Tag Archives: Conservatives

How liberal dogma is eroding the left

I’ve said it before: from a certain angle, progressives are the real  conservatives. At least, we’re supposed to be. Resource and worker exploitation, rampant consumerism, overspending by an elite bureaucracy – these practices may increase the GDP, but they’re wrong. And part of why they’re wrong is that we end up paying for them in disproportionate and messy ways. Of course, it’s never the people who make the decisions that end up dealing with the repercussions, and it’s precisely this sense of injustice, this lack of social accountability, that is supposed to propel the left.

Progressives aren’t perfect. We’re not cohesive. We don’t have a monopoly on wanting things to be better for everyone. And we’re not immune to dogma and rhetoric. I hate to say it, but in the case of Ontario, many lefties seem to be having a tough time reconciling what it means to be accountable when it comes to how governments handle public money. Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath has this to say on the subject:

I believe that there is a lot of waste in government right now and I believe that the people of Ontario want to see that waste eliminated, and I don’t think we eliminate it without the hard decisions.

How many Ontarians would disagree with this statement? Does anyone really doubt that the provincial bureaucratic machine is not wasteful, after all of the scandals, and that we wouldn’t benefit by figuring out how we might do things more efficiently? If you’ve been reading the comments on Horwath’s Facebook page and other social media sites, for many self-proclaimed NDP supporters (past or current), the answer, oddly, is yes.

I’m really struggling to see the problem here. Since when is tackling waste the exclusive domain of the right?

You’d think the left, which makes a big fuss over the evils of austerity (for good reason) would be able to distinguish that from efficiency. What’s crucial here is who’s proposing the policy and why, what does it really entail, and what is its context within the overall platform? Why should talking seriously about fiscal responsibility be off limits? Is it necessarily the case that progressive candidates who do so are only trying to conquer new territory?

This knee-jerk reaction justifies and perpetuates the stereotype that progressive governments only ever pursue a ‘tax and spend’ agenda, that they’re inherently financially inept, wasteful behemoths. A lot of people who end up voting Conservative don’t do so because they like the idea of seeing social supports slashed; they do it because they’re sick of seeing their money being pissed away by people who don’t share their priorities or understand their challenges. Many on the left completely fail to understand this, to the detriment of us all.

Traditionally left-wing media purveyors such as Rabble and the Toronto Star have been steadily pumping out articles about the NDP that are both reflexive and peppered with conjecture. Case in point:

“The NDP will never win with policies that adhere to Conservative definitions of what counts as fiscal responsibility. Not ever. Fiscal responsibility is not spending your time looking under couch cushions for extra change. Fiscal responsibility is spending money on programs that help regular people and not the rich or corporations. All else is a Conservative smoke screen…”

And there you have it, folks – it’s not just a tired leftie stereotype: as per Michael Stewart, spending – and only spending – is an acceptable form of fiscal responsibility. What’s more, this lazy argument exposes an unfortunate liberal dogma. How is it that a concept as central as this can be defined in such a narrow way, without being widely challenged, and without having to demonstrate a holistic understanding of what it means to manage money? And how is it fair to declare that the NDP is adhering to Conservative ideology just because they’re pointing out a problem that pretty much every single Ontarian would admit exists? The NDP plan doesn’t come anywhere close to resembling a Mike Harris-type platform. Or a Tim Hudak platform. Or a Liberal platform, for that matter. It needs to be said that the progressive ideas put forth by the Liberals have been either borrowed (I’m being generous here) from the NDP or grudgingly adopted from them.

In The Ottawa Citizen, David Reevely criticizes this newest NDP initiative by writing that “what prevents mismanagement is competent ministers.” Sure, that’s true, but that’s not the only way a government can prevent mismanagement – not by a long shot.

