Over the last couple days, as the drama on North American financial markets has unfolded, the US government decided that it needed to do something. And now that something has emerged as a US$700 billion plan to buy bad debt from banks and investment houses.
Brilliant. This plan will take the US debt from US$9.668 trillion (I can't even properly conceptualize that much money) to about US$10.3 billion. This plan will increase the US national debt by 150% the amount of the entire Canadian national debt (currently about C$500 billion or about US$477 billion). And for all this debt, Americans don't even have a national healthcare system. Lets, just for the shock value, look at these values expressed as numbers.
US National Debt: US$10 368 000 000 000
CAN National Debt: US$500 000 000 000
That's obscene. What is even more obscene is that this bail out won't do a single thing to help the ordinary people of the United States. The working class won't see a penny of this money. Bush is going to transfer $350 billion per year to the capitalist class. These are the same people who scream about welfare recipients getting a grand or two a month, so that they can buy food and pay rent (and often can't afford even that). And yet some on the right are screaming about this being "socialism." Trust me when I say, as a socialist, that this is not socialism. This is kleptocracy. The capitalists made ridiculously bad business decisions, endangered the fundamentals of the American economy, got filthy rich in the process, and now their mistakes are being covered by the taxes paid by working class Americans. It's obscene.
Americans are going to be stuck paying for this bailout for decades to come, if not centuries. The stupid, greedy piggish capitalists have gotten bailed out of their stupidity, and once again it comes on the backs of the people most oppressed by the capitalist system. But so long as the American media gushes about this bailout, most people won't ever know the difference. And of course, the supposed "left wing alternative" in the US, the Democratic Party, is cheer-leading this bullshit and will uncritically pass it through Congress.
This is bullshit. Americans need to be up in arms about this. Their future is being mortgaged (pun not intended, but now I like it) to bail out irresponsible pig-dog capitalists. But there is no outrage. It is beyond frustrating.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 121
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
I'm Back
I've let this lapse for far too long, but now I will try to get myself back on track. That may be tough, since I have a busy couple of days coming up, and there's been a lot going on, but I'm going to try.
The Canadian federal election is clearly going to be the top story. The media has itself worked up into a lather about how the Conservatives are knocking on the door of majority government, the Liberals are in meltdown, the NDP is pushing for official opposition and the Greens are the best thing since sliced bread and a going to make a serious breakthrough. Unsurprisingly, given the history of media lather, none of that is true.
To start off with, lets look at the polling numbers. Routinely, for the last couple federal elections, Nanos polling (formerly known as SES) has been the most accurate polling company, coming very close to the final result. So I am going to use their numbers as the guide for my commentary on polls through the election. Unless, of course, I see a blatantly ridiculous poll like the one from Segma Research last week that showed the CPC at 43%. That was a howler.
Nanos currently has the following numbers:
CPC: 38%
LPC: 31%
NDP: 17%
BQ: 7%
GPC: 7%
Margin of error: +/- 3.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Looking at those numbers, it means that all of the change since the last election (CPC +2%, LPC +1%, NDP -1%, BQ -3%, GPC +2%, after rounding) is within the margin of error. We could very well come back with the exact same result as the last election. All of the people running around screaming about any number of disasters or miracles need to have their heads checked. Much as I would like to believe the NDP is about to have it's breakthrough to be the official opposition, it isn't looking like it is going to happen this time. The same way, the CPC will not form a majority government. 38% is only in the most positive of eventualities enough for a bare majority. Chretien squeaked one out with 38% in 1997, but there was no opposition party polling anywhere near 30% at the time and Liberal support wasn't concentrated in a relatively small province the same way CPC support is concentrated in Alberta. Stephen Harper can only win every seat in Alberta once. The Greens will also not elect a single MP. Potato Head Pete will beat eMay in Central Nova, and Blair Wilson will suffer an embarassing beat-down in West Vancouver - Sunshine Coast - Sea-to-Sky Country.
If the Conservatives come back with an increased minority (I repeat, it won't be a majority), it will likely be because of seat gains in rural Quebec, and possibly in BC. They will lose seats in Atlantic Canada, possibly being wiped out in NL and down to one seat in NS (Pete, beating eMay). The CPC may also lose Tobique-Mactaquac, putting them down five seats. It think, however, that the most likely outcome is probably the CPC coming out of this election up by 2-5 seats, with the NDP gaining 3-6, and the losses coming from the LPC, BQ and Greens (their one pathetic floor crossing seat).
The Cons have not been running the same kind of gaffe-free campaign they did last time, that much is already clear. From the puffin fiasco to the ill-advised swipe at the father of a dead soldier, however, the gaffes have come from the back room, not candidates. That all changed today. Today the Globe and Mail is reporting that Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz was making fun of the deaths from Listeriosis poisoning (referring to "death by 1000 cold cuts") and, when he heard that one of the fatalities was from Prince Edward Island, he said that he hoped it was Wayne Easter, the Liberal Agriculture critic. Oops.
That kind of gaffe is exactly what can sink the not-so-good ship Conservative. Last time around, a significant contribution to the fall of the Liberals was Scott Reid's "beer and popcorn" quip. This comment has the capacity to do the same thing. Conservatives are shown to be making light of the deaths of Canadians on their watch, from a product that is supposed to be regulated by the government they were running. This shows an appalling coldness of heart, as well as a sadistic streak, wishing death on Mr. Easter and hideous sorrow on his family.
This comment also shows that the CPC has not changed since it was the reform party. It continues to be crass, classless and cruel. Mean spirited cuts to the arts, ideologically motivated cuts to funding for Status of Women Canada (not to mention removing the word "equality" from their mandate), introducing copyright legislation more draconian that the US's Digital Millennium Copyright Act, electoral fraud through the in-and-out scheme, attempting to roll back the sexual morality clock to the 1950s by raising the age of consent (and shame on the other parties for going along with it) and by trying to repeal the Civil Marriage Act that allowed same-sex marriage. And let's not even get into their colossal failure on the climate chaos file.
Now, the Liberals are not a lot better, since they stood aside and let these paleo-con measures pass unimpeded, ranting and raving about how they opposed the bill, but generating all light and no heat, since when the time came only a rump of Liberals showed up to cast votes against the bills. The Liberals are also trying to out tax cut the Conservatives, pledging more and deeper tax cuts for corporations than even the Conservatives. That is NUTS. Canada already has a lower corporate tax rate that the United States, and corporate income tax rates are substantially lower than personal income tax rates. Never mind the Green Shift that works nicely for the upper crust puppet masters of the Liberal party, while laying the burden of the post-carbon transition on the backs of the poorest in society. But enough about the Liberals for now, they are mostly doing enought to embarass themselves that I don't need to help them along.
The NDP is not perfect. It is too pragmatic in its pursuit of power, and it has drifted too far from its principles and its base. But I do like a lot of the policy that the party has proposed this time around. It is good, on point, and addresses many important issues, including childcare, reform of the banking sector and climate chaos. I was ashamed to be a member of the party when all but Bill Siksay voted in favour of the omnibus crime bill that not only overrode just about every social worker and sociologist in the country on the age of consent, but also neglected yet another opportunity to end the bigoted differential age of consent for anal and vaginal intercourse. But I am still a supporter of this party. I can't say I will be forever, but for now I am. My vote will be going to Meagan Leslie, the NDP candidate here in Halifax, and I think she makes a good candidate.
The Greens are an interesting case. I think the most interesting role they have left to play in this campaign will be whether or not eMay endorses Dion and the Liberals at the end. She may well, since he has endorsed a number of Liberals, even those running against Greens. I will go on the record saying that eMay should not have been included in the debates. Her party has only got one floor crossing seat in Parliament. Every previous party has had to have at least one MP elected under their banner (and don't mention Gilles Duceppe, everyone knew he was running for the BQ but they just weren't a formal party at the time he was elected) to get into the debate. Yet eMay managed to shame the country into giving her a voice despite her deal with Dion which effectively makes her a second Liberal in the debate. We should all watch closely to see if they are signalling each other.
Any how, that is enough for now. As I said, I will try to keep this blog updated, but we shall see.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 124
The Canadian federal election is clearly going to be the top story. The media has itself worked up into a lather about how the Conservatives are knocking on the door of majority government, the Liberals are in meltdown, the NDP is pushing for official opposition and the Greens are the best thing since sliced bread and a going to make a serious breakthrough. Unsurprisingly, given the history of media lather, none of that is true.
To start off with, lets look at the polling numbers. Routinely, for the last couple federal elections, Nanos polling (formerly known as SES) has been the most accurate polling company, coming very close to the final result. So I am going to use their numbers as the guide for my commentary on polls through the election. Unless, of course, I see a blatantly ridiculous poll like the one from Segma Research last week that showed the CPC at 43%. That was a howler.
Nanos currently has the following numbers:
CPC: 38%
LPC: 31%
NDP: 17%
BQ: 7%
GPC: 7%
Margin of error: +/- 3.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Looking at those numbers, it means that all of the change since the last election (CPC +2%, LPC +1%, NDP -1%, BQ -3%, GPC +2%, after rounding) is within the margin of error. We could very well come back with the exact same result as the last election. All of the people running around screaming about any number of disasters or miracles need to have their heads checked. Much as I would like to believe the NDP is about to have it's breakthrough to be the official opposition, it isn't looking like it is going to happen this time. The same way, the CPC will not form a majority government. 38% is only in the most positive of eventualities enough for a bare majority. Chretien squeaked one out with 38% in 1997, but there was no opposition party polling anywhere near 30% at the time and Liberal support wasn't concentrated in a relatively small province the same way CPC support is concentrated in Alberta. Stephen Harper can only win every seat in Alberta once. The Greens will also not elect a single MP. Potato Head Pete will beat eMay in Central Nova, and Blair Wilson will suffer an embarassing beat-down in West Vancouver - Sunshine Coast - Sea-to-Sky Country.
If the Conservatives come back with an increased minority (I repeat, it won't be a majority), it will likely be because of seat gains in rural Quebec, and possibly in BC. They will lose seats in Atlantic Canada, possibly being wiped out in NL and down to one seat in NS (Pete, beating eMay). The CPC may also lose Tobique-Mactaquac, putting them down five seats. It think, however, that the most likely outcome is probably the CPC coming out of this election up by 2-5 seats, with the NDP gaining 3-6, and the losses coming from the LPC, BQ and Greens (their one pathetic floor crossing seat).
The Cons have not been running the same kind of gaffe-free campaign they did last time, that much is already clear. From the puffin fiasco to the ill-advised swipe at the father of a dead soldier, however, the gaffes have come from the back room, not candidates. That all changed today. Today the Globe and Mail is reporting that Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz was making fun of the deaths from Listeriosis poisoning (referring to "death by 1000 cold cuts") and, when he heard that one of the fatalities was from Prince Edward Island, he said that he hoped it was Wayne Easter, the Liberal Agriculture critic. Oops.
That kind of gaffe is exactly what can sink the not-so-good ship Conservative. Last time around, a significant contribution to the fall of the Liberals was Scott Reid's "beer and popcorn" quip. This comment has the capacity to do the same thing. Conservatives are shown to be making light of the deaths of Canadians on their watch, from a product that is supposed to be regulated by the government they were running. This shows an appalling coldness of heart, as well as a sadistic streak, wishing death on Mr. Easter and hideous sorrow on his family.
This comment also shows that the CPC has not changed since it was the reform party. It continues to be crass, classless and cruel. Mean spirited cuts to the arts, ideologically motivated cuts to funding for Status of Women Canada (not to mention removing the word "equality" from their mandate), introducing copyright legislation more draconian that the US's Digital Millennium Copyright Act, electoral fraud through the in-and-out scheme, attempting to roll back the sexual morality clock to the 1950s by raising the age of consent (and shame on the other parties for going along with it) and by trying to repeal the Civil Marriage Act that allowed same-sex marriage. And let's not even get into their colossal failure on the climate chaos file.
Now, the Liberals are not a lot better, since they stood aside and let these paleo-con measures pass unimpeded, ranting and raving about how they opposed the bill, but generating all light and no heat, since when the time came only a rump of Liberals showed up to cast votes against the bills. The Liberals are also trying to out tax cut the Conservatives, pledging more and deeper tax cuts for corporations than even the Conservatives. That is NUTS. Canada already has a lower corporate tax rate that the United States, and corporate income tax rates are substantially lower than personal income tax rates. Never mind the Green Shift that works nicely for the upper crust puppet masters of the Liberal party, while laying the burden of the post-carbon transition on the backs of the poorest in society. But enough about the Liberals for now, they are mostly doing enought to embarass themselves that I don't need to help them along.
The NDP is not perfect. It is too pragmatic in its pursuit of power, and it has drifted too far from its principles and its base. But I do like a lot of the policy that the party has proposed this time around. It is good, on point, and addresses many important issues, including childcare, reform of the banking sector and climate chaos. I was ashamed to be a member of the party when all but Bill Siksay voted in favour of the omnibus crime bill that not only overrode just about every social worker and sociologist in the country on the age of consent, but also neglected yet another opportunity to end the bigoted differential age of consent for anal and vaginal intercourse. But I am still a supporter of this party. I can't say I will be forever, but for now I am. My vote will be going to Meagan Leslie, the NDP candidate here in Halifax, and I think she makes a good candidate.
The Greens are an interesting case. I think the most interesting role they have left to play in this campaign will be whether or not eMay endorses Dion and the Liberals at the end. She may well, since he has endorsed a number of Liberals, even those running against Greens. I will go on the record saying that eMay should not have been included in the debates. Her party has only got one floor crossing seat in Parliament. Every previous party has had to have at least one MP elected under their banner (and don't mention Gilles Duceppe, everyone knew he was running for the BQ but they just weren't a formal party at the time he was elected) to get into the debate. Yet eMay managed to shame the country into giving her a voice despite her deal with Dion which effectively makes her a second Liberal in the debate. We should all watch closely to see if they are signalling each other.
Any how, that is enough for now. As I said, I will try to keep this blog updated, but we shall see.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 124
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Taliban "threats"
A spokesman for the Taliban in Kandahar has said that if the occupation of Afghanistan does not end, Canada can expect to see more dead soldiers coming back. Predictably, the pro-war media (i.e. all of the MSM in Canada) has worked itself into a massive lather about this, displacing even the bread and circuses spectacle of the Olympic Games. There is ranting hither and yon about the Taliban "threatening" Canada. That is just arrant stupidity. It doesn't matter whether you are for the occupation or against the occupation, it is simply a fact that so long as the people of Afghanistan continue to resist the occupation of their country by uninvited foreign powers (and no, the invitation by a US installed Unocal consultant doesn't fly), and so long as Canadian troops continue to take part in the occupation, Canadian troops will continue to die. It isn't a threat, it is a statement of reality.
