By Kathleen Gidney
Copyright Feb.24, 2012
Women’s progress has been slow. It has taken some time to establish the milestones of progress that have been the recognition of women as humans and not property, the establishment that women have the right to participate in our government’s process and won- not “were given”- the right to vote, and the retraction of the law that said women could be beaten with a stick. The “glass ceiling” is being cracked. Or is it?
Many of our industries, in this democracy, are male-dominated. It is rather like the social clubs that were the bastions of the men-only edict, and which excluded and bitterly opposed the inclusion of women. Although these “social clubs” are getting fewer, as women attempt to pry open the barriers to women, industries-and entire industries- are still male-dominated, and in a variety of different ways attempt to shut the door on females. The exclusion and dominance is systemic, even in employment practices that paid men more than women for doing the same work, and even the current manipulation of industries to subordinate women .
The transportation industry is one of those. At one time, yes in Canada, women weren’t supposed to drive! This was one of the taboos in this supposedly progressive and democratic society. Men die earlier than women, and I’ve encountered more than my share of age-ing widows who were kept dependant and in the house, until the man got home to drive. The age-ing widows were absolutely stranded when their male partners, the vehicle drivers, died. The women were still hostage to the social construct that women shouldn’t drive and only males could.
It was the same with finances. Only the males were supposed to know and participate in the financial matters of the household, do the taxes and the paperwork, etc, etc. When the males died, not only were the women stranded in their houses, they had no idea (because of this “custom”) how to fill out forms, pay bills, do taxes, insurance and much more. On top of losing their husband, they had now to deal with, at often an advanced age, all these matters.
I have digressed, in a way. Back to the transportation industry. Who, in our society, drove trucks, buses and taxis? Men. Now more women are driving-another milestone in equality-but is it? More women are driving, but how many are owners? Do they own their own taxis? Trucks? Buses? Companies? Some. Few enough.
Women have been mired in the child care ghetto for centuries. Family child-rearing was one thing: since they weren’t “allowed” to work outside of the house, weren’t allowed to look into or participate in the financial matters of the household, weren’t allowed to drive, they weren’t independent. Women didn’t have their own money. Sometimes the man gave them an allowance, or some money to have as their own, but not as a rule. Women alone were to look after the children. When women “were allowed” to work outside of the house, the only appropriate employment was as a nurse, teacher, or again, the childcare ghetto, where the wages were minimal and the employment benefits either sparse or non existent.
Women have made great gains, improving this scenario, with good and higher paying government and corporate jobs, but always hitting the glass ceiling. Still, this seems to be changing, with more and more positions being gained by women in the upper levels.
But wait. What’s happening in our society? If you’ve read the previous posts in my blog, you may have some idea.
Many women have recently climbed out of the childcare ghetto by starting and owning their own businesses. They alone control it. They do the finances. They effect the service. They produce the good (or product). They direct the functions of the organization. They make their own money, their own salary. And they have overcome the glass ceiling. In this way, they have been able to make it for themselves. And there’s no one above them.
In the way also, they have climbed out of the ghetto and into the middle class.
More and more women are occupying the middle class, now. Many people in the middle class are women small business owners.
But what’s happening now? Are we getting a different kind of glass ceiling? It seems true that our democracy is changing. Free enterprise is intimately tied with democracy. Free enterprise now seems to mean the corporate domination of free enterprise, and, I’d say, the corporate- or CEO- and upper level gov’t official domination of our government and its policy. There’s not many at the top, now, but there are many at the bottom, and *we are losing the middle* class. Women having be increasingly getting into small business, and coming to occupy a major portion of it; and small business owners form a major portion of our middle class.
Just when women are getting out from under, the middle class, which has been our step up, is being diminished. In fact is about to vanish. There already is, now, a few people at the top (see the Moyers and Company documentary on PBS), and there will be and are now, a great many in the lower class. Gone will be our advances.
Our government, instead of being the twin pinnacles of freedom and free enterprise, is becoming the peak of the few, and the masses of poor being supported by subsidized –or state- programs or services. Being on these *does not mean you are going to be rich*. You will be poor, and on subsidized programs or services from which you cannot get out from under. Look at those countries where everything is state-run. Is the general populace rich? Or poor?
When I entered the transportation industry, it was male run. I was the only female shuttle company owner. I may still be the only female shuttle company owner. There may be female shuttle company drivers, but they aren’t an owner, or are not the sole proprietor of that business. Do the guys take kindly to my being here? Maybe, maybe not.
