper was "flirting with fascism" when it came out that the PM and the CPC were preparing legislation that would circumvent copyright laws, allowing them to use news footage for campaign ads without compensating the news agency that produced it, has been wiped from the internet.
You can see the comments here but if you click the link to see the clip, you will be informed that Bell media has removed the clip because of copyright issues. Oh, the irony!
The CTV is not entirely virtuous in terms of political objectivity, by the way. It was found in breach of the code of ethics governing Canadian broadcasters in 2009 when Mike Duffy interviewed then Liberal leader Stephan Dion and broadcast clips that were not to be aired and which were later used by the CPC to discredit Dion. Mike Duffy got a senate seat. Dion lost the leadership of the Liberals and Harper won the election.
The attempts to suppress criticism have been many and varied this past year. Probably the most publicized spat between a columnist and the government involved an opinion piece by Toronto Star's Heather Mallick, and the angry response by Conservative Party political operations director Fred DeLorey. Ms Mallick rightly retorted that her job is to express opinion. It is not intended to be neutral or objective. DeLorey attempted to suggest that holding a critical view of the PM or the government was somehow seditious, and he goes on to attempt to undermine the public's faith in mainstream news media: "We’re up against the Liberals and the NDP in the next election, but we also have to fight an uphill battle against all their friends in the Ottawa media. Since we can’t count on fair coverage, we’re going to need to speak directly to voters. It’s not cheap, but it’s the only option."
And in still other news, it seems the federal government doesn't like its staff checking out Blacklock's Reporter. The accredited news source, specializing in parliamentary news, has been blocked on government servers. If you are not familiar with Blacklock's, the publication is not your usual news outlet. You won't see traffic accidents or fires or sports scores. It is a very serious, often very dry medium that deals with the doings on Parliament Hill; bills, regulations, Access to Information and federal courts. They take the quality of their reporting very seriously and, in so doing, have often been critical of the government. Not just this government, by the way, previous governments have not been spared the Blacklock scrutiny.
Not only does the CPC want to make sure federal civil servants are protected from news regarding their places of employment, it has also worked very hard to make information nearly impossible to access by members of the press. Investigative reporter, Mike DeSousa, offers an insight into the difficulty many journalists encounter when trying to do their jobs in Canada these days. Months of waiting to get documents that have been completely blacked out. That is not transparency, or accountability, or access to information.
Many people are unaware that things are deteriorating rapidly here in Canada. Between 2013 and 2014, Canada slipped 10 places in the World Press Freedom Index, landing at 20th. Sad, because in 2002 we were in 5th place. A brief synopsis of the decline in press freedom in Canada can be found here.
But, back to the CBC. Every government has disliked the CBC. This is because the CBC has been doing what it was intended to do: speak truth to power, ask the tough questions, and dig for the deeper story. As an independent publicly-owned broadcaster, the CBC was not reliant on advertising and so could not be pressured by corporate interests to cover events in any particular way. All other mainstream media in Canada is owned by corporate interests and relies on advertisers (other corporations) to be able to operate. This financial reliance leads to a tendency to frame the news in ways that please the corporate interests. It can slant the news, sometimes to the point where it barely resembles the actual facts.
But the CBC, like the BBC, was a public broadcaster, and therefore not beholden to corporate dollars. The Liberals were no fans of the CBC when they were in power, but they accepted that it was part of Canada's cultural fabric. The CPC, and especially PM Harper, do not accept it. They hate it. They hate that public money is supporting any publicly beneficial organization, from Canada Post to the Canadian Wheat Board to Parks Canada. They feel that people should pay for services like postal delivery, health care and education. But they especially hate that public money is supporting an organization that asks questions and sheds light on things they would rather keep hidden.
The CPC war on the CBC goes back well before 2006. Back in the days of the Northern Foundation and the National Citizens' Coalition, Harper was already engaged in a war of words with the public broadcaster. Since gaining power in Ottawa he has steadily whittled away at the CBC, cutting funding, cutting jobs, bad-mouthing the CBC to fund-raise, installing a new Board of Directors comprised of hand-picked CPC supporters... He has even gone so far as to change the bargaining process so the BoD has a say in compensation and staffing. It certainly appears that word has gone out: criticize the PM or the government and your name will go on the list for the next round of job cuts.
The changes are evident, from the cuts in staff, to the choices made in lead stories. The CBC, once the most reliable and relevant news source in Canada, is becoming a mouthpiece for the government. And soon it will be moot. It was recently announced that the federal government has contracted, to the tune of millions of taxpayer dollars, to have a company write "custom" news stories. Back in the day, this was called "propaganda". Soon there will be no need for the CBC, CTV, Global, or the print media. The government will provide all the news they want you to see...
