I will post details about this year's Hallowe'en stuff soon, but I wanted to share this for now. Below is a video clip from 1978 of Tommy Douglas addressing the House of Commons. There's two things that I'd like to point out to you before you watch it:
I remember the day I heard that Rob Ford would be running for Mayor in Toronto. I figured this to be great news. Ford, a blustering idiot councillor from the suburbs needed a good smack down, and there was no way that a racist bigot like him could ever win in a city as beautifully diverse as Toronto. He would be ejected from politics, outed for who he was, an ignorant blowhard who couldn't possibly hope to represnet the most multicultural city in Canada.
Oh how it hurts to be so wrong.
Not only did Rob Ford win, he won with 47% of the vote. That means that 47% of Torontonians either voted for a bigot or didn't bother to do the research themselves to find out that that they were going to vote for a bigot. On top of that, 50% didn't even show up to vote at all. We're past a question of "who stole votes from whom" here, this is problem is systemic.
Dave Meslin had part of it right when he talked about Toronto's invisible primaries, an ugly byproduct of our antiquated first-past-the-post voting system is that we exclude voices from the debate because they aren't loud enough to win. Remember that 50% that didn't even show up to vote? Well knowing that your vote actually counts for something is a great way to energise interest in politics.
But there's a second element that we don't hear discussed enough and that's interest by virtue of time and energy. Ford won because he ran a great campaign. It painted him as a straight-talking, no-nonsense guy who's going to "clean up City Hall" while somehow obscuring the fact that he himself was a millionaire, bent on destroying everything most Torontonians hold in high regard. All anyone had to do was Google his name to find out who he really was, but too few people did -- 380,201 people actually, and now we have four years to find out just how much this man can do, both to the city itself, and to its reputation on the world stage.
For political devotees like myself, it's easy to dismiss 47% of the voting public as either ignorant or crazy, but it's just not true. I honestly believe that people want to understand the politics of their city, province and country, but they simply don't have time. For those of us for whom politics is a hobby or interest, it's hard to accept that someone wouldn't want to burn a few hours a day reading up on local events, or watching a news show, but for most of us, a few hours is all we have, and many of us would rather spend that time on something that makes us happy, whether that be painting, reading, hockey, or just socialising. Democracy is work for many of us, and it's a commitment that some of us can't make without sacrificing our sanity.
Now I'm not excusing political apathy, far from it. For the next four years, every one of the 380,201 people who voted for Ford and the million or so who didn't vote should be reminded that the state of things is in fact their fault. No, I'm trying to point out that any society that doesn't allow for enough time to both do what we personally need for our sanity as well as take part in our own governance isn't really a Democracy. In a real Democracy, a blustering fool like Ford couldn't hope to succeed because the public would actually know what kind of person he is. His comments about cyclists being at fault when they're hit by trucks and his tirades in council would be lunch counter conversation in every home in a real Democracy, his archaic views on homosexuality, a joke told over dinner.
We need to slow down, decompress and work less, engage more... with each other and with our community. Activist groups are great, but they're not much good if they only include people between the ages of 18 and 28, or those over 65. Too many people are just too busy paying rent and feeding their kids to worry about more than the 30second spot they saw on TV and that is the real problem here.
I've attached some Youtube videos to this post along the side to give you a taste for what kind of man is sitting in the Big Chair now. Know that Toronto is not unique in this, in fact I'd argue that such misfortune is just as likely to happen anywhere where the public is sufficiently overburdened and disenfranchised. I can only hope that he angers enough people in these next four years that it inspires others to re-engage with their Democracy.
What originally started as an interesting addendum to my Toronto trip has turned into quite the experience for me. While the original reasoning for my trip back to Toronto was to attend Sheena's wedding, I decided to extend it by one week so that I might be able to attend the Green Party's Annual General Meeting (AGM) at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre.
I know what you're thinking, and for the most part, it's totally true: these things are boring. There was no shortage of people asking to speak to amendments, amend amendments, or just completely go off on irrelevant tangents, but that's all sort of the point. This is democracy at work: an informed group of people coming together to talk about what we, as a party, want to do in the future.
The process (at least for the Greens, I can't speak for other parties) is twofold: policy and constitutional motions, or in other words, what we stand for, how we will govern ourselves. For my part, I spent my workshop time (the portion of the day in which we break into smaller groups to discuss one of the two aforementioned tracks) in the policy conversations because that's where hang my hat: in the heart of the process, rather than the method.