A good friend of mine used to work for the Ontario Power Authority. She would go on and on about the fancy catered lunches her manager ordered. They simply had to have their San Pellegrino, and gourmet, organic selection of fine foods. The genre of requests from and accommodations for executives reflected a disturbing sense of entitlement. Does this qualify as the sort of program spending that Stewart was talking about? No, because it’s everyday practices like this that aggregately soak up revenue, in addition to other things, including truly excessive salaries and redundancies (both of which the NDP are targeting).

By pointing this out, I’m not badmouthing public workers or unions. It means I don’t think we should be spending other people’s money on things we don’t really need. There’s absolutely no reason why this isn’t or shouldn’t be a core progressive policy. Now, is this is the sort of waste that the proposed Minister of Savings and Accountability would address? Would we really save about $600 million annually? How would the NDP achieve the goal of 0.5% savings in the budget every year? That remains to be seen. But the sad fact is that many progressives don’t even want to entertain the idea that perhaps we should take a look at how we’re spending money. The claim by Reevely and others that the NDP is veering from their traditional policy of sticking up for the little guy is simply unqualified and nonsensical. Sometimes I actually get a glimmer of understanding as to why conservatives think the whole lot of us lefties are idiots.

If we’re going to question Horwath for promising too much, as Martin Regg Cohn has done (and reasonably so), we should also be ceaselessly pointing out the Liberals’ proven track record of having done so – and failed spectacularly. Cohn has inexplicably described the NDP campaign as “Ford-style populism”, but there’s a huge difference between a politician whose entire platform consists of cutting and saying no to everything and one who vows to go after waste we know exists, and as part of a broader platform that does actually include funding programs that will directly benefit the average Ontarian. While I honestly think it would be foolish to expect the NDP’s entire platform to check out economically, Cohn’s comparison of Horwath’s politics to Rob Ford’s was shamefully gratuitous. Rob Ford? Come on.

I get it – we’re sick and tired of neoliberal policies. We’re paying higher taxes and getting less in return. Services are cut while deficits grow. The solution to this, then, is to think creatively. This includes examining the budget and bureaucracy so we can make sure that where we are spending money, we’re not doing so needlessly. We literally can’t afford to pretend that raising taxes on big corporations and wealthy individuals will give us the kind of float we need to put things back into balance. This would be a good start – but not a solution. Why do so many within the left seem determined to sabotage any attempt at forming a platform that Ontarians can actually get behind?

More to the point, the question that continues to haunt me, now more than ever, is:

Can we not be progressive and responsible at the same time?

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Canada, Politics & Society

Kathleen Wynne’s Trojan horse: standing up to neoliberalism

In turning her back on the Liberal Party’s proposed budget, Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath has whipped up a tornado of controversy by triggering a new election to be held in less than two months’ time. Depending on who you ask, this is either the bravest or the most reckless thing she could have done.

The calm before the storm

The calm before the storm

One thing that’s certain is that it was a big surprise. Reactions on the left include disappointment, bewilderment, relief, and excitement.

Progressives have been forced to capitulate to centrist policy because we haven’t had much choice. A lot of lefties are asking what was so wrong with the budget that it had to come to this. We tend to be caught between two undesirable choices, and this time around was no exception:

  1. Accept the bitter pill of a flawed, bloated budget from a government that has botched things very badly even though leadership has been replaced.
  2. Turn down the budget, thus triggering an election and exposing ourselves to the possibility that we could end up with an even more damaging administration in charge.

We’ve been here before. Andrea Horwath is damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. Ultimately, the fundamental challenge facing progressives isn’t the NDP’s refusal to cooperate with the Liberal government. What we really need to be concerned about is why we don’t have a bigger base of support while the conservatives do. It’s not a pleasant subject, but it has to be addressed if we’re interested in the long term well-being of all Ontarians.

The Liberals simply are not capable of delivering the kind of change that we need. Their motives are suspect, their numbers are fuzzy, their promises are lofty, and their record leaves us with not one single reason to believe that they will do what they say they will. Some have accused Horwath of playing politics, but her explanation for voting against the budget is supported by what we already know to be true:

“The same government that couldn’t fill these three promises [reduction in auto insurance rates, introduction of an accountability officer, and significant action on home care] in the last year is making more than 70 new promises this year.”

photo(1)

A budget to please or appease?