Now I disagree with the Taliban on just about everything, from the rights of women to the right to a democratic government, but they have this one right. So long as the occupation continues, the Afghans will resist it. They have done it before, countless times since the invasion of Alexander the Great to the Soviet occupation of the 1980s. For the West to imagine it will be any different this time is the hight of hubris and arrogance. The people of Afghanistan have the right to determine their own future, not to have it determined by the imperial thug who sits in Washington, or his minions and lackeys in Ottawa, London, Amsterdam or Kabul. I profoundly hope that the people of Afghanistan choose a future free of the Taliban, but that is a choice they must make for themselves, and not have it imposed upon them by the American Empire.
If Canadians are wise, we will force our government to withdraw from Afghanistan, and serve two purposes at once: the end of the occupation allowing Afghans to determine their own future, and the end of Canadian soldiers dying for nothing more important than an oil pipeline route.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 155
Now I disagree with the Taliban on just about everything, from the rights of women to the right to a democratic government, but they have this one right. So long as the occupation continues, the Afghans will resist it. They have done it before, countless times since the invasion of Alexander the Great to the Soviet occupation of the 1980s. For the West to imagine it will be any different this time is the hight of hubris and arrogance. The people of Afghanistan have the right to determine their own future, not to have it determined by the imperial thug who sits in Washington, or his minions and lackeys in Ottawa, London, Amsterdam or Kabul. I profoundly hope that the people of Afghanistan choose a future free of the Taliban, but that is a choice they must make for themselves, and not have it imposed upon them by the American Empire.
If Canadians are wise, we will force our government to withdraw from Afghanistan, and serve two purposes at once: the end of the occupation allowing Afghans to determine their own future, and the end of Canadian soldiers dying for nothing more important than an oil pipeline route.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 155
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
More Gouging by our Friendly Neigbourhood Telecom Oligopoly
I really, really, hate the telecoms. I'm just going to put that out there from the get go. Let's toss the CRTC in there too. I really hate the CRTC.
Now that I've gotten that out of the way, on to why I am particularly peeved today. Bell and Telus have announced that in August, customers who do not have a text messaging package on their contracts will have to pay $0.15 per incoming SMS. That is bullshit.
It costs the telecoms absolutely nothing to deliver an SMS to a mobile phone, since the sending person has already paid. The telecoms are simply trying to force people into buying SMS packages on their phone systems. I for one don't use text messages all that much, so when I got my current contract, I didn't bother getting a text messaging package. This means that were I a Bell or Telus customer (which I am not), I would be forced into paying for something I don't want and don't need.
This is especially bull because there is no capacity to block unwanted text messages. A person is not given the opportunity to refuse an SMS when it comes it. This is like forcing a person to accept a collect call. If the company is going to make me pay for incoming text messages, they had damn well better let me choose which ones I do and don't want to accept. People who get SMS spam shouldn't be stuck having to pay for it.
This is gouging of the worst kind, and clear evidence of the existence of a predatory oligopoly. On the one hand, we have Bell and Telus, who want to impose bullshit charges on incoming texts. On the other, we have Rogers, which refuses to institute an unlimited data plan for it's smart phones. Between the three of them, Canadians pay vastly more for cell phone service than citizens of pretty much any other country in the world. And this is where we come to why I hate the CRTC.
The CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission) has been given the task of regulating the telecom industry. At this job, it has failed grievously. The CRTC has allowed unprecedented concentration in the telecom industry, allowing only three companies (and don't think I've forgotten Fido, but they are owned by Rogers now) to control the entire market. If the CRTC was doing it's job, it would never have allowed Rogers to buy Fido, and it would pursue much more stringent competition policies. Instead, it has been asleep at the switch, and what is more sleeping in the same bed as the telecoms.
We need to give the CRTC a massive kick in the pants to wake it up. The CRTC is an organ of the state, and the state is (at least theoretically) controlled by the citizens. What we also need to do is put in place a state-owned telecom, to enter the market and provide for-cost mobile phone, internet and television service. Force the telecoms to either give up their predatory practices or fade away. The people should control the economy. The economy should be democratic. But under capitalism, it is no such thing. The economy under capitalism responds to those with money, and through the economy, they control the state. A nationalized telecom wouldn't break the hold of the capitalists and the bourgeoisie, but it would start the ball rolling, proving to people that a democratic economy is possible, and indeed desirable.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 195
Now that I've gotten that out of the way, on to why I am particularly peeved today. Bell and Telus have announced that in August, customers who do not have a text messaging package on their contracts will have to pay $0.15 per incoming SMS. That is bullshit.
It costs the telecoms absolutely nothing to deliver an SMS to a mobile phone, since the sending person has already paid. The telecoms are simply trying to force people into buying SMS packages on their phone systems. I for one don't use text messages all that much, so when I got my current contract, I didn't bother getting a text messaging package. This means that were I a Bell or Telus customer (which I am not), I would be forced into paying for something I don't want and don't need.
This is especially bull because there is no capacity to block unwanted text messages. A person is not given the opportunity to refuse an SMS when it comes it. This is like forcing a person to accept a collect call. If the company is going to make me pay for incoming text messages, they had damn well better let me choose which ones I do and don't want to accept. People who get SMS spam shouldn't be stuck having to pay for it.
This is gouging of the worst kind, and clear evidence of the existence of a predatory oligopoly. On the one hand, we have Bell and Telus, who want to impose bullshit charges on incoming texts. On the other, we have Rogers, which refuses to institute an unlimited data plan for it's smart phones. Between the three of them, Canadians pay vastly more for cell phone service than citizens of pretty much any other country in the world. And this is where we come to why I hate the CRTC.
The CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission) has been given the task of regulating the telecom industry. At this job, it has failed grievously. The CRTC has allowed unprecedented concentration in the telecom industry, allowing only three companies (and don't think I've forgotten Fido, but they are owned by Rogers now) to control the entire market. If the CRTC was doing it's job, it would never have allowed Rogers to buy Fido, and it would pursue much more stringent competition policies. Instead, it has been asleep at the switch, and what is more sleeping in the same bed as the telecoms.
We need to give the CRTC a massive kick in the pants to wake it up. The CRTC is an organ of the state, and the state is (at least theoretically) controlled by the citizens. What we also need to do is put in place a state-owned telecom, to enter the market and provide for-cost mobile phone, internet and television service. Force the telecoms to either give up their predatory practices or fade away. The people should control the economy. The economy should be democratic. But under capitalism, it is no such thing. The economy under capitalism responds to those with money, and through the economy, they control the state. A nationalized telecom wouldn't break the hold of the capitalists and the bourgeoisie, but it would start the ball rolling, proving to people that a democratic economy is possible, and indeed desirable.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 195
Monday, June 30, 2008
First Pride Parades Held in India
In defiance of homophobic legislation in India that provides a punishment of up to ten years in jail for being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered, hundreds of gay rights activists have held the first widespread pride parades in India's history (there had been a couple small events in Calcutta in the last couple years). Good on them. What is sad is that many of those brave individuals who turned out felt the need to wear masks to hide their identity.
India's laws prohibiting homosexuality are a disgusting throwback to the era in which Imperial Britain imposed appalling Victorian moralizing on it's empire. The British Empire has many things to answer for, and the horrifying attitude toward GLBT folks is yet another one of them. I salute those with the courage to show up and show their pride. Straight society around the world needs to come to terms with the reality that gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trans folk exist, and are entitled to the exact same rights as every other person.
In many parts of the west, we like to congratulate ourselves on having a progressive attitude towards LGBT folks. The sad fact is that while in some countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Canada, South Africa and Norway) there is full formal equality for LGBT folks, even in those countries, deep undercurrents of homophobic hatred persist. When school children feel it is alright to use "you're so gay" as a put-down to mean stupid or worthless, something is deeply wrong. When people rely on ridiculous injunctions from a book more than 2000 years old (that also, by the way, condemns as abomination wearing clothes made of two kinds of fibre among other idiocies) to decide that being gay is abomination, something is wrong. When a person is allowed to declaim violent hatred under the thin guise of religion, something is wrong. Ultimately, formal legal equality is meaningless unless there is substantive society equality to go along with it. Until the day that no child grows up learning to hate someone on the basis of a biologically determined reality, until the day that there is no danger of another murder like that of Brandon Teena or Matthew Sheppard, the work isn't finished.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 205
India's laws prohibiting homosexuality are a disgusting throwback to the era in which Imperial Britain imposed appalling Victorian moralizing on it's empire. The British Empire has many things to answer for, and the horrifying attitude toward GLBT folks is yet another one of them. I salute those with the courage to show up and show their pride. Straight society around the world needs to come to terms with the reality that gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trans folk exist, and are entitled to the exact same rights as every other person.
In many parts of the west, we like to congratulate ourselves on having a progressive attitude towards LGBT folks. The sad fact is that while in some countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Canada, South Africa and Norway) there is full formal equality for LGBT folks, even in those countries, deep undercurrents of homophobic hatred persist. When school children feel it is alright to use "you're so gay" as a put-down to mean stupid or worthless, something is deeply wrong. When people rely on ridiculous injunctions from a book more than 2000 years old (that also, by the way, condemns as abomination wearing clothes made of two kinds of fibre among other idiocies) to decide that being gay is abomination, something is wrong. When a person is allowed to declaim violent hatred under the thin guise of religion, something is wrong. Ultimately, formal legal equality is meaningless unless there is substantive society equality to go along with it. Until the day that no child grows up learning to hate someone on the basis of a biologically determined reality, until the day that there is no danger of another murder like that of Brandon Teena or Matthew Sheppard, the work isn't finished.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 205
Saturday, June 28, 2008
A Travesty of Democracy in Zimbabwe
Robert Mugabe was once a man to be respected and admired. He was a revolutionary who led the people of Zimbabwe to overthrow white minority rule, and opposed transnational capitalism. Unfortunately, Mugabe has degenerated into yet another violent tyrant, confirmed by the process leading up to the presidential runoff election held yesterday. Mugabe's thugs attempted to terrorize the population into turning out to vote, and to vote for Mugabe. In an incredible act of courage, the people have defied Mugabe, and stayed home in droves. The outcome of the election is not in doubt, and has not been since the unconscionable delay in releasing the results of the first round of the presidential elections in May, that opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai should have won outright, and yet still the ZEC (the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission) can't manage to release the results of this staged farce within one day. They need more time to falsify the results.
The people of Zimbabwe are entitled to much better than this. They have the right to a vote and a result that expresses their collective will, not some ridiculous vaudeville act masquerading as an election. The people of Zimbabwe, as do all citizens of the world, have a right to government of the people by the people for the people, and that is not what they are getting. I will not call for an armed intervention in Zimbabwe. War doesn't fix anything, and only leads to more suffering. However, the United Nations must impose carefully targeted sanctions, such as travel restrictions and bank account seizures, aimed only at Mugabe and his chief thugs in what is mockingly called a cabinet. The UN must also be sure that the sanctions imposed do not hurt the people of Zimbabwe. This is not their fault, and they should not have to suffer any further for Mugabe's despotic brutality.
Thabo Mbeki, president of South Africa, ought to be ashamed of himself for the stance he has taken during this crisis. He has refused to criticize Mugabe, and has tacitly lent him support. That is unbelievable in the leader of a democratic state, as South Africa is. Letting Mugabe escape without criticism is unbelievable. Frankly, this type of "quiet diplomacy" is a crock.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 206
The people of Zimbabwe are entitled to much better than this. They have the right to a vote and a result that expresses their collective will, not some ridiculous vaudeville act masquerading as an election. The people of Zimbabwe, as do all citizens of the world, have a right to government of the people by the people for the people, and that is not what they are getting. I will not call for an armed intervention in Zimbabwe. War doesn't fix anything, and only leads to more suffering. However, the United Nations must impose carefully targeted sanctions, such as travel restrictions and bank account seizures, aimed only at Mugabe and his chief thugs in what is mockingly called a cabinet. The UN must also be sure that the sanctions imposed do not hurt the people of Zimbabwe. This is not their fault, and they should not have to suffer any further for Mugabe's despotic brutality.
Thabo Mbeki, president of South Africa, ought to be ashamed of himself for the stance he has taken during this crisis. He has refused to criticize Mugabe, and has tacitly lent him support. That is unbelievable in the leader of a democratic state, as South Africa is. Letting Mugabe escape without criticism is unbelievable. Frankly, this type of "quiet diplomacy" is a crock.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 206
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Dion Defends Carbon Tax
So yesterday the Liberals finally released some of the details of their carbon tax plan. The key to it is offsetting income and corporate tax cuts of $15 billion. Stephane Dion claims that the Liberal plan will be "good for the environment and good for the economy — good for the planet, good for the wallet." He also pledges that under his plan the Auditor General will examine the numbers every year to ensure that the tax remains revenue neutral.
This is ridiculous. A carbon tax must, in order to be effective, have an impact on the bottom line. By making the tax revenue neutral, that impact on the bottom line is eliminated for all but the poorest of the poor. The middle class will see something approaching neutrality, and the upper classes will actually get extra money from the tax cuts. The addition of corporate tax cuts to the package simply reinforces the fact that Dion's plan will accomplish nothing but a wealth transfer from the poorest of the poor to the richest of the rich. Dion's plan is much more along the lines of from each according to his inability and to each according to his excess wealth. Dion is camouflaging a massive give away to the capitalist class as a measure to protect the environment.
Dion claims that his plan will price carbon in the first year at $10 per tonne, and rise to $40 per tonne by the fourth year. This is not nearly fast enough. The NDP's cap-and-trade plan will auction carbon quotas, with a floor price of $35/tonne in the first year. Dion further claims that the cost to the "average" home (without specifying what makes an average home) will be about $225-250 per year. That is a lot of money for some families, particularly those in the lowest tax brackets, even if that number accurately reflects the cost. There will also be many poor families living in rural areas who have to pay much higher added costs, for example struggling farm families who need to fuel their tractors.
The specific breakdown in the income tax cuts is as follows:
The Liberal plan also does nothing to help Canadians make the switch to zero-carbon or low-carbon lifestyles. Because of "revenue neutrality" there are no additional funds to pay for beefed-up public transit, subsidies for the purchase of ultra-low emission vehicles, the development of green renewable energy generation or the retraining of workers in fields that will be adversely affected by any shift in consumer behaviour. Though I suppose that isn't really an issue, since this plan won't produce a shift in behaviour, since it won't negatively impact the bottom line for anyone but the poorest of the poor. And I'm pretty sure the Liberals don't want it to have much of an effect either. After all, they were in power for years after signing the Kyoto Protocol, and sat on their hands while emissions went up and up. Liberal green-washing is just as pathetically transparent as the green-washing the the oil companies are trying to do. I hope that Canadians have the sense to see through it. No, the Conservatives aren't any better, but they really aren't much worse at this point.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 215
This is ridiculous. A carbon tax must, in order to be effective, have an impact on the bottom line. By making the tax revenue neutral, that impact on the bottom line is eliminated for all but the poorest of the poor. The middle class will see something approaching neutrality, and the upper classes will actually get extra money from the tax cuts. The addition of corporate tax cuts to the package simply reinforces the fact that Dion's plan will accomplish nothing but a wealth transfer from the poorest of the poor to the richest of the rich. Dion's plan is much more along the lines of from each according to his inability and to each according to his excess wealth. Dion is camouflaging a massive give away to the capitalist class as a measure to protect the environment.