#HarpersRecord: A Sociological Phenomenon
This past weekend I participated in a very interesting social media event. A hashtag on Twitter emerged, #HarpersRecord, inviting Canadians to recall just what our Prime Minister has done. With an election coming up this year, it seems only fair to take a good look at the record he seems so proud of.
The participation in this event was surprisingly large. Launched on Saturday afternoon, the hashtag trended in Canada several times Sunday morning. One thing was clear, a lot of Canadians are ANGRY.
Another interesting observation is that there was almost no "troll" activity. Does that mean CPC supporters didn't notice the thread? Does it mean that the documenting of Harper's record in government was such that they could not argue? Or does it mean that the PMO staff were off for the weekend so there was no one around to write up talking points and give the paid trolls their marching orders?
Participants added statements, photos, news links, opinions, and frustration. And the thing is, it's all documented. From closing libraries, to cheating in elections, to abandoning the long-form census, to removing protection from our waterways, to raising the OAS age to 67, to making it harder to get EI, to closing Veterans Affairs offices and returning over $1B to the treasury that was earmarked to be spent on veterans, to running a full-time propaganda machine, and more.... It is all on record. None of this is opinion. There is nothing that can be denied about Harper's record. The question is, will Canadians ignore this record and return Harper to power for another 4 years? Or will this collective rage finally get us up off our couches and out to the polling stations in unprecedented numbers to make sure these things never happen in Canada again?
To view #HarpersRecord, go here.
If the link doesn't work for you, let me know in the comments section and I will try to do something different so everyone can see.
Monday, 8 December 2014
Lies... Damn Lies! And Statistics! Justice System Edition
Despite the rates of all sort of crime going down in Canada, the Harper Government, in their great wisdom, have decided we need more prisons. Now, I realize this make no intuitive sense. If crime is going down, surely we may be looking at fewer prisons, right? Not so, said Stockwell Day. No, he said, we need more and bigger prisons because of an alarming increase in unreported crime.
Unreported crime... Next they'll be saying we need more animal control officers to round up all the unreported unicorns.
According to the CBC, "Statistics Canada says the country's homicide rate fell last year to 1.44 victims for every 100,000 people, its lowest level since 1966." 1966! The lowest homicide rate in 48 years! But we still need more and bigger prisons. This is because Canada's prison population is at an all-time high. Let's get our minds around this now... The crime rate is falling steadily, and we are putting more people in prison? Is the crime rate falling because most of the criminals are now in jail? That might be a simple way to look at it. But, as with many things, the simple answer is not the correct one.
The Canadian population, as a whole, is getting older. We're just not getting into mischief like we used to. So, why so many people in prison?
Let's look at the Harper Government's stance on justice and prisons. Harper is really, REALLY into punishment. He has no time or patience for ideas like prevention, harm reduction, rehabilitation.. His world is black and white - there are those who are good and do what they are told, and there are the others who are clearly morally inferior and need to be punished. And grinding other people down does give some people a sort of ego-boost, it makes them feel powerful and in control.
So, Harper has decided to follow the Bush-era US model of "justice". The United States accounts for a mere 4.43% of the world's total population. Yet they also have a full 25% of the world's incarcerated population. One in 39 Americans is now either behind bars, on parole, or on probation. If you believe that being "tough on crime" and locking people up for longer and longer makes the streets safer, then by this reasoning, downtown areas of American cities should be about the safest places on earth, right? Are they? No. They are not. In fact, they are becoming increasingly dangerous places.
Private prisons became a thing in the US, with some prison corporations gaining the contractual right to sue a state if the population of inmates was not maintained. This article explains how that works. More laws, longer and stiffer penalties help to keep prison populations up to the required 80%-100% occupancy. What does this mean for people?
When a person is arrested and charged, the state is highly motivated to convict them and make sure they receive the longest prison time possible. If you are poor and can't afford a lawyer, you are pretty much sure to be convicted, regardless of your innocence. If you are a person of colour, your chances of being found guilty are substantially increased as well.
For-profit prisons follow the business model of reducing costs to increase profit. This means the insides of prisons are generally bleak, over-crowded and highly regulated. Food is sufficient to sustain life. Education, rehabilitation and mental health programs are expensive, and so are minimized or eliminated. Staff is kept at a bare minimum, which results in a lot of time in "lock-down" where prisoners are confined to their cells because they are more manageable that way. Apart from being dismal, depressing and depersonalizing, prisons can often be highly dangerous. Despite the danger of the situation, suicide is the leading cause of death in prison in many states in the US.