Many progressives were taken in by the promise of Wynne’s budget while failing to recognize that this is about much more than the budget itself. In addition to the question of whether it offers the right ingredients, there’s also the question of whether it’s realistic. Most importantly, would it have been implemented by the administration making these promises? The problem is that Wynne’s government has no credibility at this point. The budget may sound like a great deal (it’s not), but it never could be under the execution of an irresponsible government regardless. It’s like a big, beautifully wrapped gift that’s too heavy to carry home. The NDP is taking a huge risk by triggering a new election, but whereas its outcome is uncertain, we know exactly where that budget would lead. When we peel back the cellophane wrapper, we discover that this ‘gift’ is essentially the same one we got last time.

How long are we going to compromise our principles out of fear of the right wing? What I’m really struggling to understand is how NDP types could be suspicious of Horwath while trusting Wynne’s Trojan horse. The left has to come together on this and take a good hard look at what has worked, what hasn’t, and reconnect with the people. We know that a substantial proportion of working people act against their own best interest when they vote Conservative or Liberal. We need to start articulating that not only by criticizing those budgets and platforms, but by building a plan that actually works.

The neoliberal agenda has placed a spell on us with its enchanting incantations but it has failed to make meaningful progress. The Ontario Liberal Party is now widely reviled from all sides. They’re so deeply entrenched in a culture of incompetence, waste, and corruption that people are incensed enough to veer from their traditional voting patterns.

If Tim Hudak didn’t come off as such a mediocre-minded slimeball, the NDP probably wouldn’t have taken such drastic action. I suspect his lack of likeability isn’t helped by Stephen Harper’s reputation as a cold, calculating sociopath. Harper has done considerable damage to the Conservative brand in general, just as McGuinty and Wynne have done for the Liberals. Could this play a part in the election outcome?

Right-leaning voters who desperately want change but aren’t married to the Conservative culture are more likely to overcome their uneasiness about the NDP if they see that they aren’t acting like petulant, out of touch, impotent utopians. Add to this the extra points that Horwath wins for distancing herself from large private sector unions like Unifor and the Ontario Federation of Labour that urged her to side with the Liberals. We saw that under Jack Layton, the party articulated popular priorities very well and was able to seize on favourable conditions. If the NDP demonstrates once again that it has a renewed sense of purpose and is just as fed up as the rest of Ontarians – and serious about doing something about it – there’s a chance they might attract supporters we haven’t anticipated.

 

 

A recent EKOS poll taken right before Friday’s events shows the Liberals leading with 34.7%, the Conservatives close behind with 31.6%, and the NDP with 22.2%. Just under 19% were undecided. How will these figures change following the budget showdown? There’s enough room for swing votes that no one can be sure what will happen. I would love to talk to the people who represent the PC-NDP swing segment:

 

onpoli

 

Even for those voters who still won’t be ideologically swayed by the NDP, Horwath will have earned nods for showing some refreshing nerve and integrity – something many people have been craving badly under the Liberals. She managed to hand them a way out – something that Hudak, Wynne’s most vocal critic – could not. He’s eating his words now.

“Hudak also took a shot at Horwath for not commenting on the budget, saying she chose to ‘duck and run‘ rather than ‘stand up for taxpayers.’”

Under Horwath, the Ontario NDP is now projecting an image that says the era of centre-left patronage is over, and it’s willing to risk losing ground to the right in order to defend accountability. They’re not afraid to step into the ring alone. After all, who wants to root for a contender that doesn’t really want to fight? It’s unclear how much respect Horwath might gain or how much currency that will have, but the election is only eight weeks away. That doesn’t leave a lot of time for Hudak to shine or for Wynne to gloss over the embarrasing rejection. People are sitting up and taking notice, but the key to Horwath’s success lies not in whether the people are paying attention to her, but whether she’s paying attention to them.