Dion claims that his plan will price carbon in the first year at $10 per tonne, and rise to $40 per tonne by the fourth year. This is not nearly fast enough. The NDP's cap-and-trade plan will auction carbon quotas, with a floor price of $35/tonne in the first year. Dion further claims that the cost to the "average" home (without specifying what makes an average home) will be about $225-250 per year. That is a lot of money for some families, particularly those in the lowest tax brackets, even if that number accurately reflects the cost. There will also be many poor families living in rural areas who have to pay much higher added costs, for example struggling farm families who need to fuel their tractors.
The specific breakdown in the income tax cuts is as follows:
- Tax Bracket 1 (first $37 885 of taxable income) - 1.5% cut
- Tax Bracket 2 ($37 885 - 75 769) - 1% cut
- Tax Bracket 3 ($75 769 - $123 184) - 1% cut
The Liberal plan also does nothing to help Canadians make the switch to zero-carbon or low-carbon lifestyles. Because of "revenue neutrality" there are no additional funds to pay for beefed-up public transit, subsidies for the purchase of ultra-low emission vehicles, the development of green renewable energy generation or the retraining of workers in fields that will be adversely affected by any shift in consumer behaviour. Though I suppose that isn't really an issue, since this plan won't produce a shift in behaviour, since it won't negatively impact the bottom line for anyone but the poorest of the poor. And I'm pretty sure the Liberals don't want it to have much of an effect either. After all, they were in power for years after signing the Kyoto Protocol, and sat on their hands while emissions went up and up. Liberal green-washing is just as pathetically transparent as the green-washing the the oil companies are trying to do. I hope that Canadians have the sense to see through it. No, the Conservatives aren't any better, but they really aren't much worse at this point.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 215
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Carbon tax vs. Cap-and-Trade vs. Do Nothing
As we move into the summer BBQ circuit/silly season in the world of Canadian politics, I thought I ought to take a gander at the proposals the main parties are making to control global climate change resulting from greenhouse gas emissions, and particularly carbon dioxide. I say control because there is a snowball's chance in Hell that we can stop it now. All we can hope to do is limit it to non-disastrous levels, say making sure that the oceans don't rise enough to submerge every island state in the world.
Since in this country it takes a proposal from the Liberals to get the media interested in anything, I will start with the Liberal position on the issue. They have decided that their approach to the problem is going to be a carbon tax, a la British Columbia or some of Europe's right-wing governments. This is a tax that the Conservatives have unhelpfully dubbed a "tax on everything." Typically inaccurate, but punchy. This tax is essentially targeted at the demand end of supply-demand teeter-totter, aiming to disincent carbon-intensive activities. This tax will increase the costs of goods ranging from home heating oil to motor vehicles to plastic wrap, in essence anything produced through CO2 intensive means, or putting out a substantial amount of carbon dioxide when used. The Liberals further say that their plan will be revenue neutral, that is the government will reduce other taxes, principally the income tax, to make up for the hit from the carbon tax. My experience growing up during the Mike Harris years in Ontario makes me automatically suspicious any time I hear the wwords "revenue neutral". After all, the amalgamation of Toronto was supposed to be revenue neutral, but the city is still trying to climb out of the massive hole created by amalgamation and downloading of social services.
The Liberal plan will jack up the price of many essentials for working class families, such as transportation and food (since food will cost more to transport). These same families will get very little back from an income tax cut, because they pay relatively little income tax to begin with. The supposed relief from the income tax cut will not even reach the poorest people, who don't earn sufficient money to pay income tax in the first place, but will take a ding in their already meager budgets from the costs added by the carbon tax. I can't support this plan because it is regressive, and will hurt the poorest and most vulnerable members of society, while passing on yet more money to the bourgeoisie.
Next, there is the NDP plan. The NDP calls for the creation of a cap-and-trade system, in which hard targets will be imposed, and companies doing better than their carbon quota will be able to sell their excess to companies exceeding their quota. This is the plan used by the European Union as a whole, as well as a number of other states party to the Kyoto Protocol. The levels of CO2 allowed would be reduced year by year, bringing emissions down. This plan is focused on the supply end of the supply-demand teeter-totter, aiming to disincent the production of carbon intensive products by companies and the development of new green technology. Further, the plan sells a company their quota of carbon dioxide for the year, bringing in about $2.5 billion per year according to NDP estimates. This money would then be put into a fund to develop green energy sources, worker retraining (to adjust to changes in the economy in the transition to post-carbon) and public transit.
This plan strikes me as much better, because it puts the burden on industry and business first, rather than setting the whole weight of the burden on the consumer. It also acknowledges that government action beyond fiscal policy levers is going to be needed in order to cope with the problem. I am not crazy about emissions trading, but to simply go straight to cap and no-trade would simply never get enacted. There will still be an increased burden on the poor, but there won't be a transfer of wealth to the capitalist class, and there will be measures to help ameliorate that burden, like expanding public transit to provide an alternative to private vehicles. This plan also wouldn't impose an extra cost on home heating, which is important in a cold country like Canada.
And then we have the Conservative plan, which calls for intensity targets and that's it. Blech. There is nothing good to say about this way of addressing the problem. An intensity target of a 25% cut means nothing if activity increases by that same 25%, and it means worse than nothing if activity grows more than that. For example, the government might tell the oil patch that it has to reduce carbon-per-barrel of oil by 25%, but production is expanding by well more than 25%, which means that not only will emissions not decrease, they will actually increase. The Conservative do-nothing plan has been rightly denounced as a fraud by every environmentalist from Al Gore and David Suzuki on down. This plan is merely a smokescreen to make a government that doesn't believe the science of global climate change look like it is doing something.
Hopefully Canada can have a meaningful discussion on this subject, but the Conservatives seem dead set on doing everything they can to prevent that, starting with their idiotic attack ads on the Liberal's "tax on everything." The CPC can't have much respect for Canadians, and they have proven that they have no interest in governing in the public interest, simply in their own interest. Here's hoping Canadians see sense, the Liberals grow a spine, and we have an election when the House comes back in the fall.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 217
Since in this country it takes a proposal from the Liberals to get the media interested in anything, I will start with the Liberal position on the issue. They have decided that their approach to the problem is going to be a carbon tax, a la British Columbia or some of Europe's right-wing governments. This is a tax that the Conservatives have unhelpfully dubbed a "tax on everything." Typically inaccurate, but punchy. This tax is essentially targeted at the demand end of supply-demand teeter-totter, aiming to disincent carbon-intensive activities. This tax will increase the costs of goods ranging from home heating oil to motor vehicles to plastic wrap, in essence anything produced through CO2 intensive means, or putting out a substantial amount of carbon dioxide when used. The Liberals further say that their plan will be revenue neutral, that is the government will reduce other taxes, principally the income tax, to make up for the hit from the carbon tax. My experience growing up during the Mike Harris years in Ontario makes me automatically suspicious any time I hear the wwords "revenue neutral". After all, the amalgamation of Toronto was supposed to be revenue neutral, but the city is still trying to climb out of the massive hole created by amalgamation and downloading of social services.
The Liberal plan will jack up the price of many essentials for working class families, such as transportation and food (since food will cost more to transport). These same families will get very little back from an income tax cut, because they pay relatively little income tax to begin with. The supposed relief from the income tax cut will not even reach the poorest people, who don't earn sufficient money to pay income tax in the first place, but will take a ding in their already meager budgets from the costs added by the carbon tax. I can't support this plan because it is regressive, and will hurt the poorest and most vulnerable members of society, while passing on yet more money to the bourgeoisie.
Next, there is the NDP plan. The NDP calls for the creation of a cap-and-trade system, in which hard targets will be imposed, and companies doing better than their carbon quota will be able to sell their excess to companies exceeding their quota. This is the plan used by the European Union as a whole, as well as a number of other states party to the Kyoto Protocol. The levels of CO2 allowed would be reduced year by year, bringing emissions down. This plan is focused on the supply end of the supply-demand teeter-totter, aiming to disincent the production of carbon intensive products by companies and the development of new green technology. Further, the plan sells a company their quota of carbon dioxide for the year, bringing in about $2.5 billion per year according to NDP estimates. This money would then be put into a fund to develop green energy sources, worker retraining (to adjust to changes in the economy in the transition to post-carbon) and public transit.
This plan strikes me as much better, because it puts the burden on industry and business first, rather than setting the whole weight of the burden on the consumer. It also acknowledges that government action beyond fiscal policy levers is going to be needed in order to cope with the problem. I am not crazy about emissions trading, but to simply go straight to cap and no-trade would simply never get enacted. There will still be an increased burden on the poor, but there won't be a transfer of wealth to the capitalist class, and there will be measures to help ameliorate that burden, like expanding public transit to provide an alternative to private vehicles. This plan also wouldn't impose an extra cost on home heating, which is important in a cold country like Canada.
And then we have the Conservative plan, which calls for intensity targets and that's it. Blech. There is nothing good to say about this way of addressing the problem. An intensity target of a 25% cut means nothing if activity increases by that same 25%, and it means worse than nothing if activity grows more than that. For example, the government might tell the oil patch that it has to reduce carbon-per-barrel of oil by 25%, but production is expanding by well more than 25%, which means that not only will emissions not decrease, they will actually increase. The Conservative do-nothing plan has been rightly denounced as a fraud by every environmentalist from Al Gore and David Suzuki on down. This plan is merely a smokescreen to make a government that doesn't believe the science of global climate change look like it is doing something.
Hopefully Canada can have a meaningful discussion on this subject, but the Conservatives seem dead set on doing everything they can to prevent that, starting with their idiotic attack ads on the Liberal's "tax on everything." The CPC can't have much respect for Canadians, and they have proven that they have no interest in governing in the public interest, simply in their own interest. Here's hoping Canadians see sense, the Liberals grow a spine, and we have an election when the House comes back in the fall.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 217
Monday, June 16, 2008
Murder of de Menezes Back in the Headlines
The murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian electrician, by member's of London's Metropolitan Police in July 2005 in a Tube station, is back in the headlines as the inquest into the event is finally getting under way. That's right, the inquest is getting started three years after Mr. de Menezes was killed.
The police story at the time was that Mr. de Menezes resembled one of the fugitive terrorists from the then-recent July 11 bombings on the London transit system, was wearing bulky clothing and had jumped a turnstile, leading them to believe that he was about to detonate a suicide bomb. The bulky clothing story and the turnstile jumping have since been thoroughly debunked. Once again, the police lied about the circumstances of killing. As for resembling the missing bomber, de Menezes was Brazilian. About the only thing he had in common with the bomber was that he was brown-skinned. And that tells us a lot. Either members of some of the most elite squads of the Metropolitan Police are unable to tell brown-skinned people apart, or they were just out to shoot a brown man that day. While the first is disturbing, the second is absolutely appalling.
The Metropolitan Police as a corporate body has been convicted at trial of endangering the health and safety of Mr. de Menezes. What the inquest will determine is whether or not Mr. de Menezes was unlawfully killed. I don't see how the coroner's jury could possibly conclude otherwise. Mr. de Menezes was killed because he was brown, no other reason. What other possible reason could the police advance, given that their previous story has been completely debunked? Even if Mr. de Menezes did resemble a missing suspect, that is simply not grounds to shoot him. It might, if you stretch things, be reasonable and probable grounds for a short-term detention (i.e. an hour or two) to determine his identity, but these officers decided to shoot first and then try to avoid questions. If the jury comes back with the right verdict, these officers must face trial for second-degree murder.
Sadly, this case is just another demonstration of the need for fundamental reform in the way that society polices itself. The institutions of the police are too hopelessly racist, sexist and homophobic to deserve the trust of any marginalized groups in society, and are especially dangerous to any person that fits more than one of those bills. Civilians must have full and complete control of the police. The public must remember that the police serve us, not the other way around. We live in nominal democracies, and democracy gives us the tools to make a change, if enough people band together to demand that change. As Margaret Mead wrote, we must never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, people can change the world. And if even a small group can change the world given time, imagine how fast the people, united, could change it.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 218
The police story at the time was that Mr. de Menezes resembled one of the fugitive terrorists from the then-recent July 11 bombings on the London transit system, was wearing bulky clothing and had jumped a turnstile, leading them to believe that he was about to detonate a suicide bomb. The bulky clothing story and the turnstile jumping have since been thoroughly debunked. Once again, the police lied about the circumstances of killing. As for resembling the missing bomber, de Menezes was Brazilian. About the only thing he had in common with the bomber was that he was brown-skinned. And that tells us a lot. Either members of some of the most elite squads of the Metropolitan Police are unable to tell brown-skinned people apart, or they were just out to shoot a brown man that day. While the first is disturbing, the second is absolutely appalling.
The Metropolitan Police as a corporate body has been convicted at trial of endangering the health and safety of Mr. de Menezes. What the inquest will determine is whether or not Mr. de Menezes was unlawfully killed. I don't see how the coroner's jury could possibly conclude otherwise. Mr. de Menezes was killed because he was brown, no other reason. What other possible reason could the police advance, given that their previous story has been completely debunked? Even if Mr. de Menezes did resemble a missing suspect, that is simply not grounds to shoot him. It might, if you stretch things, be reasonable and probable grounds for a short-term detention (i.e. an hour or two) to determine his identity, but these officers decided to shoot first and then try to avoid questions. If the jury comes back with the right verdict, these officers must face trial for second-degree murder.
Sadly, this case is just another demonstration of the need for fundamental reform in the way that society polices itself. The institutions of the police are too hopelessly racist, sexist and homophobic to deserve the trust of any marginalized groups in society, and are especially dangerous to any person that fits more than one of those bills. Civilians must have full and complete control of the police. The public must remember that the police serve us, not the other way around. We live in nominal democracies, and democracy gives us the tools to make a change, if enough people band together to demand that change. As Margaret Mead wrote, we must never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, people can change the world. And if even a small group can change the world given time, imagine how fast the people, united, could change it.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 218
Friday, June 13, 2008
Sanity Makes a Comeback in the American Legal System
Carl Schurz had the idea right when he said "If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other." Today the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recognized that and restored habeas corpus to the American legal system, by ruling that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their imprisonment through the federal courts. After seven years, it is about damn time.