When there is a male president of a wheelchair transportation service who wants to subjugate his desired area of Empire to his subsidized transportation, who do you think it will put out of a free enterprise, democracy supporter, business? A female small business owner, who hopes to make it to the middle class. (He, of course, is already there, if you know his background). Does he take it kindly that I oppose his goals?
Does the municipal or town council, which are male-dominated oppose his goals? Or are his goals and theirs, one and the same. ?? Most of the males on councils are already upper to middle class. And governments-ours- are becoming more socialist.
Many are, as I’ve said in my previous posts, sucked into this agenda by thinking “a subsidized service?” “A subsidized program?” “yay, I’m in! I’ll save money”. Think again. You only *think* you’ll save money. But you’ll not be able to get out of being poor.
You won’t be able to afford to live in your house, because your taxes will be that high because they have to pay for those programs and services. And you’ll say “but at least it’s your money”. You’re right. It’s your money. And you still won’t be able to live in your house. How does subsidized housing sound, for you to go to? Subsidized food, through Feed Nova Scotia? It’s a feed-subsidized program through the government. Hope you like food banks. Maybe they’ll plunk you into the red army, if you object. You’ll have a job, poor pay again, but at least they’ll feed you….something….you may not be sure exactly what it is, but…LOL.
I agree with the subsidization and government running of our basic utilities. I believe in the government subsidizing a small business to provide a service that it doesn’t normally do, or normally wouldn’t be able to afford to do at a lower than cost rate, for special needs people or/and the poor. I believe in the government putting money into organizations that directly deal with poor and know who they are. And helping those poor people with coupons to get their needs met through local small businesses. These local small businesses also spend the money in the community and …the money goes ‘round.
And of course these are my ideas from where I stand as a woman, and a small business owner, and someone who believes in democracy. That’s how I want to live. And work! And I want to make it out of the ranks of the poor and into the middle class. Isn’t that what democracy was supposed to be all about? That no matter what your background, no matter who you were (what sex?), in our free countries we were supposed to be able to make something of ourselves….
Whatever has happened to our country called Canada, the True North Strong and Free?
And where will women be, in it?
There’s a survey going around about Community Transit. It asks questions to lead you to the answer they want. Think about it. Think hard. Voice your opinion.
Kathleen Gidney
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Wheelchair Transportation Service
...receives funding to do study. First, a preamble: Let's say a lawyer was accused of fraud. Then that lawyer says "Okay, I'll investigate it. Myself. And get back to you with the results". What would you think? being reasonable, and rational people.?
Not that this first has anything to do with the following, but: Given the fact that the president of Transport de Clare said to me that He *wants* Digby Neck and Islands. He WANTS Bear River. and He WANTS Digby, I find it "funny" that he has been given major amounts of money to do a study to determine a need for his own service. What do you think would be the results?
This from Marilla Stephenson of the Chronicle Herald:
"The provincial Liberals are heading down a dangerous road in making noises about municipal funding they could find hard to deliver on if they eventually form the government...
The changes will leave municipalities with $50 million in costs, at a time when the impact of an assessment cap program, combined with stagnant property assessments, is starting to hit home.
Throw in the provincial decisions to spend money to prop up red-ink businesses in the Strait and industrial Cape Breton regions, compared to its firm No to support a Yarmouth ferry service to the United States, and the discourse turns even more sour from one end of the province to the other.
Geoff MacLellan, the Liberals’ economic development critic in the legislature, waded into the deep waters on Friday, calling for a review of the province’s municipal equalization program that “needs to be “independent." “If the province handles the review internally, there will always be doubt about its accuracy and objectivity," the Glace Bay MLA said in a Friday release."
From Bob Howse of the Chronicle Herald: How can we do a better job of governing ourselves at the community level?
That’s a question we think Nova Scotians should ask in the wake of some serious and costly failures in grassroots government in this province.
So today we begin a yearlong series, How Are We Governed? We hope it will kick off a provincewide debate leading up to next October’s municipal elections.
We’ll look at what Nova Scotians want from local government and how to ensure that elected and appointed officials have the training and expertise to do the job competently and responsibly.
We’ll take on the issue of redefining communities when old borders and local rivalries don’t reflect the way citizens live, work and access services today.
We’ll examine models of efficient and cost-effective service delivery and how to pay for them. We’ll consider how to make these organizations more open, responsive and accountable to the public.
And we’ll delve into the aspects of community governance that matter to you.