If this curve ball doesn’t inspire Ontarians to decide that voting is more interesting and worthwhile than watching TV, I don’t know what will.

Leave a comment

Filed under Canada, Politics & Society

Whose economy? How privilege shapes economic discourse

A man who might become Canada’s next Prime Minister was mocked last week for his reaction when confronted with the claim that the middle class is doing quite well, contrary to his assertions.

There’s no point in arguing about whether Justin Trudeau is competent when all he could squeeze out of his brain was a regurgitation of campaign talking points: “We’re talking about people here in a way that is giving them the capacity to be part of strong and vibrant communities.”

What does that even mean?

The New York Times report in question has limited value where this issue is concerned because its findings are relative, not absolute. It doesn’t actually establish that the Canadian middle class is doing well; it just says that for the first time ever, our middle class is doing better than that of our American counterparts. Which isn’t terribly exciting considering how much of a beating they’ve taken.

There are a lot of factors to take into account when judging how well a certain income group – or any group – is doing. Are they making progressively more money to compensate for inflation? Are they getting more for the taxes they pay? Are they in a better position to secure adequate housing? Are they able to save more money, or are they taking on more debt? Has the group shrunk or expanded? Do they have equitable and sufficient access to quality healthcare, or education? Are they struggling to pay utilities? Can they afford to eat healthy food? What about exposure to toxins and pollution? Crime and incarceration rates?

Most importantly, when we talk about class it’s not a simple question of economic difference; we’re talking about human beings and all the social, cultural, and political realities they face. Class isn’t just about how much money you make. In many cases, class is the colour of your skin or the neighbourhood you live in.

What we really need to consider is whether we can base our understanding of the state of our economy on the state of the middle class. Defining the middle class is no easy task to begin with (MSN Money suggests these 9 ways to tell if you’re middle class). According to the results of this Gallup poll, it appears that Americans are most likely to self-identify as middle class (Republicans even more so), although the Pew Research Center has reported that this number has dropped sharply in recent years. Meanwhile, rich people don’t even think they’re rich.

There it is again.

Middle class, middle class, MIDDLE CLASS!

It’s true that middle class incomes have stagnated. Even Statistics Canada has confirmed it. But it’s not an accident that the experiences and interests of the middle class dominate our political and economic discourse. If we ever needed proof that Canada is a stratified society shaped by the privileged, it’s made abundantly clear by the frequent mention of the middle class, especially in the run-up to elections. And Trudeau really wants us to know that he cares about the middle class:

“Liberals in Quebec and across the country are focused on jobs, the economy, and growing the middle class.”

One question keeps popping into my mind: What’s wrong with talking about, say, the working class? What’s wrong with being working class? Believe it or not, there was a time when being a member of the proletariat was a source of pride and dignity, and still is to many Canadians – only you wouldn’t guess it by listening to the talking heads.

If we really want to know how “the economy” is doing, we have to talk about how everyone is doing. Mainstream discourse would have us believe that the middle class is the ultimate barometer of economic prosperity and stability; as long as the middle class is doing okay, apparently we have nothing to worry about.

But who’s we? And whose economy are we talking about? There can be no doubt that Canada’s income gap has been growing at an alarming rate. Wealth inequality is a serious problem here as in other so-called developed nations. It does affect the middle class, but it affects the poor and working class even more. Yet somehow, we’re not allowed to talk about this. We’re not given the license to focus our attention on the people who need it most.

There are several factors involved in this process, including disillusionment and apathy, which result in lower voter turnout and less worker organizing (is it any surprise that the Harper government targeted the perceived threat of a more motivated electorate through the Fair Elections Act?). The privileged classes, in no small part due to their control of the corporate media, have effectively brainwashed Canadians as a whole to demonize the very groups that have fought for the rights of not only working people but all Canadians. Namely, workers’ collectives, cooperatives and unions – you know, those pesky good-for-nothings who brought us better wages, higher labour standards, universal healthcare, and basically everything else that government and the private sector would never voluntarily let us have. But when it comes to the working class, the poor, and people of colour voting against their own self-interest, Ford Nation is the perfect example: this “man of the people” consistently votes against initiatives that seek to alleviate hardship experienced by children, low income earners, the homeless, the LGBT community, women, immigrants, etc.