The right to challenge one's detention is a fundamental right in any society that is functionally democratic. Habeas corpus is the fundamental building block of a system of due process. No government has the right to hold anyone, without charge and without a chance to confront the evidence against them. The United States is on shaky enough ground about being considered a democracy, what with the rampant militarism, the outrageous xenophobia and so on, not to mention the two stolen elections and the limitation of electoral choice to effectively the blue and red wings of the Party of the Wealthy.
While this ruling by the SCOTUS is important, a note of concern should be that the ruling was a 5-4 split decision. I would expect two votes in favour of stripping away a person's legal rights, from Antonin Scalia and his hand-puppet Clarence Thomas, but also joining in the dissent were Chief Justice of the United States Roberts, and Samuel Alito. The fact that all four of them thought that the rule of law was not worth protecting shows clearly that there is every danger of this decision being reversed after the next election, especially if McCain wins and gets to fill the next opening.
As a bit of a tangent, why is it that in the United States the right can get away with appointing dionsaurs to the bench, but the left is too lily-livered to appoint anyone who isn't a moderate to the Court? This is how the US wound up with a court that makes some outrageously bad decisions, and has a four-strong dissent in cases like this. At least in Canada the Liberals have sometimes appointed decent judges to the bench. Heck, Pierre Trudeau even appointed a few New Democrats (though not to the Supreme Court). When are the Democrats going to grow some spine, and appoint someone who might be on the left-wing of their party (which would still make them a centrist Liberal in Canada)? My guess is never.
Anyway, back to the main point, this is still good news. For seven years, the rule of law has been functionally suspended in the United States. This ruling doesn't bring it all back, but it is a good step in that direction. The next step is to get rid of the PATRIOT Act, that founding document of the security state.
The United Kingdom, by the way, continues to traipse merrily down the path to dictatorship by lengthening the period for which people can be held without charge to 42 days. That is absolutely unacceptable. That is six-weeks. A month and a half. And the police claim that they need this time to put together cases. Well guess what, shoddy investigation technique is no excuse for denying people basic civil liberties. Britain seriously needs a new Magna Carta, this time to set out the rights of the people as against their government. If this law is allowed to stand, the British courts are not doing their job. They have a responsibility as the third branch of government to check the excesses of the other two branches, and if they let this government, a mockery of the name Labour, go forward with this, they have abdicated their claim to their positions.
Canada can't yet crow on this front either. We have legislation allowing for people to be tried in star chambers without the right to instruct their lawyer, know the evidence against them or confront their accusers. Our government holds a number of people indefinitely without giving them a trial. As of now that power can't be used against citizens of Canada, but if the government gets used to exercising this power against non-citizens for long enough, it will decide that it also wants to use it against citizens. And then we will be at the end of democracy.
Governments serve their people, not the other way around. Governments across the west have begun to forget that. Let's remind them.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 221
The right to challenge one's detention is a fundamental right in any society that is functionally democratic. Habeas corpus is the fundamental building block of a system of due process. No government has the right to hold anyone, without charge and without a chance to confront the evidence against them. The United States is on shaky enough ground about being considered a democracy, what with the rampant militarism, the outrageous xenophobia and so on, not to mention the two stolen elections and the limitation of electoral choice to effectively the blue and red wings of the Party of the Wealthy.
While this ruling by the SCOTUS is important, a note of concern should be that the ruling was a 5-4 split decision. I would expect two votes in favour of stripping away a person's legal rights, from Antonin Scalia and his hand-puppet Clarence Thomas, but also joining in the dissent were Chief Justice of the United States Roberts, and Samuel Alito. The fact that all four of them thought that the rule of law was not worth protecting shows clearly that there is every danger of this decision being reversed after the next election, especially if McCain wins and gets to fill the next opening.
As a bit of a tangent, why is it that in the United States the right can get away with appointing dionsaurs to the bench, but the left is too lily-livered to appoint anyone who isn't a moderate to the Court? This is how the US wound up with a court that makes some outrageously bad decisions, and has a four-strong dissent in cases like this. At least in Canada the Liberals have sometimes appointed decent judges to the bench. Heck, Pierre Trudeau even appointed a few New Democrats (though not to the Supreme Court). When are the Democrats going to grow some spine, and appoint someone who might be on the left-wing of their party (which would still make them a centrist Liberal in Canada)? My guess is never.
Anyway, back to the main point, this is still good news. For seven years, the rule of law has been functionally suspended in the United States. This ruling doesn't bring it all back, but it is a good step in that direction. The next step is to get rid of the PATRIOT Act, that founding document of the security state.
The United Kingdom, by the way, continues to traipse merrily down the path to dictatorship by lengthening the period for which people can be held without charge to 42 days. That is absolutely unacceptable. That is six-weeks. A month and a half. And the police claim that they need this time to put together cases. Well guess what, shoddy investigation technique is no excuse for denying people basic civil liberties. Britain seriously needs a new Magna Carta, this time to set out the rights of the people as against their government. If this law is allowed to stand, the British courts are not doing their job. They have a responsibility as the third branch of government to check the excesses of the other two branches, and if they let this government, a mockery of the name Labour, go forward with this, they have abdicated their claim to their positions.
Canada can't yet crow on this front either. We have legislation allowing for people to be tried in star chambers without the right to instruct their lawyer, know the evidence against them or confront their accusers. Our government holds a number of people indefinitely without giving them a trial. As of now that power can't be used against citizens of Canada, but if the government gets used to exercising this power against non-citizens for long enough, it will decide that it also wants to use it against citizens. And then we will be at the end of democracy.
Governments serve their people, not the other way around. Governments across the west have begun to forget that. Let's remind them.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 221
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Industry Canada Busted Trying to Censor Wikipedia
Michael Geist, a specialist in Internet law at the University of Ottawa Law School, brought to public attention on June 4th an effort by Industry Canada to buff up the Wikipedia entry on Industry Minister Jim Prentice. Their edits included ridiculous praise of Prentice and speculation that he is in good position to be the next leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. More important and insidious, they attempted to get rid of references to Conservative efforts to introduce a clone of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act from the United States. Fortunately, Mr. Geist tracked the IPs of the edits, and the Wikipedia community has restored the information that was deleted. This seems like a classic example of the Streisand Effect.
Do the Conservatives (and I say Conservatives because the only people with the motivation to do this are members of Prentice's political staff at Industry Canada) really think no one will notice when they pull this kind of stunt? There are tools on Wikipedia specifically to track who makes edits to avoid exactly this kind of situation. Did they not know this because Conservatives are Luddites (of the Marjorie "I Don't Use Facebook But I Think It's Dangerous" LeBreton variety)? Or did they think they could get away with it because they think we're all stupid? Either way, it isn't a good thing. Just another indication that this government has no respect for transparency or accountability, and that it lacks simple common sense (seriously, if you are going to do this, take your laptop to Starbucks which has a different IP address).
This government is undemocratic, anti-constitutional (since they plan to ignore the private member's bill on climate change passed on June 4), warmongering and tyrannical. And yet they continue to poll 30%+ support. What needs to happen for Canadians to wake up and smell the coffee? If Americans are waking up, and about ready to give their most egregious liberals the boot, why can we not do the same?
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 229
Do the Conservatives (and I say Conservatives because the only people with the motivation to do this are members of Prentice's political staff at Industry Canada) really think no one will notice when they pull this kind of stunt? There are tools on Wikipedia specifically to track who makes edits to avoid exactly this kind of situation. Did they not know this because Conservatives are Luddites (of the Marjorie "I Don't Use Facebook But I Think It's Dangerous" LeBreton variety)? Or did they think they could get away with it because they think we're all stupid? Either way, it isn't a good thing. Just another indication that this government has no respect for transparency or accountability, and that it lacks simple common sense (seriously, if you are going to do this, take your laptop to Starbucks which has a different IP address).
This government is undemocratic, anti-constitutional (since they plan to ignore the private member's bill on climate change passed on June 4), warmongering and tyrannical. And yet they continue to poll 30%+ support. What needs to happen for Canadians to wake up and smell the coffee? If Americans are waking up, and about ready to give their most egregious liberals the boot, why can we not do the same?
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 229
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Obama Secures Democratic Party Nomination
Today Barack Obama secured the nomination of the Democratic Party for the Presidency of the United States. This is a historic moment, with the first black person to secure the nomination of one of the two major parties in the United States of America. Obama has broken barriers and brought hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of new voters into the process.
Obama also gave a phenomenal speech tonight. There is only one orator like him in any given generation, and he may be able to mobilize the country, if the Republicans aren't able to drag him down into the mud. His call to seize the moment was hair-raising, and driving.
Hilary Clinton was deeply ungracious tonight. The race is over. She needs to admit that, endorse Barack Obama, and work on unifying the Democratic Party. What is most important at this stage is that John McCain not be the next President of the United States. The world cannot stand another American President who will recklessly spread war around the world. The world cannot stand a trigger happy President who wants to bomb Iran. Obama doesn't have the best policy in the world, but at least Obama believes in diplomacy, and the world needs diplomacy.
Now, the run-up to November begins.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 231
Obama also gave a phenomenal speech tonight. There is only one orator like him in any given generation, and he may be able to mobilize the country, if the Republicans aren't able to drag him down into the mud. His call to seize the moment was hair-raising, and driving.
Hilary Clinton was deeply ungracious tonight. The race is over. She needs to admit that, endorse Barack Obama, and work on unifying the Democratic Party. What is most important at this stage is that John McCain not be the next President of the United States. The world cannot stand another American President who will recklessly spread war around the world. The world cannot stand a trigger happy President who wants to bomb Iran. Obama doesn't have the best policy in the world, but at least Obama believes in diplomacy, and the world needs diplomacy.
Now, the run-up to November begins.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 231
Thursday, May 29, 2008
International Treaty to Ban Cluster Bombs Agreed
Diplomats representing one hundred nations, meeting in Dublin, Ireland have agreed to a treaty that would ban the stockpiling or use of cluster bombs. These bombs maim and kill many innocent civilians, and scatter unexploded bomblets across war zones, that may detonate and destroy a life years after the bombs were dropped. Most recently, these bombs were deployed during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and see continuing use in the occupation of Afghanistan. These bombs are weapons of terror, just as much as land mines are. I congratulate these one hundred nations on making this agreement, a worth heir to the anti-land mine treaty of the 1990s. Hopefully, this treaty will reduce the number of civilians who are killed in wars. Of course what would be better is to prevent wars in the first place, but until that happens we have to settle for banning the most hideous weapons of war.
But not all countries that produce, stockpile and in some cases have used these weapons are onside. The most notable holdouts are China, Russia, Pakistan, India, Israel and (surprise!) the United States. Shame on them. They persist in creating a legacy of fear and death for the people of the countries they attack, or for the victims of the countries to whom they sell cluster bombs.
I sincerely hope that the Canadian government has signed onto this treaty, but knowing Harper's craven boot-licking attitude to the Bush administration, Canada probably opposed the deal, simply because the Americans said so. We need an election.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 238
But not all countries that produce, stockpile and in some cases have used these weapons are onside. The most notable holdouts are China, Russia, Pakistan, India, Israel and (surprise!) the United States. Shame on them. They persist in creating a legacy of fear and death for the people of the countries they attack, or for the victims of the countries to whom they sell cluster bombs.
I sincerely hope that the Canadian government has signed onto this treaty, but knowing Harper's craven boot-licking attitude to the Bush administration, Canada probably opposed the deal, simply because the Americans said so. We need an election.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 238
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Equal Marriage in California
California has, today, become the second American state to allow equal marriage for all people, regardless of sexual orientation. In a 4-3 ruling, the California Supreme Court overturned the statute defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The reasons of the Majority, written by Chief Justice George, contain several clear explanations of why LGBT folks are entitled to equal rights, and why "separate but equal" civil unions/domestic partnerships just don't cut it. First the Chief Justice had this to say:
The forces of acceptance have won the battle, but the forces of bigotry and hatred haven't yet given up the war. They have one last play: an attempt to change the constitution of California to return to unequal marriage. This attempt will likely be on the ballot in California in November. If that battle is won, then it will truly be a time to celebrate.
That is not, of course, to play down the incredible victory that today's ruling represents. Thousands, if not millions, of Californians will be able to marry the person they love now, and that is certainly a cause for joy.
I salute the judges of the California Supreme Court for coming to the right decision, and I hope that the people of California will see fit to reject the ballot initiative to entrench bigotry in California's constitution. For anyone interested in reading the decision, the following link will take you to the PDF version of the ruling.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 251
Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.He added this:
Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.Those two excerpts from the decision eloquently make the case for equal marriage.
The forces of acceptance have won the battle, but the forces of bigotry and hatred haven't yet given up the war. They have one last play: an attempt to change the constitution of California to return to unequal marriage. This attempt will likely be on the ballot in California in November. If that battle is won, then it will truly be a time to celebrate.
That is not, of course, to play down the incredible victory that today's ruling represents. Thousands, if not millions, of Californians will be able to marry the person they love now, and that is certainly a cause for joy.
I salute the judges of the California Supreme Court for coming to the right decision, and I hope that the people of California will see fit to reject the ballot initiative to entrench bigotry in California's constitution. For anyone interested in reading the decision, the following link will take you to the PDF version of the ruling.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 251
Friday, May 09, 2008
Police Tase Eldery Kamloops Man Three Times
This one just has me boiling. On Saturday Frank Lasser, an eighty-two year old man who was lying in a bed in the Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops with an oxygen/breathing apparatus, was tased by the RCMP because he was supposedly delirious and wielding a "three inch pocket knife." This on it's own is bad, but is unfortunately rather usual given the culture of systematic police brutality. Today, more details emerged. It turns out that police tased this elderly man three times. According to Lasser's account to the CBC, as soon as the three RCMP officers arrived, he was immediately tased because the police had "more important work to do on the street" that night.
This is absolutely outrageous. First off, this guy was 82 and in the hospital after having had a heart bypass. And yet the RCMP is asserting that he posed a deadly threat to the lives of the officers, no different than a 20 year old man. Somehow, I think an 82 year-old in a hospital for heart surgery is going to lack the strength to overcome three RCMP officers and then do any kind of damage with a blade of what sounds like a Swiss Army knife. What is the RCMP teaching its officers these days? Are they not teaching them how to use intermediate levels of force or non-violent conflict resolution? Lasser is a former prison guard and has asserted that three officers could easily overcome a person of his age and in his condition. I'm inclined to agree, and it seems only logical to believe. That they didn't speaks to a culture of violence in the RCMP.
Not only was he tased, but he was tased three times. Imagine the damage that three shocks of 50 000 volts can do to a person. Even if one shock was possibly called for, there is absolutely no way that three shocks would be justified. What if Lasser hadn't had his heart bypass yet? He would probably have entered cardiac arrest and possibly died. The police have become lethal weapons in their own right.