We talked about and changed party policy on everything from the authority and ownership of the Bank of Canada, to the decriminalisation of polyamory. Some of these motions passed, while others were met with rather strong opposition, but everyone was candid and civil, and in the end we learnt to speak with one voice.
On the issue of polyamoury, one of the most controversial motions, I personally spoke to the plenary session (where everyone, from all groups gather to approve/reject the findings of the workshops), a rather intimidating act I must say. I stood in support of the motion, calling for "moral courage" to stand on what's right, though politically inconvenient and was joined by a number of others who felt much the same.
In the end however, the majority voted it down, in large part due to a lack of understanding of what was being moved (the workshop worked very hard to adjust the motion but it still needs work), as well as a lack of knowledge about the very real fact that conjugal relationships in excess of two people are illegal in this country. Here's the law, in case you were curious:
- Every one who
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
- practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into
whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or
- any form of polygamy, or
- any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time,
- celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii),
Translation: if you're in a conjugal poly relationship, or even attend a wedding-ish party in support of a poly relationship, you're a criminal, and could potentially be thrown in jail for up to five years.
I stood for this because it's the Right thing to do, and even though it didn't pass this time around, I'm confident that with a little work on the education front, we'll see it through in the near future.
So that's it for me right now. Short synopsis: democracy exciting, you should try it :-) My next post, if I can cobble the time together, will be from New York, and/or Washington DC.
So that word is floating around again "Prorogue". For those of you who missed it, I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, but we've all been without representation in the federal government now for almost a month now. Stephen Harper, our Prime Minister decided to shut down parliament back in December and won't be affording us representation until some time in March.
That's three months paid vacation for a parliament that sat for only 49days last year. Three months without the business of government being done, without your voice being heard in the House. Sure Harper still gets to be the boss and represent Canada abroad and at the Olympics, and no, our soldiers in Afghanistan don't get to take a break. Addressing our commitments on climate change won't happen by the Copenhagen deadline, and we're all still paying taxes for the privilege of living in a democracy.
People have staged (successful) revolutions for less.
In Canada though, where we once saw only apathy, there appears to be some exciting movement among the grass roots. Hundreds of thousands of people have joined a Facebook group denouncing Harper's Conservatives for this move and the numbers keep growing. Support for the Conservatives has begun to dwindle as well and now there are rallies planned around the world in condemnation of this prorogue.
Here's a list of what proroguing means to Canada:
Frankly, it's actions like these that make it hard for me to claim that I live in a democracy. Instead, it might be more accurate to say that we've become a cyclical banana republic. As for what the other parties are saying...
So what can you do? Some suggestions:
I'll be at the event in Vancouver, so if you care to come along, let me know and we can meet up :-)
I've been meaning to write this for some time, and given that the deadline is fast approaching (the 13th!), I found an hour or two during the week when I was home recovering from my longboarding accident to get it done. Cat then went over it with her giganimous brain to help me weed out the run-on sentences and then Melanie gave it a second run and found the remainder of would-be improvements so I'm reasonably confident that it's post-worthy. I'll be sending it to my MP, the consultaiton itelf, and Speak Out On Copyright sometime tonight. For now though, I'm posting it here:
To whom it may concern--it has been brought to my attention that copyright law in Canada is finally being re-examined and that part of this re-examination includes a Canada-wide consultation in which respondents submit their positions on copyright law. As copyright is an issue of considerable importance to me, I offer the following responses to your 5 key questions:
- How do Canada’s copyright laws affect you? How should existing laws be modernised?
Copyright law affects me in the same way it does everyone: copyright is about culture as a whole. All creative work is, in essence, derivative of the commons, and copyright is by nature a form of theft of these commons; it is a way to privatise a portion of our culture for personal profit.
While I understand the need to compensate artists for their work, I feel that the current state of copyright is far too restrictive. In most cases, it favours those who own the copyright rather than those who created the content copyrighted. What's worse, these laws (and the ones initially proposed under C-61) further restrict the rights of the public to use and enjoy that content in our shared culture, as well as restricting our ability to contribute to the content, and by extension, to our culture.