Then of course, there’s the privileged themselves – people of means who are economically insulated from these concerns. Some seek to keep more for themselves, either consciously or subconsciously. But more than that, the simple fact is that the privileged can afford to live in blissful ignorance (or willful ignorance, depending on how you see it). That’s what it means to be privileged. Those who have the least to worry about, who shoulder the least amount of risk and impact, are narrowing the discussion so that we don’t even have to consider that perhaps we should do something about the disproportionate burden we place on the working poor, including that of taxation. We should be additionally worried that Thomas Mulcair, the leader of the only left-ish political party with opposition potential, thinks that the idea of taxing people fairly (i.e. raising tax rates on even some income brackets) is out of the question. Canada’s historically labour-aligned party, afraid to talk about progressive taxation? That’s scary.

I’m not Barack Obama’s biggest fan, but this is the kind of discourse we desperately need to encourage:

Until it becomes painfully clear that too many people are rich while too many are poor for no good reason (which I think is already the case, but obviously not enough people are willing to admit it yet), it looks like we’ll be stuck with politicians who want to keep us hooked on amorphous concepts like the economy, prosperity, and growth. Trudeau, for one, has made it clear that what he’s really worried about is the possibility that “the middle class will stop supporting a growth agenda”.  Now why, one wonders, would they do that? Maybe because they’re slowly questioning neoliberal and conservative rhetoric and opening their minds to new ideas – ideas that are transparent and meaningful?

“The few own the many because they possess the means of livelihood of all… The country is governed for the richest, for the corporations, the bankers, the land speculators, and for the exploiters of labor. The majority of mankind are working people. So long as their fair demands – the ownership and control of their livelihoods – are set at naught, we can have neither men’s rights nor women’s rights. The majority of mankind is ground down by industrial oppression in order that the small remnant may live in ease.”
― Helen Keller in Rebel Lives: Helen Keller

Leave a comment

Filed under Canada, Health & Environment, Politics & Society

Empathy: without it, we are blind

In Canada today, new Liberal leader Justin Trudeau suggested that when a tragedy like the Boston Marathon bombings occurs, society should examine the root causes of these events. His rationale was as follows:

“There is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded. Completely at war with innocents. At war with a society. And our approach has to be, okay, where do those tensions come from?”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, on the other hand, believes that the idea of thinking analytically about the origin of violence is somehow frivolous, prescribing this approach instead:

“You condemn it categorically, and to the extent you can deal with the perpetrators, you deal with them as harshly as possible.”

For conservatives like Harper, justice is synonymous only with punishment. People who subscribe to this mindset fail to grasp that attempting to understand something and condoning it are two very different things. One approach seeks to form a holistic view of how something has come about, whereas the other only takes into account the end result, ignoring critical elements such as motivation and process.

The key here is the distinction between empathy and sympathy, two concepts that many people seem to confuse. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines them respectively as such:

Empathy: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience

Sympathy: an affinity, association, or relationship between persons or things wherein whatever affects one similarly affects the other

Empathy involves imagining yourself in a situation so that you can understand how someone is feeling and thinking. Sympathy implies some level of agreement or sameness of mind. Empathizing, therefore, is not equivalent to supporting, justifying or rationalizing. Rather than simply imposing one’s own judgment on a situation, one steps back and recognizes the broader reality as it relates to all those involved. MP Stella Ambler is one of those conservatives who completely misses the point when she says, “There is no root cause and no tension that justifies the killing and maiming of innocent civilians.” No one is saying there is.