Eventually, if you survive, they have to let you out. What then? You have served your time. Do you get to start over? Not so fast. Most employers will not hire ex-cons. In the US, if you are convicted of a felony (and the meaning of the term felony varies from state to state and can result in sentences ranging from 5 days to death), you are no longer able to vote, ever. So, you can't get a job, you can't vote. You become marginalized. Some do find work with benevolent employers, but many wind up on the streets. Their underlying issues that got them into trouble in the first place have not been addressed, and now they are even more disadvantaged than before. Does this sound like a way to reduce crime?
"Even if the rate of crime were trending upward, building more prisons would not suppress the crime rate, said Craig Jones, executive director of the John Howard Society of Canada.
“To suppress the rate
of crime, you have to frontload your welfare system so all your children
have adequate nutrition, they live in non-violent, non-traumatizing
environments — because that’s where your violence originates,” Jones
said." in an article in the Toronto Star.
So, the US has begun to roll back its "tough on crime" policies. They are recognizing they DO NOT WORK to either reduce crime, or to make communities safer or society better. Texas, for goodness sake, is changing its justice system, because "tough on crime" doesn't work.
"(Chuck) DeVore (a former California Republican Assembly member and conservative candidate for the U.S. Senate) testified that Texas is closing prisons, reducing its prison population and saving millions of taxpayer dollars - and its crime rate is going down.
How is this happening? Texas is investing in alternatives to incarceration that are proving to be cheaper and more effective at keeping people out of prison. It is also doing a better job of rehabilitating people to keep them from reoffending and ending up back in prison.
Texas uses risk-assessment and better probation procedures to divert large numbers of nonviolent offenders away from the prison system, keeping them away from hard-core criminals. It requires strict implementation of victim-restitution measures, while offering alternatives to prison such as civil sanctions, drug courts and drug-abuse and mental health treatment. It also offers rehabilitation programs like job training for those in prison to prepare them to re-enter society. And Texas has invested heavily in reducing the caseloads of parole and probation officers so the state can keep better track of the people it supervises and help them move in a new direction.
It's paying off. Texas has closed three state prisons, and almost two-thirds of Texas parolees are employed." See the full article here.
So, the US has begun to roll back its "tough on crime" policies. They are recognizing they DO NOT WORK to either reduce crime, or to make communities safer or society better. Texas, for goodness sake, is changing its justice system, because "tough on crime" doesn't work.
"(Chuck) DeVore (a former California Republican Assembly member and conservative candidate for the U.S. Senate) testified that Texas is closing prisons, reducing its prison population and saving millions of taxpayer dollars - and its crime rate is going down.
How is this happening? Texas is investing in alternatives to incarceration that are proving to be cheaper and more effective at keeping people out of prison. It is also doing a better job of rehabilitating people to keep them from reoffending and ending up back in prison.
Texas uses risk-assessment and better probation procedures to divert large numbers of nonviolent offenders away from the prison system, keeping them away from hard-core criminals. It requires strict implementation of victim-restitution measures, while offering alternatives to prison such as civil sanctions, drug courts and drug-abuse and mental health treatment. It also offers rehabilitation programs like job training for those in prison to prepare them to re-enter society. And Texas has invested heavily in reducing the caseloads of parole and probation officers so the state can keep better track of the people it supervises and help them move in a new direction.
It's paying off. Texas has closed three state prisons, and almost two-thirds of Texas parolees are employed." See the full article here.
Other countries have long employed more successful models of justice and rehabilitation. Norway and Sweden are striking examples. In Norway, the recidivism rate is below 20%. Compare that with over 50% in much of Europe and the US. How do they do that?
They treat prisoners with respect and work to address the problems that resulted in their crimes. They have the philosophy (which, incidentally is also in place in Canadian law) that prison is supposed to be seen as a last resort and
should be used as little as possible for the shortest time necessary. In light of this, mandatory minimums in Canada may well
be in contravention of our Criminal Code unless Harper has stricken this underlying concept from the books in one of the many omnibus bills. As well, they operate on the principle that prisoners continue to have human rights and are sent to
prison as punishment, not for punishment. In other words, the loss of freedom is the punishment. Loss of freedom, not loss of human dignity, not threats to personal security, not being subjected to abuse, not brutality, poor living conditions, poor food... Loss of freedom. Period. Please see related articles here, here, and here. There is also a heavy emphasis on alternatives to jail: fines, community service, etc. that keep a lot of people out of jail in the first place. Backed up with social supports such as educational programs, drug addiction rehabilitation, mental health care and so on, Scandinavian countries keep their incarcerated population percentage at a scant fraction of that in the US.