So please join in. Let us know how you’d like your community to work.
The recent failures are many.
The South Shore regional school board is the third dysfunctional school board in five years to be fired and replaced by a provincial administrator.
The South West Shore Development Authority went bankrupt after audits uncovered poor oversight and financial controls. It leaves a legacy of bad debts, unpaid bills and lost assets that can only be called economic de-development.
The Town of Bridgetown is under provincial administration because a misappropriation of funds and chaotic accounting were beyond its means to investigate and fix.
Halifax Regional Municipality often tries to operate in secrecy, while abusing the public trust through ill-advised concert promotions.
The Utility and Review Board is hearing a proposal to merge another small town, Canso, into the Municipality of the District of Guysborough. Canso clearly can’t afford to be independent. But does merging a town of 900 residents with a municipality of 5,000 go far enough to create a viable unit when both are rapidly losing population?
The six municipal units that govern Pictou County’s 46,000 people have just failed to agree on cost-sharing a study into the financial impact of a merger.
Nothing new here. In 1969, the same units couldn’t agree to fund a similar study. When four did commission the research, it strongly recommended a merger.
Pictou County exemplifies our basic problem with local government. We are mired in the tyranny of small differences. We seem stuck.
Most of our municipal units are still defined by boundaries that Colonial Office officials drew up with quill pens two centuries ago.
Their reasons haven’t always aged well. Hants County was severed from Kings County because crossing the Avon River was inconvenient. Not exactly a burning issue today.
Since the 1940s, various studies have told us the existing divisions don’t work. Their populations and tax bases are too small to pay for the services people want. They prevent us from taking a broader community approach to planning and services. They keep us from pooling scarce resources to deliver those services more efficiently and at lower tax burdens.
In 1941, the minimum size for new towns was set at 1,500 people. We still have 10 older towns that don’t meet this test of viability.
In 1949, the Rowat Report recommended nine regional municipalities with minimum populations of 40,000. Nothing happened. In 1973, the Graham Royal Commission proposed three metropolitan governments (Halifax, Cape Breton and Pictou) and eight strong counties that combined urban and rural areas.
With the exception of creating the Cape Breton, Halifax and Queens regional municipalities in the 1990s, we’ve been steadfast in ignoring this advice. As historian Murray Beck wrote for the Graham Royal Commission, the principal lesson of our history of municipal government “is that the basic units are highly impervious to change.”
Our demographics, however, are changing. Outside Halifax, only three counties (Kings, Hants and Colchester) showed population growth in the 2006 census. Only a handful of towns had significant growth. Eventually, demographics will prevail and we’ll have to redesign community-level government to fit these population changes.
We think it makes sense to get ahead of this change and to reorganize ourselves into strong communities with the right service organizations and governance practices to provide quality service, reasonable taxes and accountability.
Marilla Stephenson and Dan Leger will have more to say on this subject Sunday and Monday respectively. Our series of news articles begins Monday.
Our province needs to modernize. Let’s figure out how to do it."
So, is bringing in a transportation service to Digby area a good thing to do? Or a farce? For people who only think as far as their wallet and if something's cheaper than something else is their only consideration, they'd think it a good thing. Not deep thinking, but they'd see it as a good thing.
BUT here we have the same service, which has pushed and pushed to expand its empire, towing around municipal politicians like a motorboat towing water-skiers. Not a bad analogy. So when talks about transportation comes up, he jams himself into Bear River to forestall anyone else doing it. And he sits there. His vehicle sits there. Every week. I'm sure he got big bucks (he received thousands of our health dollars) to sit there. And his vehicle does. But he won't go out there and drive that vehicle or have someone else drive it, NO. HE won't go for one person. They say he won't even go for two people. He fields the calls, no doubt, and no doubt he has received money to provide the service, but has he done more than one or two trips? Even the town's business anchor said to me: "No, it doesn't seem as if his service is too popular. We don't know why." So he sits. And yet was paid out of our scarce public dollars, yours and mine, to sit.
Now he's in Digby, too. Or at least his vehicle is. What I had heard was that he would do some stuff maybe out in Conway, but would use taxis to do the downtown stuff. Something about regulations, I think. However yesterday I saw the vehicle picking up and dropping off in the downtown core. Maybe had one passenger. Couldn't see more, but was hard to see. Everyone *wants*. Oh yes, give us this, give us that. Sure we want more services. But, when they've got it, they don't use it.