- Based on Canadian values and interests, how should copyright changes be made in order to withstand the test of time?
The issue at hand is not about making a law that will withstand the test of time so much as it is about the unavoidable truth that the nature of copyright, and therefore how it applies to the public, is changing. File sharing is becoming rampant both in the business world and the Internet underground, and the picking of electronic locks is fast becoming mandatory to ensure the public's access to cultural content. The real question is, how will Canada adapt legislatively to a problem that by its nature is not static?
No business has a "right" to profit: this is the foundation of a capitalist system. Now that the powers of the public have changed to allow us to make and distribute copies of media, the laws have to change to preserve the best interests of that public. Business will adapt--it always has--but only if we refuse to prop up failed business models. By this time next year the average storage capacity on a cellphone will be 8gb. That's the average size of a computer's hard drive when Napster first premiered. These phones will be able to swap files on a subway car or across international borders anonymously and nearly indetectably. This is the reality of where the technology is heading. No law or mandate can stem that tide. The law must adapt.
- What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster innovation and creativity in Canada?
We need to adopt rational rules that work with the realities of media production and distribution in the new economy. First, laws against encryption breaking must be repealed, if only to allow people to play whatever media they want on whatever device they want. Allowing a media company to dictate the type of device a legally purchased instantiation of their product can be played on is a gross abuse of power. Clear lines must be drawn between content producers and consumers. Second, a five-year limit on non-transferable copyright is a key move for a viable 21st-century copyright plan. Copyright should only ever belong to the creator, and the rights distribution should never be exclusive. This would ensure that a creator's work would be personally profitable for a reasonable amount of time without restricting the liberties of the public to create and share derivative works. This may sound drastic given our existing copyright laws, but I would encourage you to have a conversation with an actual content creator about how their rights to their own content are routinely removed and hoarded by the copyright holder and sequestered from the public and the creator, often for decades.
- What sorts of copyright changes do you believe would best foster competition and investment in Canada?
Culture is improved by derivative works. In fact, it could be argued that all creative work is derivative. If we adopt the principles I outlined in #3, the result would be mountains of derivative works, all distributed around the globe -- content created by Canadians for the world. This is the single greatest benefit to copyright reform: the freedom to create, using elements from the culture in which we were raised.
- What kinds of changes would best position Canada as a leader in the global, digital economy?
All of the above. If you want to increase Canada's cultural profile abroad, you need only give the public the right to create and distribute that culture. It's as simple as that. Enshrine the rights of creators in our laws and in so doing, prevent foreign interests from apppropriating and perpetually controlling those rights. Then after a reasonable time has passed, allow the public to use and share all creative works in imaginative ways, and save the trillions of dollars currently spent tracking and prosecuting people committing this inevitable "crime". Embrace public freedom; your grandchildren will thank you.
So it's over, and sadly, the results are much as I expected them to be. Though I'd hoped for a smaller proportion of seats for the Liberals, the punishment dealt to the NDP for their deplorable environmental platform is sufficient in my book.
From what I've seen of the results so far, my campaign went fairly well considering the amount of time/money I had to contribute and my relative inexperience from the start. A Liberal win in my riding was a near inevitability under our voting system so I'm actually quite happy with my showing.
For my part, it's really been a great experience. I've learnt a great deal about how a campaign is run, and dramatically improved on my public speaking skills. I've gained a renewed sense of confidence in my ability to represent myself in formal gatherings and I've met some really interesting people.
The people, though, that's what's been most interesting for me. Just the experience of meeting complete strangers with a unique understanding of their field, or their portion of the ecosystem was very rewarding: seniors with a serious passion about doing the Right thing by their grand-kids, and young people with that kind of passionate faith and dedication to a shared goal. This is what politics is about and I love it. If there's one lesson I am to take away from this experience, it must be no one can know everything and that there is real expertise (as well as willingness to contribute) in a variety of fields out there -- you just have to go looking for it.
Sadly, though, with the overall percentage that the Greens acquired in this race, once again we took a grand total of zero seats. And now, with STV having been defeated for its third and final time, BC will have another generation of unrepresentative politics in the Legislature.
[rant]
Joseph de Maistre said: "Every country has the government it deserves" and he was absolutely right. British Columbians have proven for the third and final time that they have no interest in better representation -- or perhaps more accurately put -- have no interest in learning about how they might be better represented.