Apart from the glee some feel in inflicting revenge on others, there is little good to be served by producing a prison system based on misery and suffering. This study, produced by the Pell Centre for International Relations and Public Policy, examines the benefits of a Nordic model of justice. In comparing the Scandinavian and American systems, the authors point out the extreme costs to a society, both in the actual cost of maintaining prisoners and also in the costs of broken families, future re-offenses, and a population that emerges from the corrections system in worse shape than when it went in, as is generally the case in a punitive-style system.
Comparing the two:
There are so many studies that demonstrate empirically that this Scandinavian humanist model is far superior to the US-style punitive model... Even the US has begun to dismantle its more extreme laws and practices. It costs far less and results in lower re-offence, lower crime rates, lower damage to society as a whole... And yet, Harper is dead set on furthering his strategy of costly punitive "tough on crime" legislation.
The CPC introduced Bill C-10, whimsically named the "Safe Streets and Communities Act", which imposes harsher penalties, reduces alternative remedies, makes it harder to get parole or a pardon, and extends adult-sized sentences to youth offenders. What all these things do, as the studies have shown, is the exact opposite of making streets and communities safer. This approach reduces offenders to forever being the worst thing they have ever done. They have to wear it, like a scarlet letter, the rest of their lives.
Harper snubs his nose at science and empirical evidence and goes for the far more satisfying retribution and suffering approach. "An eye for an eye" is barbaric and Old Testament. This is 2014. We call ourselves civilized. And yet, there are sufficient among Harper's base of support who will be chuffed to think of all those "thugs" suffering, languishing, maybe even being abused during their long, long stay in prison, that this makes sense to the PM.
Should not the aim of a justice and corrections system be to improve people so they function well in society? All the indicators suggest that a humanist, supportive approach is the most effective and least costly way to do this. Our government's steadfast march in the opposite direction makes no objective, factually supportable or rational sense.
Sunday, 7 December 2014
Newspeak: A Harper Government Lexicon
"‘When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'
‘The question is,' said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things."
‘The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that's all.'"
- "Through the Looking Glass", Lewis Carrol
Just like Humpty Dumpty, and the Big Brother Government in 1984, Stephen Harper and those who read his PMO talking points attempt to change our understanding and use of language. Stephen Harper is certainly not the first leader in world history to work to change the meaning of language to suit his own ends. But he is the first to do so in Canada so intensively, and backed by such a legion of psychology-based spin doctors and communications specialists, as well as several thousand paid trolls whose role it is to attack, disrupt and change the conversation on social media anywhere criticism of the government might be found. So, as a handy guide, I provide you with a partial glossary of CPC Newspeak, so that you might be prepared to engage your critical thinking when these terms come up.
CLEAR/CLEARLY: This is one of Harper's favourites. "Let me be clear" or "Clearly...." The party ran on a platform of transparency and accountability in 2006.
FAIR (as in "Fair Elections Act" or "Fair Taxation for Families"): When I think of the concept of fairness, I think of something that levels the playing field in some way. Something that makes it possible for those with fewer advantages, to compete with those who have more advantages. The dictionary defines fair as:
By the traditional definition of "fair", a fair elections act should make elections potentially winnable by any party without systemic barriers to any, and should make all potential voters equally able to vote. However, by the CPC definition of "fair", a fair election is one in which they have a marked advantage over any other party and those voters least likely to vote for them may encounter barriers preventing them from exercising their franchise. This is a page straight out of the American Tea Party playbook. In recent years, the far right in the US has appeared to be working hard to devolve their democracy back to an age where only white men with property could vote.
What the CPC have done is change electoral ridings, splitting hard-core CPC support ridings in two to add seats to their side of the house. They have opened the doors to increased campaign spending, knowing full well they are the only party with enough money to take full advantage of this, and they have brought in new ID requirements for voters which may not be accessible to all eligible voters, particularly the young, the poor, First Nations... groups that typically would not vote CPC.
Throw in changes to the powers of Elections Canada, or rather, removal of powers from Elections Canada, which makes it harder to get people out to vote, prohibits the teaching of school children about elections, and makes it impossible for EC to investigate suspected election fraud, and the CPC seem to have stitched up the next and every subsequent election in their favour. This is clearly a new meaning of "fair".
By the same token, a fair taxation program for families should set tax benefits to allow less affluent parents to provide their children with advantages similar to those available to more affluent parents. Sounds good, right? But, under the CPC definition of fair, it means something quite different. Their fair taxation for families plan will only benefit the top 15% of Canadian families who also adhere to the 1950s value set of staying together and having one parent (usually Mom) stay home with the kids. Nothing for single parents. Nothing for two-income families where both parents make a similar amount. Nothing for those who are struggling. The income-splitting plan is a reward to families like Harper's. No one else. Only in the CPC dictionary is that "fair".
SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP:
According to Wikipedia:
A Special Interest Group (SIG) is a community within a larger organization with a shared interest in advancing a specific area of knowledge, learning or technology where members cooperate to affect or to produce solutions within their particular field, and may communicate, meet, and organize conferences. The term originated on CompuServe, an early online service provider, where SIGs were a section of the service devoted to particular interests.
And yet, in the Harper lexicon and increasingly in common use, a special interest group is an obstructionist entity whose motives are deeply suspect. In the past, corporations or industry associations would send "lobbyists" to Ottawa. These lobbyists would try to get the ear of a Minister and influence government policy-making in ways that would benefit their company or industry. Under Harper, corporate groups are now "partners", as in, "The Alberta Department of Education is now partnering with the oil and gas industry to develop curricula for K-12 schools in the province". (Yes, it's true). On the other hand, groups of concerned citizens, such as First Nations bands who do not want a pipeline or a mine on their land, or Veterans who want better access to care, are now "Special Interest Groups". They are linked with the spectre of "foreign funding", radicalism, and possibly terrorism. Never mind that much of the oil and gas industry is foreign-owned or funded, Conservative think-tanks like the Fraser Institute receive vast donations from the likes of the Koch brothers from the US... No, according to Harper, the real threat to our country is citizens trying to protect their land and their rights. Something is very wrong with this. Citizens are not "special interest groups", they are people trying to live in the country with the advantages of clean air, water, environment, safe roads, good schools, and good governance.
FACT
Now we all think we know what facts are, right? Just to be sure we are starting at the same point, facts are defined as:
To cut to the chase, here is Canada's ranking adjusted for the essential factor of population growth (often ignored in Harper government calculations):
So, what does "fact" mean to the Conservative Party of Canada? A clue might be found in this 2011 ad from Craigslist seeking professional CPC-oriented trolls to disrupt progressive discussions in social media:
"Ideally you can find or make up facts and statistics to stir controversy."
"Make up facts and statistics" Let that sink in for a moment.
If a "fact" is made up, how can it be a "fact"?
If you follow this line of thinking through to it's logical conclusion... If our government feels facts are whatever plausible statement that is advantageous to say at the moment, then what are they basing their policy decisions on? If facts are irrelevant (evidenced by the elimination of the long-form census, the suppression of scientists and the refusal to accept expert testimony and empirical evidence), then is our country being governed based on whatever Harper wants to do? Whatever whim pops into his head?
ACADEMICS/INTELLECTUALS
Closely related to facts, evidence, and empirical knowledge, is the concept of academic or intellectual expertise. At one time, people respected those who had worked hard to learn all they could about a subject, conducted research, experimentation, engaged in debate with other experts in order to further a field of study. There is both a vilifying of academics (used by Harper to discredit Michael Ignatieff, for example), and a perceived leveling of the knowledge base. The attitude that "My ignorance is as good as your expertise" may make the average person feel comfortable talking about issues like climate change and the economy, and it is important that we all have those discussions, but it becomes dangerous when it has real world implications. For example, the In-Site Safe Injection Program in Vancouver has been shown in longitudinal studies to reduce harm, save lives and help otherwise hopeless people access services that lead to improvement in their lives. The CPC have been trying very hard to shut them down because they don't agree with the program. It offends them to help people with addictions, rather than punishing them by throwing them in jail. So, on the one hand we have evidence-based facts, and on the other hand, we have dogma and opinion. The right-wing view does not believe in harm-reduction, or, generally, science. Fortunately, the Supreme Court still does. The uninformed gut response of Harper and his right-wing base is to shut down In-Site because it offends their personal sensibilities, and that would almost certainly result in deaths, which is demonstrated by the scientific evidence.
To put it another, maybe more accessible, way: you wouldn't ask some random person you met on the bus to take your appendix out, would you? Why not? If everyone's ignorance is as good as those academic elites' knowledge, then certainly that guy that works at Wendy's is just as qualified to perform surgery as a surgeon. Right?
No? So maybe, those who have studied specific fields intensively for many years maybe, just maybe, might have an edge on your gut feeling.
But those who know things, because they have studied and conducted experiments and gathered evidence, often disagree with the Harper Way. So, it is useful for him, if not for Canadians, to influence the common perception of academics, scientists, and intellectuals to make sure people see these individuals in a negative light, and their advice, statements, and studies as discredited and irrelevant.
BIG UNIONS/BIG UNION BOSSES
Unions are one of the favourite bogeymen for the CPC, especially when fundraising. "You should send us money...because UNIONS!!!!!"