So how much much of our taxpayer money is going toward this? How much was he given to sit in Bear River, and what happens to that money? ...if the vehicle isn't or rarely is used in the service the money was given for? Is there transparency about this? Or accountability for our money?
Now he is doing a study that would bring him being given MORE money. Is this a legitimate process? Would the results of a study done by an entity that would stand to gain financially from construed "positive" results be legitimate? Back to the lawyer investigating himself.
If this abuse of your money isn't occurring, I would like to see the accredited professional Halifax firm that is doing or has done this study. If such a firm hasn't been used, just how objective would the study be? How meaningful as a statement of facts, would it be?
Would you call this a cost effective service for your money being spent to have a vehicle sit and go nowhere, while you don't know where exactly that money is going if it's not being used to provide service?
My say, Blogger
Not that this first has anything to do with the following, but: Given the fact that the president of Transport de Clare said to me that He *wants* Digby Neck and Islands. He WANTS Bear River. and He WANTS Digby, I find it "funny" that he has been given major amounts of money to do a study to determine a need for his own service. What do you think would be the results?
This from Marilla Stephenson of the Chronicle Herald:
"The provincial Liberals are heading down a dangerous road in making noises about municipal funding they could find hard to deliver on if they eventually form the government...
The changes will leave municipalities with $50 million in costs, at a time when the impact of an assessment cap program, combined with stagnant property assessments, is starting to hit home.
Throw in the provincial decisions to spend money to prop up red-ink businesses in the Strait and industrial Cape Breton regions, compared to its firm No to support a Yarmouth ferry service to the United States, and the discourse turns even more sour from one end of the province to the other.
Geoff MacLellan, the Liberals’ economic development critic in the legislature, waded into the deep waters on Friday, calling for a review of the province’s municipal equalization program that “needs to be “independent." “If the province handles the review internally, there will always be doubt about its accuracy and objectivity," the Glace Bay MLA said in a Friday release."
From Bob Howse of the Chronicle Herald: How can we do a better job of governing ourselves at the community level?
That’s a question we think Nova Scotians should ask in the wake of some serious and costly failures in grassroots government in this province.
So today we begin a yearlong series, How Are We Governed? We hope it will kick off a provincewide debate leading up to next October’s municipal elections.
We’ll look at what Nova Scotians want from local government and how to ensure that elected and appointed officials have the training and expertise to do the job competently and responsibly.
We’ll take on the issue of redefining communities when old borders and local rivalries don’t reflect the way citizens live, work and access services today.
We’ll examine models of efficient and cost-effective service delivery and how to pay for them. We’ll consider how to make these organizations more open, responsive and accountable to the public.
And we’ll delve into the aspects of community governance that matter to you.
So please join in. Let us know how you’d like your community to work.
The recent failures are many.
The South Shore regional school board is the third dysfunctional school board in five years to be fired and replaced by a provincial administrator.
The South West Shore Development Authority went bankrupt after audits uncovered poor oversight and financial controls. It leaves a legacy of bad debts, unpaid bills and lost assets that can only be called economic de-development.
The Town of Bridgetown is under provincial administration because a misappropriation of funds and chaotic accounting were beyond its means to investigate and fix.
Halifax Regional Municipality often tries to operate in secrecy, while abusing the public trust through ill-advised concert promotions.
The Utility and Review Board is hearing a proposal to merge another small town, Canso, into the Municipality of the District of Guysborough. Canso clearly can’t afford to be independent. But does merging a town of 900 residents with a municipality of 5,000 go far enough to create a viable unit when both are rapidly losing population?
The six municipal units that govern Pictou County’s 46,000 people have just failed to agree on cost-sharing a study into the financial impact of a merger.
Nothing new here. In 1969, the same units couldn’t agree to fund a similar study. When four did commission the research, it strongly recommended a merger.
Pictou County exemplifies our basic problem with local government. We are mired in the tyranny of small differences. We seem stuck.
Most of our municipal units are still defined by boundaries that Colonial Office officials drew up with quill pens two centuries ago.
Their reasons haven’t always aged well. Hants County was severed from Kings County because crossing the Avon River was inconvenient. Not exactly a burning issue today.
Since the 1940s, various studies have told us the existing divisions don’t work. Their populations and tax bases are too small to pay for the services people want. They prevent us from taking a broader community approach to planning and services. They keep us from pooling scarce resources to deliver those services more efficiently and at lower tax burdens.
In 1941, the minimum size for new towns was set at 1,500 people. We still have 10 older towns that don’t meet this test of viability.