No person or decision exists in isolation. Every decision we make is the result of any number of factors, some of which are influenced by others directly or indirectly. In any given situation, even one factor involved in a decision could influence how we choose to act. If we don’t acknowledge certain factors as a society (for example, the statistical relationship between poverty and crime), we can’t identify opportunities to prevent the negative conditions that may lead to harmful actions.

Having empathy means acknowledging that what happened at the Boston Marathon on Monday was horrible and shocking. It’s tragically unfair that people, including children, lost their lives and were injured. For some people the torment will never end. Emotional responses are perfectly understandable. I can imagine why a person would respond with rage and hysteria, but that doesn’t mean I will encourage those behaviours. I certainly won’t make the situation any better if I act as though what a person is feeling or has experienced – no matter how irrational or contrary to my own views – doesn’t matter. The fact is, it matters to them, and because it matters to them, depending on what they choose to do about it, it could matter to others as well.

Understanding and empathy have nothing to do with being a ‘bleeding heart’ or a coward. Quite the opposite; it takes courage to address serious problems fundamentally and directly. It involves moving beyond passion and arbitrary judgment and coming to terms with reality, no matter how complicated and scary it may be. This is how a just, conscious society deals with difficult issues.

Without empathy, we experience but do not understand action and reaction, cause and effect. If the only response we know is to become increasingly tenacious and ruthless, we will feed a vicious cycle that brings no benefit and only creates more misery. Without empathy, we are blind.

Source: Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau exchange barbs over Boston bombing, Toronto Star

Leave a comment

Filed under Canada, Eastern Philosophy, Health & Environment, Politics & Society

‘Experts’ and environmental exclusion

Canadians should be paying close attention to their government now more than ever as it employs environmental rhetoric that is alarmingly arrogant and fundamentally undemocratic in nature. According to a Vancouver Sun interview, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver stated that the Canadian government will be limiting participation to members of the public who are “directly affected by major projects” and rejecting input from environmental groups deemed not to have specific expertise. There are several serious problems with this policy approach:

  • In order to make informed decisions, governments must consult with environmental professionals who have detailed and technical knowledge. But we know that academics and scientists are not necessarily subjective and it’s particularly unlikely that a government that has recently made very strong statements regarding environmental policy will select experts who aren’t sympathetic to its goals.
  • If the government is applying a harsh set of rules as to who can have a say, how likely are intervening parties to be taken seriously even if they’re affected or have substantial credentials?
  • What level of participation will the affected public and NGOs have with respect to projects that aren’t deemed major? Naturally, we’d expect even less scrutiny in those cases.
  • How do we know who’s objective? More importantly, what makes an expert an expert, whether it’s an individual or an organization? Who should decide what constitutes sufficient expertise? How can we ensure that vital choices are based on recommendations from experts who have demonstrated neutrality and an understanding of the concerns of all stakeholders, regardless of their financial clout or level of education?
  • How do we determine who judges which parties are “directly affected”? The people who are impacted, specially selected ‘experts’, lobbyists, investors or government officials? This is a key consideration because in the case of the oil and gas sector, for example, impacts aren’t contained; they extend throughout ecosystems and jurisdictions. Airborne particulates are carried vast distances through the atmosphere and settle in the soil and water. Polluted water spreads through watersheds. Contaminants are absorbed by vegetation and organisms ingested by animals (and in turn humans), resulting in the bioaccumulation of toxins. Greenhouse gas emissions have global impacts. Some chemicals, particularly those used in the mining and petroleum industries have very long half-lives so they don’t break down or get processed for many years.
  • Any given ecosystem, while it may affect a particular group more than others, is not the property of any one group. No one has the right to give ‘permission’ to pollute or deplete resources without the consultation of others who may be impacted even decades later. Without fair and transparent environmental assessments and the participation of a diversity of stakeholders (including non-experts and those ‘less’ affected by industrial projects), the parameters that we choose to determine what’s acceptable frame the magnitude of our results – positive and negative.
  • The Canadian government has never been very good at listening to Aboriginals – particularly the PCs – so why should we trust them now? Do I not have the right obligation – not only as a Canadian citizen but as a member of this planet to stand up for those factions of humanity whose voices are silenced and ignored? The officials we elect don’t have the right to tell us what rights we have. It’s for us to tell them.
  • A final but critical point: we are the environment’s sole defenders. We can’t afford to screw this up. Once resources are gone or damaged, there’s no turning back. We need to be absolutely certain that we’re acting in the best interests of all involved, which includes present and future generations, and that we can reasonably justify, mitigate and remedy risks and impacts. Because impacts on the environment are impacts on us. There’s a growing global movement to enshrine the legal rights of our planet (e.g. check out this article). Gone are the days when we could confidently assert our dominion over the earth. Bolivia has already passed laws to this effect and other proponents are forming new discourses around this issue that remind us that we can’t give our planet rights; we can only recognize them.