Once again, I call for proper civilian oversight of the police. Oversight that isn't afraid to call a spade a spade or to come down on officers who betray the trust placed in them by society. Lets bring democracy to the police. It can be done if the will of the people is strong enough and clear enough. Don't let the naysayers and the authoritarians tell you no, that the police are just fine as they are. Don't let them tell you it's too hard, or not worth the fight. Don't let them tell you it can't be done.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 257
This is absolutely outrageous. First off, this guy was 82 and in the hospital after having had a heart bypass. And yet the RCMP is asserting that he posed a deadly threat to the lives of the officers, no different than a 20 year old man. Somehow, I think an 82 year-old in a hospital for heart surgery is going to lack the strength to overcome three RCMP officers and then do any kind of damage with a blade of what sounds like a Swiss Army knife. What is the RCMP teaching its officers these days? Are they not teaching them how to use intermediate levels of force or non-violent conflict resolution? Lasser is a former prison guard and has asserted that three officers could easily overcome a person of his age and in his condition. I'm inclined to agree, and it seems only logical to believe. That they didn't speaks to a culture of violence in the RCMP.
Not only was he tased, but he was tased three times. Imagine the damage that three shocks of 50 000 volts can do to a person. Even if one shock was possibly called for, there is absolutely no way that three shocks would be justified. What if Lasser hadn't had his heart bypass yet? He would probably have entered cardiac arrest and possibly died. The police have become lethal weapons in their own right.
Once again, I call for proper civilian oversight of the police. Oversight that isn't afraid to call a spade a spade or to come down on officers who betray the trust placed in them by society. Lets bring democracy to the police. It can be done if the will of the people is strong enough and clear enough. Don't let the naysayers and the authoritarians tell you no, that the police are just fine as they are. Don't let them tell you it's too hard, or not worth the fight. Don't let them tell you it can't be done.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 257
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Tragedy in Burma
The tragedy continuing to unfold in Burma in the wake of Cyclone Nargis is absolutely heartrending. It seems that as of today, the estimated death toll is 100 000, with the capacity to go much higher. That 100 000 is 80% of the number that died in the Boxing Day tsunami disaster that struck the entire coast of the Indian Ocean. It is equivalent to killing one in three people living in Halifax. Put another way, this is roughly 33 Hurricane Katrinas rolled into one. And those are just the people killed from the immediate effects of the storm. Given the horrendous delays that the Burmese junta is creating by denying visas to aid workers from the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross/Red Crescent, tens of thousands more people are going to die from starvation and disease, since there is no food, no drinking water and no shelter. To get an idea of how bad the devastation is, take a look at the following satellite pictures from NASA.
The first picture shows the Irrawaddy delta area of Burma (where the cyclone came ashore) on April 15, prior to the storm. The second shows the same area on May 5, three days after the cyclone struck. As I'm sure you can see, a huge area of the delta, including much of the land around the capital city of Yangon is under water. Reports suggest that 95% of buildings in the affected areas have been knocked down by the storm surge. The rivers in the area that provided drinking water are full of mud and human waste, becoming unsuitable for drinking. Food supplies and crops have been swept away, so there is nothing to eat. As the bodies of the dead rot, the water will be tainted by disease, spreading to the survivors.
This is a disaster on a scale not seen possibly since the Bhola Cyclone in 1973 that killed between 300 000 and 1 000 000 people in what is now Bangladesh. The government of Burma (a tyrannical military dictatorship) is making the situation worse by misappropriating and misdirecting the aid, getting it only to their political supporters. The only possible good thing that might come of this storm is if the regime is so debilitated, and the people so outraged by the government handling of the storm, that the military regime is brought to an end.
My thoughts are with the people of Burma as they face this horrible time.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 258
The first picture shows the Irrawaddy delta area of Burma (where the cyclone came ashore) on April 15, prior to the storm. The second shows the same area on May 5, three days after the cyclone struck. As I'm sure you can see, a huge area of the delta, including much of the land around the capital city of Yangon is under water. Reports suggest that 95% of buildings in the affected areas have been knocked down by the storm surge. The rivers in the area that provided drinking water are full of mud and human waste, becoming unsuitable for drinking. Food supplies and crops have been swept away, so there is nothing to eat. As the bodies of the dead rot, the water will be tainted by disease, spreading to the survivors.
This is a disaster on a scale not seen possibly since the Bhola Cyclone in 1973 that killed between 300 000 and 1 000 000 people in what is now Bangladesh. The government of Burma (a tyrannical military dictatorship) is making the situation worse by misappropriating and misdirecting the aid, getting it only to their political supporters. The only possible good thing that might come of this storm is if the regime is so debilitated, and the people so outraged by the government handling of the storm, that the military regime is brought to an end.
My thoughts are with the people of Burma as they face this horrible time.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 258
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Nelson Mandela on American Terrorist Watch List
So it seems that the US has the first black president of South Africa on its terrorist watch list. That was brought up today in hearings before the US Senate, in which Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice confirmed that since the apartheid government of South Africa designated the African National Congress as a terrorist group in the 1970s, Mr. Mandela has required a special waiver to come to the United States. Let's not forget who this man is. He was a leader of the ANC for many years in the struggle to free black South Africans from the oppressive rule of the white minority. This man was jailed for 27 years for his role in the ANC, after being released from prison he went on to become the first black president of South Africa, and to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993. The fucking Nobel Peace Prize, and the US says he's a terrorist. Just bloody brilliant.
This story illustrates the idiocy that is terrorist watch lists. You know the ones, where people who have never been convicted of anything, or even told they are under investigation, turn out to be on lists that keep them from flying, or visiting certain countries and so on. In this age of paranoia about terrorism, when the government would like us to believe that terrorists lurk under every rock and behind every tree, we need stories like this to remind us that these lists make no sense. People wind up on these lists because they are political opponents of their governments. Hell, if he was alive today, Ghandi would probably be on an American terrorist watch list. The American founding fathers would be on the watch list too, since they used guerrilla tactics to win their war of independence.
Terrorist watch lists are simply another means of controlling the population. There is no independent control of these lists. There is no one making sure that a person is not listed simply because they are political opponents of their government. As Michael Moore pointed out, the resources of the American state were used to infiltrate and spy on a peace group called Peace Fresno. No one can have reasonably thought that a group of peace activists in Fresno were a threat to the national security of the United States.
We must be vigilant. We must guard our rights, both political and human, from theft by the security state. Cases like that of Nelson Mandela help to remind us of the danger that the state, uncontrolled by citizens, poses to liberty. In memorable words published (though not written) by Benjamin Franklin, "he who gives up a little liberty, to gain a little security, will deserve neither and lose both." Words to remember.
Days remaining in Bush presidency: 262
This story illustrates the idiocy that is terrorist watch lists. You know the ones, where people who have never been convicted of anything, or even told they are under investigation, turn out to be on lists that keep them from flying, or visiting certain countries and so on. In this age of paranoia about terrorism, when the government would like us to believe that terrorists lurk under every rock and behind every tree, we need stories like this to remind us that these lists make no sense. People wind up on these lists because they are political opponents of their governments. Hell, if he was alive today, Ghandi would probably be on an American terrorist watch list. The American founding fathers would be on the watch list too, since they used guerrilla tactics to win their war of independence.
Terrorist watch lists are simply another means of controlling the population. There is no independent control of these lists. There is no one making sure that a person is not listed simply because they are political opponents of their government. As Michael Moore pointed out, the resources of the American state were used to infiltrate and spy on a peace group called Peace Fresno. No one can have reasonably thought that a group of peace activists in Fresno were a threat to the national security of the United States.
We must be vigilant. We must guard our rights, both political and human, from theft by the security state. Cases like that of Nelson Mandela help to remind us of the danger that the state, uncontrolled by citizens, poses to liberty. In memorable words published (though not written) by Benjamin Franklin, "he who gives up a little liberty, to gain a little security, will deserve neither and lose both." Words to remember.
Days remaining in Bush presidency: 262
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Transit Workers Strike in Toronto
On Friday evening, workers at the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) walked off the job in a legal strike. Earlier in the day, the workers had, by a 65% to 35% margin, rejected the tentative contract reached at the end of last week. There are many who are angry and frustrated that the workers walked out, but those same people who are angry don't seem to appreciate that TTC workers are also angry and frustrated. They are frustrated that the TTC has done nothing to act on the complaints of the workers about personal safety when doing their job, and that the TTC seems unwilling to give the workers job security, so that they know their jobs will not be contracted out.
Contrary to the usual "greedy workers" meme that comes out of the usual capitalist sources, this strike isn't about money. It is about security, both personal and professional. These workers haven't walked off the job to try to get more money out of the city (and thus by proxy out of the populace). They have walked out to make sure that the city doesn't outsource their jobs, replacing stable and well paying jobs, allowing the workers to contribute to the economy, with unstable, poorly paid contract jobs.
And now the Ontario government proposes to legislate the workers back to work (and to my shame the Ontario NDP has gone along with this), by slapping a fine of $2000/day on any worker who stays off the job. The government implies by taking this action, that the TTC workers are providing an essential public service. Fine, I can go along with that. The hitch is that they want to do that without actually declaring them and essential service. If they were to do that, in exchange for stripping away the right to strike, they would have to replace it with a right to binding arbitration, and they are afraid of where that might lead. This way of handling the issue is conniving and deceitful. If they are an essential service, declare them so and give the right to binding arbitration. If they aren't an essential service, let the negotiation and strike process run its course, and don't legislate and end to the strike.
The members of the Ontario provincial parliament seem intent on squelching the concerns of the workers. They are probably worried that if to many other people realise what the TTC workers are striking about, they might demand job security in their own jobs, throwing the outsourcing craze off the rails. And goodness knows that global capitalism can't have that. Capitalism is, at its very core, exploitation. Capitalists take from the workers what the capitalists have not laboured to earn. And if too many people fought for their job security, that ability to exploit workers, and to pit one against another, would be compromised. That is why this strike is being stomped upon, not any faux concern about the people beyond the possibility that they might not get to work, putting a damper on capitalism for a little while.
I stand with these workers. They have democratically decided to go on strike, and everyone who claims to respect the rights of workers must do the same, and if you live in Ontario, let your MPP know that you don't support this effort to stomp on the rights of workers, and you want them to vote against this bill. Together, the people are strong. Let's make sure that the elected representatives of the people know that.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 266
Contrary to the usual "greedy workers" meme that comes out of the usual capitalist sources, this strike isn't about money. It is about security, both personal and professional. These workers haven't walked off the job to try to get more money out of the city (and thus by proxy out of the populace). They have walked out to make sure that the city doesn't outsource their jobs, replacing stable and well paying jobs, allowing the workers to contribute to the economy, with unstable, poorly paid contract jobs.
And now the Ontario government proposes to legislate the workers back to work (and to my shame the Ontario NDP has gone along with this), by slapping a fine of $2000/day on any worker who stays off the job. The government implies by taking this action, that the TTC workers are providing an essential public service. Fine, I can go along with that. The hitch is that they want to do that without actually declaring them and essential service. If they were to do that, in exchange for stripping away the right to strike, they would have to replace it with a right to binding arbitration, and they are afraid of where that might lead. This way of handling the issue is conniving and deceitful. If they are an essential service, declare them so and give the right to binding arbitration. If they aren't an essential service, let the negotiation and strike process run its course, and don't legislate and end to the strike.
The members of the Ontario provincial parliament seem intent on squelching the concerns of the workers. They are probably worried that if to many other people realise what the TTC workers are striking about, they might demand job security in their own jobs, throwing the outsourcing craze off the rails. And goodness knows that global capitalism can't have that. Capitalism is, at its very core, exploitation. Capitalists take from the workers what the capitalists have not laboured to earn. And if too many people fought for their job security, that ability to exploit workers, and to pit one against another, would be compromised. That is why this strike is being stomped upon, not any faux concern about the people beyond the possibility that they might not get to work, putting a damper on capitalism for a little while.
I stand with these workers. They have democratically decided to go on strike, and everyone who claims to respect the rights of workers must do the same, and if you live in Ontario, let your MPP know that you don't support this effort to stomp on the rights of workers, and you want them to vote against this bill. Together, the people are strong. Let's make sure that the elected representatives of the people know that.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 266
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Conservatives continue efforts to roll back women's rights
Another private members bill that would set the stage to radically roll back a woman's right to choose and to control her own body has been proposed by a Conservative member of parliament, Maurice Vellacott, MP for Saskatoon-Wanuskewin. Bill C-537 would allow health care practitioners to refuse to participate in a medical procedure that "offends a tenet of their religion."
If a person's religious beliefs prohibit them from offering a certain service, then that person should not get into a profession where they might be required to provide that service. If a person feels that their religion prevents them from giving out the 'morning after' pill, then they shouldn't be a pharmacist. If they can't perform an abortion, or prescribe emergency contraception, then the person shouldn't be a physician. If they can't perform a blood transfusion, they shouldn't practice emergency medicine. This really isn't that complex.
This bill is framed in the context of protecting religious rights, but it should tell you something that Vellacott is the chair of the "Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus" which includes both Conservative and Liberal MPs (but thankfully no New Democrats). This nonsense would allow doctors, who are being paid by the state, to refuse to provide abortions, in effect banning a practice that the Supreme Court of Canada (in R. v. Morgentaler, 1988) said the government could not use the law to ban, because doing that violated the right of women to "security of the person" under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This is the same philosophy that has seen women left without pharmacists willing to dispense emergency contraceptives in various parts of the United States. It is the philosophy that says that a doctor's dogmatic beliefs are more important that a woman's right to control her body. That is utter garbage and nonsense.
Furthermore, this bill follows hard on the heels of Bill C-484, which would impose extra penalties for killing a pregnant woman since the assault also terminates the fetus. That bill deems the fetus to be a person, since only a person is legally capable of being murdered, setting us back on the road to banning abortion as murder.
The Conservatives are being cagey on how they push this radical patriarchal and misogynist agenda. It is being done through private members bills, not government bills, so in the next election campaign Harper can claim his government had nothing to do with it. This is very important, because the majority of Canadians think this issue is settled, and that a woman has a right to choose. The Cons want to roll back a woman's rights, and want to take our society back to some twisted 1950s ideal, where everyone is white, everyone is straight, everyone is Christian, people don't have sex until they are thirty and a woman stays in the home, with a martini for her husband at the end of the day. That's not my Canada, and I sure as hell know it isn't any Canada I want to see. We have to remember that women's rights are human rights. If the Cons take rights away from one group, it is only a matter of time until they are taking them away from everyone else.