There are several large unions in Canada that have negotiated good wages, good benefits and good retirement packages for their members. It's a strange thing that some people resent them for this. It is similar to saying, "It's not fair, my car wouldn't start this morning but my neighbour's car did. To make things fair, my neighbour's car should not start either." To put it another way, if you and another employee at the same company have identical credentials and experience, have been in your identical jobs the same amount of time and you find out the other person makes more money than you do, do you demand that their pay be reduced to match yours? Or do you demand that your pay be increased to match theirs? Does it not make more sense, and result in a better situation for everyone, if people work to gain better working terms for themselves and their co-workers, rather than spending time resenting others who have already managed to improve their circumstances?
A second issue that makes it easy for governments to vilify unions is that union actions are disruptive. They are inconvenient. This is the power behind the labour movement. They can leverage good wages, benefits and retirement plans because workers united can exert pressure on employers in ways that individual workers cannot. In a capitalist system, the owners of the means of production hold all the cards, unless the workers organize to require that owners share the fruits of the workers' labour. So, yes, strikes are annoying. They make everyone's life difficult. And people, in general, have lost sight of the higher purpose of these actions.
Before the labour movement began, there were no limits to how long people were required to work each day. There were no requirements of giving employees days off - the weekend did not exist in any meaningful way. There was no minimum wage. There were no workplace health and safety regulations. No pension plans. No prohibition on child labour. Employees could be fired for anything, or nothing at all. There were no rules about sexual harassment. Labour unions did not only improve things in their own shops, they also pressured governments into legislating fair working conditions for all workers, unionized or not.
Some people say, well, we have all that now. There is no need for unions anymore. But this is simply not true. There are still those who would like to see minimum wages reduced or eliminated. Companies come up with clever ways to get around workplace standards, to the detriment of workers. One of the Conservative think-tanks (the Frontier Centre on Public Policy) has just begun advocating a return to child labour and a reduction of wages to compensate employers for taking on workers with no experience, i.e. children. Read about it here
Attacks on the gains made by the labour movement are all around us. Temporary Foreign Workers, governments legislating unions back to work (thus removing their power to negotiate for their members), the loss of full-time jobs with benefits in our economy (replaced by cheaper, part-time jobs without benefits).... The gap between the rich and the poor is expanding. Jobs are harder to find, especially for young people. Vast multi-national corporations are controlling more and more of the economy. We need unions as much now as ever, because people as individual workers are becoming even more powerless.
The Harper Government is certainly not the first government to find unions troublesome, but it is arguably the most viscerally opposed to unionization. Unions give power to the common people. Harper does not like to share power with anyone. Unionism and all that comes with it - minimum wages, health and safety standards, etc. - cut into corporate profits, and that is anathema to Harper. It is not true that paying people decently and providing benefits makes consumer goods more expensive. At least it doesn't have to be true. Corporations already making obscene profits should not, in good conscience, make the argument that increases in wages will have to be passed on to the consumer. But among such groups it is a form of extreme sacrilege to suggest that the cost of treating employees decently should maybe be offset by a slight reduction in the profit line.
Canadians do not understand their own system of government. Harper is exploiting this. He can say anything he likes about how government is meant to work and so few people actually know the reality of how it is suppose to work, that he is rarely challenged. This is evidenced by a poll conducted by the Dominion Institute here. Francis Russell does an excellent job of explaining the issue and I encourage you to read her article here. The long and short of it is, coalitions are a perfectly valid form of government in a parliamentary democracy, but Harper made it sound like an evil, illegal plot. This is yet another example of how Harper will exploit the imperfect information available to Canadians to achieve his own goals.
In Conclusion...
The main point I am attempting to get across in all this, Dear Reader, is that not only is Harper trying to change our economy, our justice system, our health care, and our social programs. He is trying to change how we THINK. And he is doing this by carefully manipulating the meaning of words. Language is key to the tools we have to examine issues and reach conclusions about them. The CPC have a huge team of advisors from the US who are especially skilled in manipulating meaning. Nothing that comes out of the mouths of the Harper team, either read directly from the script, or recited, is accidental. Just as in war reporting, terms like "assets" and "collateral damage" are used to sanitize the information, making living breathing soldiers who are someone's sons and daughters into an inventory item (assets), and similarly make living, breathing people who are injured or killed by our soldiers into a vague term (collateral damage) that expresses nothing of blood and pain and loss, so too are the words used by our government meant to make certain unpalatable ideas easier to accept, and make other, previously accepted and valued ideas into negatives. CPC spokespeople are taught key words and how to use them. When they speak, pay attention. Think critically. Look for independent confirmation of their assertions. Don't take them at their word, because it probably doesn't mean what you think it means.