Leave a comment

Filed under Canada, Health & Environment, Politics & Society

Oh Canada!

Fraud!

Fraud!

Seriously, what is going on in this country??? I was even more overwhelmed than usual today by all the bad news about the direction our government is taking us in. Man are they busy, busy, busy giving us a ton of reasons to be terrified for our future. Below is a buffet of Harper’s home-cooked catastrophes. Try not to get too depressed or angry. Personally, I’m both.

Feds Eliminate the National Centre for First Nations Governance
The NCFNG offers innovative nation rebuilding services and has engaged over 300 First Nations across Canada in its short six year time frame. It provides First Nations leaders and administrators with hands-on tools for fully engaging their citizens and taking responsibility for their future, developing their own self-determining governance that moves them beyond the confines of the Indian Act to make real and lasting change for themselves. Now why would we want that?

Prime Minister celebrates shrugs at the 30th anniversary of Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Harper deemed the Charter an “interesting and important step”. Yeah, I guess. It only resulted in the limiting of police powers, protection of women’s reproductive rights, recognizing the LGBT community and strengthening Aboriginal rights (and we’ve already covered how he couldn’t care less about that). Embarrassing and disrespectful.

Ottawa ‘streamlines’ eco-reviews to aid growth; critics call it sop to Big Oil
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Enbridge, Ethical Oil and other financially vested stakeholders agree with the government that “streamlining the review process… will attract significant investment dollars and give every region of our country a tremendous economic boost.” Apparently the rest of us are expected to applaud fast-tracking’s perpetual damage to Aboriginal livelihoods and the environment (which belongs to all of us, Alberta and BC!). Meanwhile, the Ottawa Citizen published an opinion piece quoting Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver as having previously stated that “environmental and other radical groups… [want to] stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth”. Interestingly, the author takes issue with the fact that the government is using “language that makes it look as if the government has a secret anti-environment agenda even if it doesn’t”. That’s because IT DOES.

Suzuki quit foundation over fed ‘bullying’
David Suzuki, one of Canada’s greatest scientific visionaries and environmental stewards, is stepping down from the board of the David Suzuki Foundation because the organization is taking heat for his ‘political’ stance. He explains that he is “keenly aware that some governments, industries and special interest groups are working hard to silence us. They use threats to the Foundation’s charitable status in attempts to mute its powerful voice on issues that matter deeply to you and many other Canadians”. Of course, the Toronto Sun and National Post jumped all over this. Well, I’m gonna go a step further than Suzuki and ask by what logic the Canada Revenue Agency claims that “it is a charitable purpose for an organization to teach the religious tenets, doctrines, practices, or culture associated with a specific faith or religion”. How is that not a political issue?

Tories criticized for vastly divergent reactions to Canadians on death row
In tandem with Amnesty International, the government is pressing Iran to drop the death sentence of Hamid Ghassemi-Shall, an Iranian-born Canadian citizen accused of espionage. What’s raising eyebrows is how shockingly weak Canada’s support of another condemned Canadian, Montana death-row inmate Ronald Smith, has been in contrast. Any excuse to make Iran look bad, right Harper?

3 Comments

Filed under Canada, Health & Environment, Politics & Society