In 1949, the Rowat Report recommended nine regional municipalities with minimum populations of 40,000. Nothing happened. In 1973, the Graham Royal Commission proposed three metropolitan governments (Halifax, Cape Breton and Pictou) and eight strong counties that combined urban and rural areas.
With the exception of creating the Cape Breton, Halifax and Queens regional municipalities in the 1990s, we’ve been steadfast in ignoring this advice. As historian Murray Beck wrote for the Graham Royal Commission, the principal lesson of our history of municipal government “is that the basic units are highly impervious to change.”
Our demographics, however, are changing. Outside Halifax, only three counties (Kings, Hants and Colchester) showed population growth in the 2006 census. Only a handful of towns had significant growth. Eventually, demographics will prevail and we’ll have to redesign community-level government to fit these population changes.
We think it makes sense to get ahead of this change and to reorganize ourselves into strong communities with the right service organizations and governance practices to provide quality service, reasonable taxes and accountability.
Marilla Stephenson and Dan Leger will have more to say on this subject Sunday and Monday respectively. Our series of news articles begins Monday.
Our province needs to modernize. Let’s figure out how to do it."
So, is bringing in a transportation service to Digby area a good thing to do? Or a farce? For people who only think as far as their wallet and if something's cheaper than something else is their only consideration, they'd think it a good thing. Not deep thinking, but they'd see it as a good thing.
BUT here we have the same service, which has pushed and pushed to expand its empire, towing around municipal politicians like a motorboat towing water-skiers. Not a bad analogy. So when talks about transportation comes up, he jams himself into Bear River to forestall anyone else doing it. And he sits there. His vehicle sits there. Every week. I'm sure he got big bucks (he received thousands of our health dollars) to sit there. And his vehicle does. But he won't go out there and drive that vehicle or have someone else drive it, NO. HE won't go for one person. They say he won't even go for two people. He fields the calls, no doubt, and no doubt he has received money to provide the service, but has he done more than one or two trips? Even the town's business anchor said to me: "No, it doesn't seem as if his service is too popular. We don't know why." So he sits. And yet was paid out of our scarce public dollars, yours and mine, to sit.
Now he's in Digby, too. Or at least his vehicle is. What I had heard was that he would do some stuff maybe out in Conway, but would use taxis to do the downtown stuff. Something about regulations, I think. However yesterday I saw the vehicle picking up and dropping off in the downtown core. Maybe had one passenger. Couldn't see more, but was hard to see. Everyone *wants*. Oh yes, give us this, give us that. Sure we want more services. But, when they've got it, they don't use it.
So how much much of our taxpayer money is going toward this? How much was he given to sit in Bear River, and what happens to that money? ...if the vehicle isn't or rarely is used in the service the money was given for? Is there transparency about this? Or accountability for our money?
Now he is doing a study that would bring him being given MORE money. Is this a legitimate process? Would the results of a study done by an entity that would stand to gain financially from construed "positive" results be legitimate? Back to the lawyer investigating himself.
If this abuse of your money isn't occurring, I would like to see the accredited professional Halifax firm that is doing or has done this study. If such a firm hasn't been used, just how objective would the study be? How meaningful as a statement of facts, would it be?
Would you call this a cost effective service for your money being spent to have a vehicle sit and go nowhere, while you don't know where exactly that money is going if it's not being used to provide service?
My say, Blogger
Democracy and Subsidization
Subsidization and Democracy
January 20, 24, 2012
For Your Information, there is a survey that is or may be being circulated regarding “community transportation”. Please note that the questions are geared towards producing the answers that they want.
As a person who has lived 56 years, but never particularly much involved myself in the political system, I have nevertheless acquired the knowledge that democracy's economic system is the free enterprise system, based on the fair competitive market. You may have also realized that governments that have everything State-run in them, is *not* a democracy. It is something else. Something that we fought against in the first, second, and remember the Cold War? On Remembrance Day, we remember that our sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, friends and relatives paid the price for fighting against these governments and for our freedom from them, with their lives. Do you wear a poppy?
I have been watching, if you haven't, the erosion of democracy. It is being-stunningly-replaced by CEOs and government types, which are part of the 1% of society gearing the world towards their wealth. The rest of the populace is being subjugated by them, as this 1% appears to be running our governments. The detriment of the environment, and the diversity of our wildlife and also our free enterprise system, is not really their concern. Democracy is not their concern. They want a hold on that 1% or extreme wealth and control. And they don’t want a bunch of other people up there with them. This 1% of people managed to gather a 256% rise in income over recent years. Did you? Aren't you then in the 99% of the population that’s not making headway or is getting poorer ?