Wednesday, 31 October 2012
Live blog - Bingham Crossing Public Hearing October 30, 2012
Ok, I promise I will post the rest of the summer's "Life Off the Grid" blogs soon. Rural Municipality politics seized me pretty much the moment my truck rolled into the driveway. I must now commandeer the blog in order to post this as it is too long to post on Face Book...
- They should be starting soon
#no2bing - Looks like a good turn-out, but if you are planning to come out, DO! Don't know how many for/against
#no2bing - Counsillor Solberg asks if council decision is based only on public input. Rolly says no
- Meanwhile, RVC has pulled out all the stops on security - looks like we have riot squad on stand-by
#no2bing - Lois asks if Council will see master site development plan - yes. Will it be all 3 at once – yes
- Kim asks how many acres are being redesignated - about 80 acres
#no2bing - 11 open houses - plan shaped by our neighbours - he's disappointed by what's going on in community
#no2bing - New off ramp, 3 round abouts, improve rr33 and 250, direct traffic away from residential
#no2bing - Talking about the phone survey, say more support for than opposition
#no2bing - BC to pay for infrastructure
#no2bing - Water currently servicing Edge School - pipes in the ground
#no2bing - And they are back - questions to the applicant - net cost benefit? Thomas consultants did report
#no2bing - New vehicles during peak hrs 400 to 450 in AM, 1000 in PM - 9K - 10K car trips per day - total 15K per day at 1st phase
#no2bing - Mkt study - why local & regional retail? Incl SB & hwy traffic - total mkt of 25,000 customers
#no2bing - Staging cell A, B, C in phase 1? Intend to build all at once
#no2bing - Solberg asks if road paid for by developer - yes
- How many surveyed? Outcomes?
#no2bing - Survey Oct 10 - 14, random digit dial, set quotas based on age, etc. Total sample 315 - whole county - 5% reliability
- 97 Springbankers were surveyed.
#no2bing - Back to traffic - about 10,000 new vehicles per day. Won't give current traffic volumes...
#no2bing - Who pays for road upgrades? BC says with roundabouts roads will be good as is for this phase - phase 2 not on table today
#no2bing - Background traffic levels - 2015 adjusted background est is 6K - 7K per day. W/ BC 14K - 15K per day
#no2bing - RVC has a levy to finance future interchange. Confusing! One minute BC pays, next it is RV acreage levy
#no2bing - BC will pay phase 1 improvements. Urban Systems says they can negotiate with county if phase 2 happens
#no2bing - Any berms? Berming & screening parking areas - people here don't like using underground parking
#no2bing - McLean - how big is Sunterra? 15K to 30K. Food stores change format - talks about Whole Foods from US
#no2bing - Taking a break, then public input. Birol from Harmony up first
#no2bing - Birol is up. Bordeaux Development. In favour. Springbank is phenomenal. Know most of people. Never seen so much slander..
#no2bing - Never seen so much fear-mongering. So much misinformation. What is divisive is the messaging out there
#no2bing - Ray Norton (?) Nearby stakeholder - against BC - we have strong community now. Not wanted. Belongs in Calgary.
#no2bing - Seniors housing is window dressing and too expensive. Community built seniors place like Bragg creek better
#no2bing - Developer should pay for all roadwork. If councillor has received $ from developer should reccuse!
#no2bing - He doesn't know of any group now.
#no2bing - Dr. David Challuk - left a video - in favour
- When everyone applauded Rolly threatened to throw us out. Gee, I thought it was OUR building...
#no2bing - Nancy Desai - opposed - size and scope of project - lack of infrastructure plans. Water - noticeable increase in water problems
#no2bing - Basement flooding, road erosion. Large paved areas mean run off and water will flow to the Bow River
#no2bing - This guy is from Elbow Valley. Says no amenities close by. Isn't Aspen closer to Elbow Valley than Bingham site, or Westhills?
#no2bing - Margaret is now asking questions of the video
- Cindy - opposed. We did this in 2010, why are we here again? We don't need a drive-through or an Earls
#no2bing - Supports seniors housing but it doesn't need a mall
#no2bing - Food services, esp. grocery store, require multiple big trucks every day
#no2bing - Maureen - in favour -location - ideal for seniors and local shopping, other 3 already developed
- Open space - agriculture is not open space. Also production on 1/4 section is minimal. Hard to farm in this area.