To everyone reading this in Canada, I encourage you to get in touch with your MP and let them know that you oppose this bill and bill C-484, and that you want them to vote against both bills. Tell your friends, make noise, be heard. Don't let the Conservatives take rights away in the dark and in silence.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 271
If a person's religious beliefs prohibit them from offering a certain service, then that person should not get into a profession where they might be required to provide that service. If a person feels that their religion prevents them from giving out the 'morning after' pill, then they shouldn't be a pharmacist. If they can't perform an abortion, or prescribe emergency contraception, then the person shouldn't be a physician. If they can't perform a blood transfusion, they shouldn't practice emergency medicine. This really isn't that complex.
This bill is framed in the context of protecting religious rights, but it should tell you something that Vellacott is the chair of the "Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus" which includes both Conservative and Liberal MPs (but thankfully no New Democrats). This nonsense would allow doctors, who are being paid by the state, to refuse to provide abortions, in effect banning a practice that the Supreme Court of Canada (in R. v. Morgentaler, 1988) said the government could not use the law to ban, because doing that violated the right of women to "security of the person" under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This is the same philosophy that has seen women left without pharmacists willing to dispense emergency contraceptives in various parts of the United States. It is the philosophy that says that a doctor's dogmatic beliefs are more important that a woman's right to control her body. That is utter garbage and nonsense.
Furthermore, this bill follows hard on the heels of Bill C-484, which would impose extra penalties for killing a pregnant woman since the assault also terminates the fetus. That bill deems the fetus to be a person, since only a person is legally capable of being murdered, setting us back on the road to banning abortion as murder.
The Conservatives are being cagey on how they push this radical patriarchal and misogynist agenda. It is being done through private members bills, not government bills, so in the next election campaign Harper can claim his government had nothing to do with it. This is very important, because the majority of Canadians think this issue is settled, and that a woman has a right to choose. The Cons want to roll back a woman's rights, and want to take our society back to some twisted 1950s ideal, where everyone is white, everyone is straight, everyone is Christian, people don't have sex until they are thirty and a woman stays in the home, with a martini for her husband at the end of the day. That's not my Canada, and I sure as hell know it isn't any Canada I want to see. We have to remember that women's rights are human rights. If the Cons take rights away from one group, it is only a matter of time until they are taking them away from everyone else.
To everyone reading this in Canada, I encourage you to get in touch with your MP and let them know that you oppose this bill and bill C-484, and that you want them to vote against both bills. Tell your friends, make noise, be heard. Don't let the Conservatives take rights away in the dark and in silence.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 271
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Justice Michel Bastarache to Retire
The Supreme Court of Canada has announced that Mr. Justice Michel Bastarache, a puisne justice of the Court, will retire at the end of the spring session. Bastarache J has sat on the court since 1997, and is (aside from Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin) the most senior judge of the Supreme Court. Bastarache J was the judge from the Atlantic provinces, and as such his successor will have to be drawn from the Atlantic provinces. I hope that Harper does not follow the model of the American right and appoint a partisan to the Supreme Court as he has done with some of the Provincial Courts of Appeal.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 285
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 285
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Former Vancouver Police Complaints Commissioner Was Reluctant to Investigate
The Vancouver Sun is reporting that the former Commissioner of the Vancouver Police Complaints Commission Don Morrison didn't launch investigations unless there was a media outcry. You can find the Sun story here. This story is based on testimony of Matt Adie, the former Deputy Commissioner.
This kind of thing illustrates the central problem with watchdogs that are also lapdogs. The RCMP Complaints Commission is no different. I can't remember the last time it came back with a ruling that there had been wrongdoing on the part of the police.
We need a proper, civilian run, independent oversight process for police from the smallest municipal police force to the RCMP. For too long the police have been functionally above the law, whether it be the summary execution by Taser of Robert Dziekanski, or the murder of Neil Stonechild by the Saskatoon police, nothing is ever done, or if it is done it's far too late. Frankly, I have come to the opinion that the police as an institution are so hopelessly corrupt and morally rotten that the whole lot should be scrapped and we should start from scratch. I know this isn't practical, but it needs to be done somehow.
We also need to make sure that the police are not able hold their inquiries in secret. A democracy thrives on the availability of information to citizens The police must be made to let in the light, and to allow the people to scrutinize their behaviour. If they have done nothing wrong, as they claim, they have nothing to hide. No structure that fears the light of day has any business surviving in a democracy.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 289
This kind of thing illustrates the central problem with watchdogs that are also lapdogs. The RCMP Complaints Commission is no different. I can't remember the last time it came back with a ruling that there had been wrongdoing on the part of the police.
This is horrifying. If a situation like that one doesn't qualify for an investigation, what does? I would absolutely love to see a citizen of Vancouver slap a misfeasance of public duty suit on Morrison for this."It is my perception that it would be extremely unlikely that Commissioner Morrison would order a public hearing against the Vancouver police unless the matter was in the media and there was very little other option," said former OPCC deputy commissioner Matt Adie.
This was Adie's explanation for why Morrison refused to order an public hearing into the death of Frank Paul, a homeless, alcoholic, aboriginal man who died in December 1998 after being dumped while stupefied with alcohol in a cold, wet downtown alley by Vancouver police.
We need a proper, civilian run, independent oversight process for police from the smallest municipal police force to the RCMP. For too long the police have been functionally above the law, whether it be the summary execution by Taser of Robert Dziekanski, or the murder of Neil Stonechild by the Saskatoon police, nothing is ever done, or if it is done it's far too late. Frankly, I have come to the opinion that the police as an institution are so hopelessly corrupt and morally rotten that the whole lot should be scrapped and we should start from scratch. I know this isn't practical, but it needs to be done somehow.
We also need to make sure that the police are not able hold their inquiries in secret. A democracy thrives on the availability of information to citizens The police must be made to let in the light, and to allow the people to scrutinize their behaviour. If they have done nothing wrong, as they claim, they have nothing to hide. No structure that fears the light of day has any business surviving in a democracy.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 289
Friday, April 04, 2008
Lukiwski Drama Continues
The controversy continues to swirl around Tom Lukiwski, homophobe par excellence. He continues to assert that the vile insults heaped on the LGBT community no longer represent his views. Bull. I'd be more convinced if he actually, say, repudiated his votes on same-sex marriage, and the motion to reopen SSM. In the era of polite homophobia, bigots for the most part close their mouths and work quietly to undermine the rights of those they hate. Lukiwski expressed his hatred for gays and lesbians when he voted against equal rights on the Civil Marriage Act and on the motion to reopen it. Shame on him. Unless you support equal rights for all people regardless of sexual orientation, religion, race, sex, gender identity, ethnic origin, creed and so forth, guess what, you're a bigot. You may not think so, but if you think it's okay for the government to racially profile Muslims and Arabs, then guess what, you're a bigot. If you think it is okay to deny equal access to the institution of civil marriage to LGBT folks and fob that group of society off with "separate but equal" civil unions, you're a bigot. If you think the native people should shut up and stop whining, guess what, you're a bigot. If you think women don't deserve to control their own bodies in all respects, you're a bigot. And hey, surprise, all of these things can be found in the two parties with a realistic chance of forming a government in Canada. The Conservatives (until they got elected) would take these positions openly. The Liberals would take them behind the collective back of the people. Some of these positions have even turned up in the NDP to a distressing extent. It's not as bad in the NDP, but it sure as hell is more disappointing.
Tom Lukiwski is the poster boy for the new age of polite bigotry. His voting record shows that he still hates gays and lesbians, but he knows now that he can't say what he really feels. Some on the right call this the political correctness police and call those who stand up to bigoted statements "humourless". That's ridiculous precisely because these same people will turn around and scream bloody murder if any ridicule or hatred is turned back around on them, on their institutions. They demand that others be tolerant of their intolerance. I say fuck that.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 290
Tom Lukiwski is the poster boy for the new age of polite bigotry. His voting record shows that he still hates gays and lesbians, but he knows now that he can't say what he really feels. Some on the right call this the political correctness police and call those who stand up to bigoted statements "humourless". That's ridiculous precisely because these same people will turn around and scream bloody murder if any ridicule or hatred is turned back around on them, on their institutions. They demand that others be tolerant of their intolerance. I say fuck that.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 290
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Big Surprise - Conservatives are Homophobes
Surprise, surprise. Turns out Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski is a homophobe and Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall is a racist and a sexist. Who would have expected that from the political heirs of the Reform Party?
The Saskatchewan NDP discovered a tape from 1991 left behind in the Official Opposition offices in the Sask. legislature, that shows a forty year old Lukiwski saying that "there's A's and there's B's. The A's are guys like me. The B's are homosexual faggots with dirt on their fingernails that transmit diseases.” Disgusting homophobic trash. But frankly not that unexpected from the bigoted dinosaurs of the Conservative Party of Canada.
As for Wall, he put on a fake Ukrainian accent and pretended to be Roy Romanow (the Sask. NDP leader of the day, who is of Ukrainian heritage) and then he made sexist fun of the Sask. Liberal leader of the day. All of this coming just days after Wall got himself worked up into a hypocritical lather about David Ahenakew (I don't excuse Ahenakew, what he said was repulsive).
Interestingly, this would never have come to light if the electorate of Saskatchewan, in a short sighted and self-destructive desire for change hadn't turfed the Sask. NDP just as the job market and economy were picking up. Apparently the Saskatchewan Party either doesn't think that homophobia, sexism and racism are important to cover up in their staffers, or they are criminally stupid and too dumb to clean out their files on the way to their new offices.
For those interested in watching the video for themselves, the relevant stuff by Lukiwski is at the end of this clip from the CBC. I haven't been able to find the stuff by Brad Wall yet.
This is yet another in a long stream of examples of Conservative/Alliance/Reform bigotry towards LGBT folks, and towards immigrants. Speak up, everyone who is surprised that Conservatives are once again shown to be haters. *Crickets*
Now, Lukiwski has apologized for this stuff, saying that it no longer represents his views. I would find it easier to believe if he didn't sit in the caucus of Canada's "we hate everyone who isn't white and male" party. After all, he has been given the opportunity to show his supposed changed views by voting for measures to give equal rights to LGBT folks, and has not done so. He voted against equal marriage in 2005, and he voted to re-open the equal marriage debate in 2006. He also has voted for Conservative budgets that have slashed funding for programmes that supported women's equality efforts, and is backing the changes to the immigration act that would allow the Immigration Minister to, by fiat, reject any immigrant arbitrarily. And given the Reform-Conservative history of being anti-immigrant, this is a Very Bad Thing. Lukiwski has shown no objective evidence of his supposed changed views, and we have only his word that he has changed them. I for one, don't believe him for a minute. He isn't sorry he said it, or that he held (and most probably still holds) such abhorrent views. He is sorry he got caught.
Lukiwski ought to resign his seat. Haters shouldn't (but unfortunately do) have a place in the House of Commons. If he won't resign, the Conservatives ought to (but, of course, won't) give him the boot from their caucus. Canadians everywhere, of every sexual orientation, sex and race should be up in arms, calling for Lukiwski's resignation, along with Brad Wall's. These people are below pond scum.
This is a classic example of why Harper is so desperate to keep a muzzle on his MPs, with some duct tape added for good measure. If he didn't we would be hearing about comments like this every other week, rather than every other year. Remember Cheryl Gallant who said abortion is like beheading hostages in Iraq? Or Randy White who said he would like to re-criminalize homosexuality? Or any of half a million things said by Conservative/Canadian Alliance/Reform MPs over the years? These people are haters through and through. Scratch a Conservative, find a bigot.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 291
The Saskatchewan NDP discovered a tape from 1991 left behind in the Official Opposition offices in the Sask. legislature, that shows a forty year old Lukiwski saying that "there's A's and there's B's. The A's are guys like me. The B's are homosexual faggots with dirt on their fingernails that transmit diseases.” Disgusting homophobic trash. But frankly not that unexpected from the bigoted dinosaurs of the Conservative Party of Canada.
As for Wall, he put on a fake Ukrainian accent and pretended to be Roy Romanow (the Sask. NDP leader of the day, who is of Ukrainian heritage) and then he made sexist fun of the Sask. Liberal leader of the day. All of this coming just days after Wall got himself worked up into a hypocritical lather about David Ahenakew (I don't excuse Ahenakew, what he said was repulsive).
Interestingly, this would never have come to light if the electorate of Saskatchewan, in a short sighted and self-destructive desire for change hadn't turfed the Sask. NDP just as the job market and economy were picking up. Apparently the Saskatchewan Party either doesn't think that homophobia, sexism and racism are important to cover up in their staffers, or they are criminally stupid and too dumb to clean out their files on the way to their new offices.
For those interested in watching the video for themselves, the relevant stuff by Lukiwski is at the end of this clip from the CBC. I haven't been able to find the stuff by Brad Wall yet.
This is yet another in a long stream of examples of Conservative/Alliance/Reform bigotry towards LGBT folks, and towards immigrants. Speak up, everyone who is surprised that Conservatives are once again shown to be haters. *Crickets*
Now, Lukiwski has apologized for this stuff, saying that it no longer represents his views. I would find it easier to believe if he didn't sit in the caucus of Canada's "we hate everyone who isn't white and male" party. After all, he has been given the opportunity to show his supposed changed views by voting for measures to give equal rights to LGBT folks, and has not done so. He voted against equal marriage in 2005, and he voted to re-open the equal marriage debate in 2006. He also has voted for Conservative budgets that have slashed funding for programmes that supported women's equality efforts, and is backing the changes to the immigration act that would allow the Immigration Minister to, by fiat, reject any immigrant arbitrarily. And given the Reform-Conservative history of being anti-immigrant, this is a Very Bad Thing. Lukiwski has shown no objective evidence of his supposed changed views, and we have only his word that he has changed them. I for one, don't believe him for a minute. He isn't sorry he said it, or that he held (and most probably still holds) such abhorrent views. He is sorry he got caught.
Lukiwski ought to resign his seat. Haters shouldn't (but unfortunately do) have a place in the House of Commons. If he won't resign, the Conservatives ought to (but, of course, won't) give him the boot from their caucus. Canadians everywhere, of every sexual orientation, sex and race should be up in arms, calling for Lukiwski's resignation, along with Brad Wall's. These people are below pond scum.