If you allow yourself to be sucked out of the free enterprise system and into state-run subsidized services, what are you doing to yourselves and our world? Yes, the poor can't pay for lots of things. But it's not only the poor who go for subsidized services. It's anyone who will go for a buck cheaper. Even the well-to-do are, notably, sucked in by a buck cheaper.
So, what if you’re offered half price for something? If the government offers you half price for a service, are you willing, for this subsidized rate, to be run by the state (our governments) which are controlled by big business? (IMO). Is the general population in the countries where everything is state or government-run, are they wealthy? Or poor? Are you willing to leave that legacy to your kids?
Your kids may be out there with the Occupy Movements. What are they fighting for? Even if we are so enmeshed in “the system”, our kids are the ones who are acutely aware of it. They are fighting against the control of government and our world by big business. They don’t want to be under their thumbs, controlled by the Corporate State and government-run activities.
The small business owner- your friend, neighbour, son or daughter-will be (and is being) crushed out of existence. The freedom of opportunity, or free enterprise, will be gone. You will-we will-all except the 1% be on state or government run activities. That were once small businesses of free enterprise in your area, in other areas.
Will you look back and think “oh I should’ve seen it coming..I didn’t really see the big picture…and..well shucks..I’m sorry kids. I knew the big corporations didn’t care about the kind of environment which they would leave you…well, we’re sorry we left you without a democracy but a Corporate State, and we’re sorry we left you without a world; a world without drinkable water, breathe-able air, uncontaminated food. May the lord take care of you and whatever animals may survive”.
I’m not kidding. I’m not being dramatic for the sake of drama.
Your kids, other people’s kids, are out there fighting for a truer democracy. Or a return to one. Maud Barlow, Silver Donald Cameron, Moyers and Company on PBS, Surette in the Halifax Chronicle Herald, and Marissa Stephenson of the same paper are trying to tell you too: Big business can run the state better if small business, the heart of the fair competitive market and free enterprise system of democracy, is put out of business. Ergo, the Half Price Sale to go onto a government or corporate–run program instead of using a local small business.
Here’s a relevant tangent: Did you see the documentary about agriculture in our countries? The seeds, and therefore what you eat, regardless of what’s in it, is being controlled by 3 major chemical companies. With the seed controlled, the farmers are controlled about what they plant, how they plant it, etc, etc. The food –and its content-is controlled by a big corporation. You might like to choose to not eat Genetically Modified Organism food, but the federal gov’t, is not listing what foods are. Why aren’t they? Can you imagine that the 3 chemical corporations have something to do with it? And then, YOU are controlled because the free will in what you used to choose to eat is no longer there. The little free enterprise guys or gals can’t compete with the big bucks involved with those big companies who run the farmers growing their altered food.
The answer to this, of course, is to find and buy from any farmer that is not under the control of the corporate CEO. *We don’t seem to have government-controlled corporations. We have corporation-controlled governments*.
The answer to saving our democracy is to buy from any local small business you can find. The answer is to not patronize a subsidized service which is operating in the same type of endeavour as a local small business. Patronize the small business.
Nova Scotia is pushing subsidized services. There are small businesses, the backbone of Nova Scotia communities, being hurt by this. It’s not a level playing field if the government gets into business and then offers the service for half price to use *their* subsidized service. Is it fair competition? Is this the free enterprise and fair market competition structure of our democracy? No. You might ask yourself why is the government getting into small business. If it drives it out of business. It drives free enterprise out of business.
This is happening even in Digby County. Our municipal and other governments are advertising that there is free money available (is it “free” if it is tax money?) for something they call “community transit”. At first, agencies promoted this (and some still do) as a service for seniors, the poor, and the “disadvantaged”. These groups can be better served by putting more money into the organizations that directly help them- eg women’s groups, higher guaranteed income supplements, etc., more credits and deductions on taxes, services that reach and help the truly poor. If these groups got a little more money, they could use local businesses more and then the whole web of our society would be supported. But they’re not doing that. They’re not even or are rarely advertising it like they did before as services for the poor, seniors, and the disadvantaged because knowledgeable people know that they can be better served by other means. Instead, they are advertising that there is money available (your money) for these government subsidized services.