The vast majority of anti-STV comments I've heard over the past month (with the exception of Stephen's) were largely uninformed or worse, based entirely on a combined ignorance of the subject and a disinterest in learning anything about it. BC will have exactly the government it deserves, one that operates best when the progressive majority is routinely ignored.
And for people like Stephen, who continually muddied the debate by claiming that STV wasn't as good as other options, and that the referendum needed to be more inclusive of other alternatives like MMP, thank you so much for screwing this up for the rest of us. Proportional representation is now off the table in BC for decades. Your claims that another voting system might be better might have had some merit if proposed to a minority government elected under STV, but your commitment to fear, uncertainty and doubt has ensured that this will not happen for a very, very long time.
[/rant]
The aforementioned bitterness aside, my experience has been on the whole very positive and I intend to run again if I'm still living in BC in 2013. Politics seems to suit me quite well actually -- it has, after all been a big part of my life for as long as I can remember. This whole process has been an honour and a privilege and I'm so glad to have had the opportunity to run.
I'm probably going to be blogging about this sort of thing for the duration of the election, but bear with me here.
I got an email today... four of the same email... so far -- from concerned citizens opposed to sport hunting of Grizzly Bears in the Great Bear rain forest. As part of their efforts to ban the practise, their supporters are sending a form letter email to all the candidates in this election looking for their support.
It's ironic really... humbling too. I've been on the other side of campaigns like this one dozens of times and in every case I know what to expect as far as effectiveness goes. Legislation needs the support of powerful people in government and in a majority, it needs support of a ruling party that may or may not be interested in what these people have to say.
Pick any subject: Cancer research, Net Neutrality, Transit, and yes, the Grizzlies of Northern BC and you'll find a battery of financial interests behind each of them pushing the controlling party away from the public good. Our antiquated First Past the Post system concentrates power in the hands of a single party (and realistically, a single party leader) who cannot possibly hold a mandate on all issues for the majority of voters. And as a result, the needs of the majority cannot ever be properly served.
This Grizzly campaign has my full support, but sadly under our current system, that support doesn't mean much in the Legislature unless it comes from one of two people who have already shown themselves to be more interested in obtaining power than doing anything constructive with it. This province needs a new form of representation that more accurately reflects the demographics our Legislature is supposed to represent and forces parties to work together to do the work of the people. What we've got right now isn't even close.
If you've read this far, I encourage you to take a look at STV and learn about how it can help our government better represent the diverse needs of the province. This upcoming election is also a referendum on whether or not we should adopt such a system so it's worth your time to figure this out. STV isn't perfect, but it's way better than what we've got.
So for those of you who weren't waiting with baited breath for the news from the Govenor General this morning, I'll break down what happened:
Basically, Stephen Harper went to the Govenor General and "advised" her to suspend Parliament for six weeks. This advisory meeting took something like two and a half hours.
For the rest of us, this means that in the midst of serious economic and environmental need, the Conservatives have decided that their holding onto power is more important than running the country. I think that Liberal leadership candidate Bob Rae said it best when he equated it to a kid pulling the fire alarm to skip out on an exam he knew he'd fail.
For my part, frankly I'm really disappointed in Harper, though not at all surprised. This is a man who goes on live television and outright lies to the people, fabricates stories in the House and even disavows any knowlege of his own disreputable past when confronted with the facts. Far from being Prime Minister material, Stephen Harper is both an autocrat and a coward.
I can only hope that the millions of dollars his party will likely spend on propaganda over the Christmas holiday will have little or no effect on the Will of the people and that the Liberal/NDP coalition will walk back into parliament in late January to finish what they started so we can be rid of this man for good. Until then however, barring revolution, Canada will have to live without Democracy through the Christmas season.
Stephen Harper and Jack Layton have rescinded their statements that they'd withdraw from the debate if Elizabeth May is permitted to attend. It may have taken an impassioned letter to the Globe and Mail from former Prime Minister Joe Clark and a barrage of hate mail from their supporters to shame them into doing the Right thing, but regardless, my faith in our electoral system is slowly returning.
Update: 2008-09-10 16:16:31PST
Elizabeth May's twitter status has been updated to say "I am celebrating my inclusion in the televised leaders' debates! Going out to dinner at my favourite restaurant in New Glasgow."