This is a classic example of why Harper is so desperate to keep a muzzle on his MPs, with some duct tape added for good measure. If he didn't we would be hearing about comments like this every other week, rather than every other year. Remember Cheryl Gallant who said abortion is like beheading hostages in Iraq? Or Randy White who said he would like to re-criminalize homosexuality? Or any of half a million things said by Conservative/Canadian Alliance/Reform MPs over the years? These people are haters through and through. Scratch a Conservative, find a bigot.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 291
Friday, June 22, 2007
Toronto City Council Chickens Out
I am mightily pissed off at the Toronto city council. To set up the background, over the last year, decals of yellow "support the troops" ribbons had been attached to the ambulances and fire engines of the city. They were of a pretty good size and highly visible. I found this disturbing, because while the sentiment of "support the troops" is itself reasonable, it has been twisted by the right-wing into "support the troops, don't question the mission." The way I support the troops is by wanting to bring them back, so they stop dying. We are involved in a war of aggression in Afghanistan, and we have no place being there. Yet these stickers suggest that the city of Toronto, and by proxy all of its citizens, support the occupation of Afghanistan, but that could not be further from the truth. Further more, these decals have no place on civic vehicles, which must be construed as representing all the members of the community. For them to display such opening jingoistic, war-mongering, messages is to discount the views of members of the populace that don't support this war. For those that would like to see things in the opposite manner, who would say that the lack of decals means that the city would be endorsing the slaughter of Canadian soldiers is in no way true. Beyond the fact that Canadians against the war are calling for the immediate and safe withdrawal of troops, the lack of decals simply expressing the neutrality of the civic structures and services, which is as it should be.
The city had decided that after a year the decals were to come off, especially because some members of council had become concerned about exactly what I explained above. The councillors had gotten to the point of voting to have them removed, with most of the council on side and only the ridiculous reactionary Frances Nunziata putting up a real objection. Yet, two days ago, after the deaths of three more Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, the council (on the initiative of Mayor David Miller) voted to leave the decals on the vehicles. Shame on them for caving.
Supposedly, there has been a great wave of protest from around the country, but this wave has been whipped up by the right-wing press (Toronto Sun, I am looking at you) as well as conservatives in the 905 belt surrounding Toronto, who are not citizens or tax-payers in Toronto. As a result of this faux-fire-storm, Mayor Miller proposed a motion that the decals would remain on the vehicles., and it was unanimously passed by all of those present (six councillors were not present, three of whom deliberately abstained and three of whom were away on other business but said they would have voted for the motion). This is a city council that is supposed to be dominated by progressive politicians. These politicians have no business calling themselves progressive if they are willing to have decals that support a belligerent, aggressive and imperialistic war attached to city vehicles. If they don't have the guts to stand up to a wave of complaints from people who have no stake in Toronto, then they are not standing up for their citizens, who elected them for their leftist positions, expecting leftist government, and yet all we have here is placation of the ravenous, foaming-at-the-mouth reactionary crowd. For shame.
If these politicians will not even stick by the philosophy on which they were elected, and if they chose to put the views of non-residents ahead of the views of their electorate, they have no business representing us. Any "progressive" councillor who voted for this measure has a lot of explaining to do, if they want to get the votes of their electors back. Every one of them, from David Miller on down, needs to explain why we should believe anything they say when they are running for office.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 582
The city had decided that after a year the decals were to come off, especially because some members of council had become concerned about exactly what I explained above. The councillors had gotten to the point of voting to have them removed, with most of the council on side and only the ridiculous reactionary Frances Nunziata putting up a real objection. Yet, two days ago, after the deaths of three more Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, the council (on the initiative of Mayor David Miller) voted to leave the decals on the vehicles. Shame on them for caving.
Supposedly, there has been a great wave of protest from around the country, but this wave has been whipped up by the right-wing press (Toronto Sun, I am looking at you) as well as conservatives in the 905 belt surrounding Toronto, who are not citizens or tax-payers in Toronto. As a result of this faux-fire-storm, Mayor Miller proposed a motion that the decals would remain on the vehicles., and it was unanimously passed by all of those present (six councillors were not present, three of whom deliberately abstained and three of whom were away on other business but said they would have voted for the motion). This is a city council that is supposed to be dominated by progressive politicians. These politicians have no business calling themselves progressive if they are willing to have decals that support a belligerent, aggressive and imperialistic war attached to city vehicles. If they don't have the guts to stand up to a wave of complaints from people who have no stake in Toronto, then they are not standing up for their citizens, who elected them for their leftist positions, expecting leftist government, and yet all we have here is placation of the ravenous, foaming-at-the-mouth reactionary crowd. For shame.
If these politicians will not even stick by the philosophy on which they were elected, and if they chose to put the views of non-residents ahead of the views of their electorate, they have no business representing us. Any "progressive" councillor who voted for this measure has a lot of explaining to do, if they want to get the votes of their electors back. Every one of them, from David Miller on down, needs to explain why we should believe anything they say when they are running for office.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 582
Monday, May 07, 2007
Sarkozy wins French Presidency
Sucks to be French today. Nicholas Sarkozy, the ultra-Conservative former interior minister has been elected to the French presidency by a vote of 53%-47% over Segoline Royal, the candidate of the Socialist Party. Sarkozy is the one who referred to immigrants (and in particular those living in the suburbs of Paris) as "scum." Not exactly a good attitude for someone who will be governing France for at least the next four years.
Sarkozy is also disturbingly close to George W. Bush on issues of foreign policy and civil rights. While I may not have agreed with Jacques Chirac on most issues, he was at least a strong voice opposing the idiocy of the foreign policy of the U.S. government in Iraq. Sarkozy cannot be counted on to do the same.
Sarkozy has announced his resolution to destroy a significant part of the fabric of the French social security net, including reducing state pensions and lengthening the work week. France is finally coming in for the kind of neoliberal garbage government that those of us in North America, many parts of Europe, much of Africa, much of Latin America and in Oceania have suffered through for two decades. It is too bad that the French did not learn the lessons of economic disaster brought on by neoliberal idiot economics and of right-wing governments with authoritarian tendencies:
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 629
Sarkozy is also disturbingly close to George W. Bush on issues of foreign policy and civil rights. While I may not have agreed with Jacques Chirac on most issues, he was at least a strong voice opposing the idiocy of the foreign policy of the U.S. government in Iraq. Sarkozy cannot be counted on to do the same.
Sarkozy has announced his resolution to destroy a significant part of the fabric of the French social security net, including reducing state pensions and lengthening the work week. France is finally coming in for the kind of neoliberal garbage government that those of us in North America, many parts of Europe, much of Africa, much of Latin America and in Oceania have suffered through for two decades. It is too bad that the French did not learn the lessons of economic disaster brought on by neoliberal idiot economics and of right-wing governments with authoritarian tendencies:
- Jobs, fleeing to South and South-East Asia as a result of trade "liberalization."
- Dramatically increasing gaps between the rich and the poor as low-decile incomes stagnate or fall and high-decile incomes soar into the stratosphere.
- Security states, where the most basic of human rights and civil liberties can be sacrificed on the altar of Security, a demon insatiable for the freedoms that define a democracy.
- Social programmes and safety nets torn to ribbons in the quest to get rid of "fat" in the system, and in the never ending search for "efficiency".
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 629
Saturday, April 28, 2007
New Green Plan
The Harpokon government released its new green plan the other day. And it is a bag of worthless crap. The key things to know are these:
By making these pathetic half-steps towards reducing our GHG emissions, we are essentially letting the big emitters of the world (U.S., China and India) off the hook. After all, if a rich, first world, state like Canada is unwilling to bite the bullet and take the necessary measures, why should China or India feel obliged to do so with much more meagre resources?
If the Conservatives think that this will get the public on-side, I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that it won't happen. All of the respected voices of the environmental movement (from Al Gore and David Suzuki on down) are calling bullshit on this so-called plan. I am so tired of this and I am so angry.
There is a problem, and it needs fixing now. And the fixing won't come from tinkering around the edges. We need to make major adjustments to the way we live, and they need to be made soon. There is still a very limited amount of time to phase in these changes, but if we wait much longer we are going to hit a wall and be forced to change by the fact that we will be facing an existential crisis.
The first good step to fixing this would be for the three opposition parties (NDP, Liberals and Bloc) to put every ounce of pressure available to them on the government to bring bill C-30 (the amended Clean Air Act) back to Parliament. It has important measures in it that would be very helpful. NDP leader Jack Layton has sent an open letter to the leaders of the other two opposition parties asking them for help, and hopefully the three parties will work together to make something happen.
We are running out of time.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 637
- The target it aims for is a 18% reduction in GHGs by 2010. The key problem here is that this is an 18% reduction from 2006 levels, not from 1990. Given the extent to which GHG emissions have risen since 1990, this does not even get our emissions back to our 1990 levels, let alone below them, as envisioned by the Kyoto Accord.
- Instead of a hard requirement for emissions reductions, companies will be allowed to make "intensity" reductions, meaning a reduction in the GHGs emitted per unit of production. This means that if a company reduces emissions intensity by 25% yet increases production by 50%, emissions will rise 12.5%, instead of falling at all.
By making these pathetic half-steps towards reducing our GHG emissions, we are essentially letting the big emitters of the world (U.S., China and India) off the hook. After all, if a rich, first world, state like Canada is unwilling to bite the bullet and take the necessary measures, why should China or India feel obliged to do so with much more meagre resources?
If the Conservatives think that this will get the public on-side, I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that it won't happen. All of the respected voices of the environmental movement (from Al Gore and David Suzuki on down) are calling bullshit on this so-called plan. I am so tired of this and I am so angry.
There is a problem, and it needs fixing now. And the fixing won't come from tinkering around the edges. We need to make major adjustments to the way we live, and they need to be made soon. There is still a very limited amount of time to phase in these changes, but if we wait much longer we are going to hit a wall and be forced to change by the fact that we will be facing an existential crisis.
The first good step to fixing this would be for the three opposition parties (NDP, Liberals and Bloc) to put every ounce of pressure available to them on the government to bring bill C-30 (the amended Clean Air Act) back to Parliament. It has important measures in it that would be very helpful. NDP leader Jack Layton has sent an open letter to the leaders of the other two opposition parties asking them for help, and hopefully the three parties will work together to make something happen.
We are running out of time.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 637
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Canadians Sending Afghans to Torture
Thanks to some excellent investigative reporting by the Globe and Mail, it has come to light that the Canadian government has been knowingly handing over Afghan prisoners of war to face torture in prisons run by the Afghan government. Not only did senior commanders on the ground clearly know about it, but the political leadership in Ottawa has been clearly demonstrated to be in the know as well.
Afghan prisoners report being beaten with bundles of wire, choked/asphyxiated, made to stand naked outside overnight in sub-zero temperatures and other inhuman and cruel treatment. I don't think any reasonable person could argue that this does not constitute torture. The fact that Canada knew about this and continued to hand prisoners over to Afghan torturers places Canada clearly in violation of our responsibilities under the Third Geneva Convention and under the Anti-Torture Convention. Canada has broken international law by handing these people over, knowing that they would be tortured for information. We have become a criminal state.
Under the Third Geneva Convention (available here) the detaining power (that is Canada) remains responsible for the well-being of prisoners of war transfered to another power (in this case Afghanistan). In the case of inhumane treatment by the power to which prisoners have been transfered, the detaining power has a responsibility to either take substantive action to fix the situation or to take the prisoners back. The Canadian government has done neither of those things. That means that Canada has violated the international laws of war, and thus has committed war crimes.
Additionally, the government is making a conscious effort to brush off the torture of these people. The government suggests that they are all Taliban fighters and thus their complaints cannot be believed. The government calls the reports "rumours." The government response to this is so wrong.
Torture is wrong, and we cannot countenance, condone or tolerate it by any state or actor, be they allied or opposed to the Canadian government. Now is manifestly the time to stand up for reason and justice in a world rapidly spiraling downwards.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 640
Afghan prisoners report being beaten with bundles of wire, choked/asphyxiated, made to stand naked outside overnight in sub-zero temperatures and other inhuman and cruel treatment. I don't think any reasonable person could argue that this does not constitute torture. The fact that Canada knew about this and continued to hand prisoners over to Afghan torturers places Canada clearly in violation of our responsibilities under the Third Geneva Convention and under the Anti-Torture Convention. Canada has broken international law by handing these people over, knowing that they would be tortured for information. We have become a criminal state.
Under the Third Geneva Convention (available here) the detaining power (that is Canada) remains responsible for the well-being of prisoners of war transfered to another power (in this case Afghanistan). In the case of inhumane treatment by the power to which prisoners have been transfered, the detaining power has a responsibility to either take substantive action to fix the situation or to take the prisoners back. The Canadian government has done neither of those things. That means that Canada has violated the international laws of war, and thus has committed war crimes.
Additionally, the government is making a conscious effort to brush off the torture of these people. The government suggests that they are all Taliban fighters and thus their complaints cannot be believed. The government calls the reports "rumours." The government response to this is so wrong.
- These people have not been tried or convicted of anything. Anything at all. So to call them Taliban is to violate the presumption of innocence that should be afforded to all people.
- Even if they are Taliban fighters, it does not mean that their complaints of torture are necessarily false or that they deserve to be tortured.
- The minimization of the reports of torture as "rumours" makes clear that the government does not plan to investigate them with any vigour.
Torture is wrong, and we cannot countenance, condone or tolerate it by any state or actor, be they allied or opposed to the Canadian government. Now is manifestly the time to stand up for reason and justice in a world rapidly spiraling downwards.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 640
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
A Horror in Virginia
Yesterday, a man killed 32 people at Virginia Tech, apparently with two handguns, before killing himself. This is a horrible crime and my sympathies go out those who were injured, and to the families and friends of the injured and the dead. My sympathies also go out to the family of the shooter. It must be horrible to lose a son or brother in such a manner, knowing that they had done such a repugnant thing. I totally condemn this crime, and it makes me think of a few different things.
First, and as Juan Cole points out, Iraq suffers the equivalent of two Virginia Tech slaughters every day, be it deaths inflicted by occupation soldiers, insurgents or Sufist terrorists (and yes, there is a distinction between them). The people of Iraq must suffer through this kind of horror twice per day. And the violence there is just as random. Whether the people are killed by American use of weapons of mass destruction (e.g. white phosphorus in Falujah), or are near an American patrol attacked by the insurgency or are in a market that is blown up by a suicide car-bomber, they die randomly and meaninglessly. We in the west need to think about this. Western nations are inflicting dozens of deaths every day. No wonder populations around the world are saying "if this is 'freedom,' we don't want any thank you." Can we blame them for rejecting something that has become associated with chaos and meaningless, random, death? The situation in Afghanistan is only quantitatively better, in that less people are dying random, meaningless, deaths every day, but Canadian troops are inflicting random death on people who have done nothing to deserve the harsh occupation that has been imposed on them by an imperialistic NATO.