If we lose our free enterprise system, if we choose to go where everything is state-run, we lose our diversity of life. Everything becomes the same, and same old. Not only do we lose our diversity, we lose our freedoms. Our freedom to choose. Our freedom to be in a democracy, and the founding principle: free enterprise. We lose the freedom of opportunity.
Please support your local small businesses.
My opinion without prejudice, Blogger Kathleen
January 20, 24, 2012
For Your Information, there is a survey that is or may be being circulated regarding “community transportation”. Please note that the questions are geared towards producing the answers that they want.
As a person who has lived 56 years, but never particularly much involved myself in the political system, I have nevertheless acquired the knowledge that democracy's economic system is the free enterprise system, based on the fair competitive market. You may have also realized that governments that have everything State-run in them, is *not* a democracy. It is something else. Something that we fought against in the first, second, and remember the Cold War? On Remembrance Day, we remember that our sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, friends and relatives paid the price for fighting against these governments and for our freedom from them, with their lives. Do you wear a poppy?
I have been watching, if you haven't, the erosion of democracy. It is being-stunningly-replaced by CEOs and government types, which are part of the 1% of society gearing the world towards their wealth. The rest of the populace is being subjugated by them, as this 1% appears to be running our governments. The detriment of the environment, and the diversity of our wildlife and also our free enterprise system, is not really their concern. Democracy is not their concern. They want a hold on that 1% or extreme wealth and control. And they don’t want a bunch of other people up there with them. This 1% of people managed to gather a 256% rise in income over recent years. Did you? Aren't you then in the 99% of the population that’s not making headway or is getting poorer ?
If you allow yourself to be sucked out of the free enterprise system and into state-run subsidized services, what are you doing to yourselves and our world? Yes, the poor can't pay for lots of things. But it's not only the poor who go for subsidized services. It's anyone who will go for a buck cheaper. Even the well-to-do are, notably, sucked in by a buck cheaper.
So, what if you’re offered half price for something? If the government offers you half price for a service, are you willing, for this subsidized rate, to be run by the state (our governments) which are controlled by big business? (IMO). Is the general population in the countries where everything is state or government-run, are they wealthy? Or poor? Are you willing to leave that legacy to your kids?
Your kids may be out there with the Occupy Movements. What are they fighting for? Even if we are so enmeshed in “the system”, our kids are the ones who are acutely aware of it. They are fighting against the control of government and our world by big business. They don’t want to be under their thumbs, controlled by the Corporate State and government-run activities.
The small business owner- your friend, neighbour, son or daughter-will be (and is being) crushed out of existence. The freedom of opportunity, or free enterprise, will be gone. You will-we will-all except the 1% be on state or government run activities. That were once small businesses of free enterprise in your area, in other areas.
Will you look back and think “oh I should’ve seen it coming..I didn’t really see the big picture…and..well shucks..I’m sorry kids. I knew the big corporations didn’t care about the kind of environment which they would leave you…well, we’re sorry we left you without a democracy but a Corporate State, and we’re sorry we left you without a world; a world without drinkable water, breathe-able air, uncontaminated food. May the lord take care of you and whatever animals may survive”.
I’m not kidding. I’m not being dramatic for the sake of drama.
Your kids, other people’s kids, are out there fighting for a truer democracy. Or a return to one. Maud Barlow, Silver Donald Cameron, Moyers and Company on PBS, Surette in the Halifax Chronicle Herald, and Marissa Stephenson of the same paper are trying to tell you too: Big business can run the state better if small business, the heart of the fair competitive market and free enterprise system of democracy, is put out of business. Ergo, the Half Price Sale to go onto a government or corporate–run program instead of using a local small business.
Here’s a relevant tangent: Did you see the documentary about agriculture in our countries? The seeds, and therefore what you eat, regardless of what’s in it, is being controlled by 3 major chemical companies. With the seed controlled, the farmers are controlled about what they plant, how they plant it, etc, etc. The food –and its content-is controlled by a big corporation. You might like to choose to not eat Genetically Modified Organism food, but the federal gov’t, is not listing what foods are. Why aren’t they? Can you imagine that the 3 chemical corporations have something to do with it? And then, YOU are controlled because the free will in what you used to choose to eat is no longer there. The little free enterprise guys or gals can’t compete with the big bucks involved with those big companies who run the farmers growing their altered food.
The answer to this, of course, is to find and buy from any farmer that is not under the control of the corporate CEO. *We don’t seem to have government-controlled corporations. We have corporation-controlled governments*.
The answer to saving our democracy is to buy from any local small business you can find. The answer is to not patronize a subsidized service which is operating in the same type of endeavour as a local small business. Patronize the small business.