#no2bing - Kim asks what Maureen means by "hard to farm in area now"
#no2bing - - 8 more videos - they will be held to the end - motion proposed. Solberg queries if that is fair because they may get left to Thurs
#no2bing - Motion passed
#no2bing - Shawn - opposed - council elected to represent us. Traffic overload - compare w/ Elbow Valley teen deaths on hwy 8
#no2bing - Doubling traffic on a road where we have 4 schools, doesn't even count Harmony and that traffic
#no2bing - George - in favour - 5 kids - much smaller development now. We don't have some conveniences like Aspen Landing is Springbank
#no2bing - Good to include seniors. Happy development will be paying taxes - pays its way - need to seek opps for economic dev.
#no2bing - Art and Yvonne - opposed - Old ASP: old does not mean bad, extra traffic has negative effect.
#no2bing - Concerned about urban sprawl - BC does not enhance the culture of Springbank. Meant to serve Calgary - don't be fooled
#no2bing - Concerned about emergency services, increased crime, pollution, light pollution, tax increases for solving these issues
#no2bing - Solberg - do you live in N Springbank? Yes
#no2bing - Guy - in favour - Western securities Ltd - big developer - says development adheres to conceptual plan approved last month
#no2bing - Talking about Gloria, Kim, Margaret - pointing out how they all came from somewhere else thanks to developers
#no2bing - Bill - opposed - how will BC impact SB as a whole? Traffic - need to meet peak demand - averages mean nothing
#no2bing - Summer - Callaway, Winter - hockey at Edge and SPFAS - sig impact on road structures
#no2bing - Pollution - vehicles idling, blowing garbage, light, noise, poss contamination of water table
#no2bing - Measure society by how seniors are treated - how is a mall treating seniors well? Can project stand w/o seniors
#no2bing - Nigel - in favour - love mix of residential / rural but think the development is essential. Likes Cross Iron Mills.
#no2bing - Flooding b/c water table too high. Soil does not drain properly. Folks spend $$$$ on flood prevention in area
#no2bing - They were trying to fit in people tonight who cannot make it Thursday but there are too many...
#no2bing - They are going to accept videos from those who cannot make it Thursday that they don't get to today.
#no2bing - Sherri - CL ranches Ltd. - in favour. Wants to speak from agricultural perspective - disturbance of topsoil makes it bad 4 farm
#no2bing - Springbank has been positive to farm - deterioration of soil makes Bingham land non-arable. Scraped to build overpass
#no2bing - Catherine - hasn't heard of anyone who did phone survey, BC never came to her door or her neighbours - who are they consulting?
#no2bing - Blaine - in favour - senior housing - wants a medical facility. Needs services - county sees big picture
#no2bing - Debra - opposed - character and charm - please listen to western Councillors, they understand our views.
#no2bing - Jason - in favour - real estate agent - concerns about property values. Market is slipping - acreage concept obsolete
#no2bing - 140 days to sell a house in Springbank now
#no2bing - Solberg asks if property values won't go up with amenities nearby - says people want high quality lifestyle
#no2bing - Margaret - Harmony w/ its bus centre - does it address concerns about services? Council not responsible 4 developers success
#no2bing - Also thinks seniors res was just something they tacked on - he's not sure it can work
#no2bing - Kris - opposed - property values going up - offended by opening remarks of the developer - slander, etc.
#no2bing - We have a meeting place - SPFAS - the developers throw in a seniors place because the community is opposed
#no2bing - Going to be the height of Edge School - that is a domed hockey rink - how would you get an 80 yo down from there in a fire?
#no2bing - The developers are not my neighbours. I don't need a Safeway. I don't need a bar. Hwy 2 - don't repeat on Hwy 1
#no2bing - Sorry about the break in coverage - it was my turn
#no2bing - Guy up now in favour from Edge school -says when sewer and other utilities come in it will be easier for all to hook in w/ corner
#no2bing - Next person - stay at home mom - opposed - feels the in favour people telling her what she should want don't live here
#no2bing - She says the people who are for it have something to gain and the people opposed actually live here and it's their home
#no2bing - Leo - in favour - doesn't see any problems with traffic, only problem with water is pressurized line - supports project 100%
#no2bing - Rolly asks for a motion to adjourn and reconvene on Thursday at 9 AM
#no2bing - They will take people who didn't get to speak, taking videos from those who cannot be here Thurs. And they are adjourned
#no2bing
This is my live-blog from the Bingham Public Hearing on
Tuesday, October 30, 2012, for anyone who was not there, is not on Twitter, or would
like to refresh their memory... It is not complete and there is
occasional paraphrasing when people spoke too quickly, but it has
the gist of it. There should be a transcript available of the entire
taped proceedings eventually, but for tomorrow, perhaps this will
do... Sorry for the occasional editorial observation – couldn't
help myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)