The second thing the Virginia Tech slaughter has made me think of is the importance of gun control. Throughout the day, I had to listen to idiotic pro-gun activists say that if only, if only, Virginia Tech had not prohibited students from carrying concealed handguns on campus, most of the deaths would have been prevented. This is idiotic on so many levels. Firstly, if the killer had not been able to obtain a gun at all, he would not have been able to kill nearly the number of people that he did. It is simply much, much harder to inflict lethal wounds on a large number people in a short period of time with a knife than it is with a gun. Second, picture this. A number of students were armed with concealed handguns on campus. They hear the shooting start in the lecture hall and draw their weapons to try to hunt down the killer. The police then enter the building, after the shooting is reported, and see one of these students walking around with a drawn handgun looking for the shooter. They are going to assume that the student with the gun is the shooter, in all likelihood, and that student may quite likely then be shot, before the mistake can be sorted out. Third, unless someone is well trained with a handgun, it is easy to miss one's target. In a crowed environment like the lecture hall, they could just as easily hit other students as the shooter.
Gun control is necessary. This is because homicidal maniac control is always going to be harder than gun control. On the street, one can see a handgun and realize, "gee, that's a handgun." What one cannot do is look at a homicidal maniac just walking down the street and realize, "gee, that's a homicidal maniac." It just doesn't work like that.
Furthermore, handguns should be entirely illegal. The only purpose they have is shooting people. Sure, you can do some kinds of recreational shooting with them, but the benefits of making them entirely illegal (i.e. less dead people) would be much greater than the negative impacts on sport shooting.
Horrors like what happened at Virginia Tech make me so sad, because of the number of lives lost that could so easily have been saved.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 648
First, and as Juan Cole points out, Iraq suffers the equivalent of two Virginia Tech slaughters every day, be it deaths inflicted by occupation soldiers, insurgents or Sufist terrorists (and yes, there is a distinction between them). The people of Iraq must suffer through this kind of horror twice per day. And the violence there is just as random. Whether the people are killed by American use of weapons of mass destruction (e.g. white phosphorus in Falujah), or are near an American patrol attacked by the insurgency or are in a market that is blown up by a suicide car-bomber, they die randomly and meaninglessly. We in the west need to think about this. Western nations are inflicting dozens of deaths every day. No wonder populations around the world are saying "if this is 'freedom,' we don't want any thank you." Can we blame them for rejecting something that has become associated with chaos and meaningless, random, death? The situation in Afghanistan is only quantitatively better, in that less people are dying random, meaningless, deaths every day, but Canadian troops are inflicting random death on people who have done nothing to deserve the harsh occupation that has been imposed on them by an imperialistic NATO.
The second thing the Virginia Tech slaughter has made me think of is the importance of gun control. Throughout the day, I had to listen to idiotic pro-gun activists say that if only, if only, Virginia Tech had not prohibited students from carrying concealed handguns on campus, most of the deaths would have been prevented. This is idiotic on so many levels. Firstly, if the killer had not been able to obtain a gun at all, he would not have been able to kill nearly the number of people that he did. It is simply much, much harder to inflict lethal wounds on a large number people in a short period of time with a knife than it is with a gun. Second, picture this. A number of students were armed with concealed handguns on campus. They hear the shooting start in the lecture hall and draw their weapons to try to hunt down the killer. The police then enter the building, after the shooting is reported, and see one of these students walking around with a drawn handgun looking for the shooter. They are going to assume that the student with the gun is the shooter, in all likelihood, and that student may quite likely then be shot, before the mistake can be sorted out. Third, unless someone is well trained with a handgun, it is easy to miss one's target. In a crowed environment like the lecture hall, they could just as easily hit other students as the shooter.
Gun control is necessary. This is because homicidal maniac control is always going to be harder than gun control. On the street, one can see a handgun and realize, "gee, that's a handgun." What one cannot do is look at a homicidal maniac just walking down the street and realize, "gee, that's a homicidal maniac." It just doesn't work like that.
Furthermore, handguns should be entirely illegal. The only purpose they have is shooting people. Sure, you can do some kinds of recreational shooting with them, but the benefits of making them entirely illegal (i.e. less dead people) would be much greater than the negative impacts on sport shooting.
Horrors like what happened at Virginia Tech make me so sad, because of the number of lives lost that could so easily have been saved.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 648
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Budgets
Both the federal government and the government of Ontario brought down budgets in the last week. The federal government has adopted the tried and tested Liberal Party of Canada approach to the budget. Sprinkle a tiny little bit of money to just about everybody, and try to use that to hide honking big corporate tax cuts. Excellent, just what we need. At a time when corporate profits are going off the scale, what they need is another tax cut. All this while money could be used to fight poverty, reduce the debt burden on post-secondary students, fight global climate change, encourage primary health-care, ensure that aboriginals have a decent standard of living or so much more. Jack Layton put it quite well when he said that the federal budget "put crumbs on the kitchen table and a buffet on the board-room table." I'm not surprised, but I had been hoping for more. With the amount of money being thrown around, Jim Flahrety has reduced the expected surplus next year to just $300 million dollars. Remember that number. You're going to hear it again.
The provincial situation is a little bit more positive. The Ontario Liberals have been feeling the pressure from the NDP on the left to do something, anything, for working-class and poor Ontarians. As a result, there is going to be an Ontario Child Benefit for families earning less than $20 000/year phased in over the next couple years. In conjunction with this, the provincial government will stop clawing back the National Child Benefit from families on welfare (though not for three or four years, which is far too long). Thirdly, the government will raise the minimum wage $0.75/hr each March for three years, starting next year. This will bring minimum wage to $10.25/hr by 2010. This is a decent start, but the minimum wage needs to be at least $10/hr now, and it needs to get there now, not in three years. After all, Dalton McGuinty and the other MPs didn't have to wait three years for their fat raises, so why should the lowest income people in this country have to wait for their (rather slim) raises? Also, this provincial budget was balanced, with an estimated surplus of $300 million next year.
Remember that number? That means that at the federal level, Flahrety has reduced the federal government's fiscal situation to the same as a province that has just introduced its first balanced budget in at least 4 years. That means that the slightest downturn in the economy, which will come (it's called the business cycle, folks), we are back to deficits. Good job Harpokons. I hope you're happy.
Cheers
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 671
The provincial situation is a little bit more positive. The Ontario Liberals have been feeling the pressure from the NDP on the left to do something, anything, for working-class and poor Ontarians. As a result, there is going to be an Ontario Child Benefit for families earning less than $20 000/year phased in over the next couple years. In conjunction with this, the provincial government will stop clawing back the National Child Benefit from families on welfare (though not for three or four years, which is far too long). Thirdly, the government will raise the minimum wage $0.75/hr each March for three years, starting next year. This will bring minimum wage to $10.25/hr by 2010. This is a decent start, but the minimum wage needs to be at least $10/hr now, and it needs to get there now, not in three years. After all, Dalton McGuinty and the other MPs didn't have to wait three years for their fat raises, so why should the lowest income people in this country have to wait for their (rather slim) raises? Also, this provincial budget was balanced, with an estimated surplus of $300 million next year.
Remember that number? That means that at the federal level, Flahrety has reduced the federal government's fiscal situation to the same as a province that has just introduced its first balanced budget in at least 4 years. That means that the slightest downturn in the economy, which will come (it's called the business cycle, folks), we are back to deficits. Good job Harpokons. I hope you're happy.
Cheers
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 671
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Alberta Takes Another Step Towards Two-Tier Healthcare
The government of Ed Stelmach in Alberta has just decided that people will be able to opt-out of the public healthcare system for three years at a time. The government claims that this is simply a housekeeping measure, to reduce the amount of paperwork people have to do, but it is clearly more than that. To allow people to opt out of a universal healthcare system at all is a bad idea. To let them opt out for three years at a time is even worse.
The point of a universal healthcare system is that everyone pays into the system, and we can all draw on it when we are in need. The education system works exactly the same way. I don't have any kids, but my taxes still go to pay for the education system and I am perfectly happy with that. I haven't been to a hospital for care in close to 10 years, but I still have no problem with my taxes going to support a public, universal, healthcare system. To allow people to opt out of the system is to allow the system to be deprived of resources. And who do you think will opt out? Why the rich. Those that put the most money into the system in the first place through the progressive taxation system. What the government of Ed Stelmach is up to is a covert attempt to let healthcare privatization in through the back door. He should be ashamed of himself, and ashamed of the lies that he is telling to his people and to the rest of the country. If other provinces start doing this type of thing, we are going to be boarding the handbasket to hell in an awful hurry, and we are going to be without a public healthcare system. And we are back to the bad old days, when only those who could afford to pay would get medical care. For shame, Mr. Stelmach. For shame.
Cheers
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 681
The point of a universal healthcare system is that everyone pays into the system, and we can all draw on it when we are in need. The education system works exactly the same way. I don't have any kids, but my taxes still go to pay for the education system and I am perfectly happy with that. I haven't been to a hospital for care in close to 10 years, but I still have no problem with my taxes going to support a public, universal, healthcare system. To allow people to opt out of the system is to allow the system to be deprived of resources. And who do you think will opt out? Why the rich. Those that put the most money into the system in the first place through the progressive taxation system. What the government of Ed Stelmach is up to is a covert attempt to let healthcare privatization in through the back door. He should be ashamed of himself, and ashamed of the lies that he is telling to his people and to the rest of the country. If other provinces start doing this type of thing, we are going to be boarding the handbasket to hell in an awful hurry, and we are going to be without a public healthcare system. And we are back to the bad old days, when only those who could afford to pay would get medical care. For shame, Mr. Stelmach. For shame.
Cheers
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 681
Thursday, March 08, 2007
A $10 Minimum Wage
There is a campaign underway in Ontario to raise the minimum wage to $10/hr. I think this is an excellent idea, because it simply is not possible for people to live on $8/hr (the current general minimum wage in Ontario) in many parts of the province. If anyone is interested in my living expenses calculations for Toronto related to the minimum wage, leave a comment and I will post more details of my reasoning. Suffice it to say, rents are so high in many cities in Toronto that even working 40 hours per week (and very few minimum or just-above-minimum wage jobs give 40 hrs/wk) will not allow people to live, even if heavy use is made of food banks. Obviously, $10/hr will not allow people to live comfortably, but it is a dramatic improvement on what has gone before and will help people have some degree of stability in their lives.
The Ontario NDP, the Federal NDP, many unions and a vast plethora of community and citizen groups are pushing this effort forward. A good measure of a society is how it treats the most abject of it's citizens. And right now we are treating the poor of our society like crap, to be frank. Raising the minimum wage to $10/hr won't make that better, but it would be a good first step.
Now, the right wing will whinge about how raising the minimum wage like this will cause the sky to fall and cause every small business in Ontario to go out of business. Well guess what; doctor's said that socialized healthcare would cause the end of the medical system and that didn't happen. And business has been claiming that every increase to the minimum wage since the invention of such a thing will have catastrophic effects on business, and the economy has continued much as it ever has, cyclical as always. Frankly, a lot of the business sector is full of shit and not to be trusted on these issues.
Another objection that the right-wing will raise is that most people who earn minimum wage are teenagers living at home who don't need a raise. Nice try. That may be strictly speaking true, but a raise in the minimum wage from $8 to $10 would also help every person making between $8.01 and $9.99 per hour. And that is a lot of people in Ontario alone.
This is a good idea, and the reason the right fights it so strenuously is because they need a demoralized and abjected working class to produce wealth for them. As Ambrose Bierce said:
Cheers
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 688
The Ontario NDP, the Federal NDP, many unions and a vast plethora of community and citizen groups are pushing this effort forward. A good measure of a society is how it treats the most abject of it's citizens. And right now we are treating the poor of our society like crap, to be frank. Raising the minimum wage to $10/hr won't make that better, but it would be a good first step.
Now, the right wing will whinge about how raising the minimum wage like this will cause the sky to fall and cause every small business in Ontario to go out of business. Well guess what; doctor's said that socialized healthcare would cause the end of the medical system and that didn't happen. And business has been claiming that every increase to the minimum wage since the invention of such a thing will have catastrophic effects on business, and the economy has continued much as it ever has, cyclical as always. Frankly, a lot of the business sector is full of shit and not to be trusted on these issues.
Another objection that the right-wing will raise is that most people who earn minimum wage are teenagers living at home who don't need a raise. Nice try. That may be strictly speaking true, but a raise in the minimum wage from $8 to $10 would also help every person making between $8.01 and $9.99 per hour. And that is a lot of people in Ontario alone.
This is a good idea, and the reason the right fights it so strenuously is because they need a demoralized and abjected working class to produce wealth for them. As Ambrose Bierce said:
Corporation, noun: An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit, without individual responsibility.He was on to something there. Capitalists don't care about people, they care about profit. This is to put the cart before the horse in a dramatic manner. People should come before profit.
Cheers
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 688
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Opposition Defeats Terrorism Act Provisions
For once, I have something nice to say about the Liberals. They voted the right way on the government motion to extend the arrest-without-charge and compulsory testimony provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act. These sections of the Act posed a serious threat to the freedoms of Canadians and should never have been enacted in the first place. What is hilarious is to see the Liberals posturing as the defenders of civil liberties. To hear them tell it, you would never think that they wrote the law in the first place. One Liberal voted in favour of the government motion, notorious right-winger and arch-bigot Tom Wappell. It remains to be seen what, if any, punishment he will face for breaking ranks with the rest of his party.
The Conservatives now think that the Liberals have handed them a club for the next election. Expect to hear an endless repetition of "soft on terrorism" for the next couple of months. What is true is that by finally doing the right thing, the Liberals have proven that once again they are hopeless flip-floppers, following the political winds of the day. The NDP opposed these provisions from the beginning. The NDP was the only one to be concerned that the government was using the threat of terrorism as a means to induce Canadians to accept a diminution of their civil liberties.
The Conservatives also seem to have decided that they will bring in a new act to reinstate the measures that were allowed to expire on Wednesday. Expect it to be a matter of confidence, so that the Conservatives can say after they are defeated that the Liberals (plus the NDP and the Bloc) brought down the government because they support terrorism. It would be about par for the Republican course, and would fit right in with the playbook used by the American right in the last several elections.
All of this should make for more interesting politics in the weeks to come.
Cheers
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 696
The Conservatives now think that the Liberals have handed them a club for the next election. Expect to hear an endless repetition of "soft on terrorism" for the next couple of months. What is true is that by finally doing the right thing, the Liberals have proven that once again they are hopeless flip-floppers, following the political winds of the day. The NDP opposed these provisions from the beginning. The NDP was the only one to be concerned that the government was using the threat of terrorism as a means to induce Canadians to accept a diminution of their civil liberties.
The Conservatives also seem to have decided that they will bring in a new act to reinstate the measures that were allowed to expire on Wednesday. Expect it to be a matter of confidence, so that the Conservatives can say after they are defeated that the Liberals (plus the NDP and the Bloc) brought down the government because they support terrorism. It would be about par for the Republican course, and would fit right in with the playbook used by the American right in the last several elections.
All of this should make for more interesting politics in the weeks to come.
Cheers
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 696
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