Nova Scotia is pushing subsidized services. There are small businesses, the backbone of Nova Scotia communities, being hurt by this. It’s not a level playing field if the government gets into business and then offers the service for half price to use *their* subsidized service. Is it fair competition? Is this the free enterprise and fair market competition structure of our democracy? No. You might ask yourself why is the government getting into small business. If it drives it out of business. It drives free enterprise out of business.
This is happening even in Digby County. Our municipal and other governments are advertising that there is free money available (is it “free” if it is tax money?) for something they call “community transit”. At first, agencies promoted this (and some still do) as a service for seniors, the poor, and the “disadvantaged”. These groups can be better served by putting more money into the organizations that directly help them- eg women’s groups, higher guaranteed income supplements, etc., more credits and deductions on taxes, services that reach and help the truly poor. If these groups got a little more money, they could use local businesses more and then the whole web of our society would be supported. But they’re not doing that. They’re not even or are rarely advertising it like they did before as services for the poor, seniors, and the disadvantaged because knowledgeable people know that they can be better served by other means. Instead, they are advertising that there is money available (your money) for these government subsidized services.
If we lose our free enterprise system, if we choose to go where everything is state-run, we lose our diversity of life. Everything becomes the same, and same old. Not only do we lose our diversity, we lose our freedoms. Our freedom to choose. Our freedom to be in a democracy, and the founding principle: free enterprise. We lose the freedom of opportunity.
Please support your local small businesses.
My opinion without prejudice, Blogger Kathleen
Choice and Democracy
How Large Organizations Suck You Away from Democracy
On this day, when we celebrate our freedoms, paid for with the lives of so many, the coercion against democracy, the ever-increasing erosion of democracy and the free enterprise system continues, and you are part of it. You are, I fact choosing it. And while you may think that by choosing it you are exercising a democratic right, perhaps it is different than that. There is no doubt that democracy *means* free enterprise, right? If you live in a democracy, we have free enterprise. This is normal. We take it for granted; we think it’s “just there”. We also think that our right to choose is just there. But is it?
We like to think that as adults we are mature in thinking, think deeply about things, and try to do the right thing. Or things. So how can your choice be taken away? How can you be actually “choosing’ to leave your democratic/free enterprise system while at the same time proclaiming the symbolism of Remembrance Day (being freedom and democracy), and loudly (sometimes) proclaiming that our system is better than others because we are “free”? Just how free are you, when it comes to making decisions about money, in our democratic/free enterprise system? Our free enterprise system, by the way, is based on the freedom to start and to have a business, and our democracy allows for anyone to do that (based on fair competition).
Still with me? We all know the above. So do our governments, at all levels (federal, provincial, municipal and town). Big business knows it. Advertisers know it. Other types of government know it (socialist, communist, etc.). And a variety of agencies, too. Whether it’s a political or corporate entity, they all use research (polls, psychology, studies) to determine how to achieve their goals, wishes and aims. They know us. They know the consumer. In governance, they know, (or think they know), and how to govern us. We wouldn’t have the need for political science, anthropologists, psychologists or sociologists otherwise. (lol). We, or rather they, need to understand humans and how to use that understanding.
So how is it that you can’t refuse a good sales pitch? (even tho’ you might have some inner qualms about it?).How come you can’t (or is it won’t) refuse a low low price on something, even tho’ your innards are thinking there might be something wrong with it?
We aren’t the poorest country, province or county in the world. We are one of the richest nations. Most of us, in Digby County, are not cooking our meals over open fires on the street as our only way of cooking or obtaining heat. We “choose” to BBQ in the summer. We “choose” to sit around a camp fire and toast marshmallow or warm our hands. And this is one of my points: “It’s the POOR who don’t have choices, right? They “have to” choose the lowest cost of doing anything, the lowest price from food to transportation. They’re the ones whose choices are severely limited.
If you are above the poverty line, do you have other choices? Can you make other choices than what’s the cheapest? Can you make another choice other than what’s the bottom line? Can you make another choice if your innards are not sure that it’s the right thing to do?
Why is it that there is a “wealthy” (not below the poverty line) person at the food bank? A neighbour accepting $500. a month not to tell a next door neighbour that a huge, destructive development will be taking place right next to him? An area where the standard of living is 10, 000 times over Biafra’s taking “donations” to the area’s clubs, societies, receipts of ball caps and T Shirts, for an activity that may cause others to lose their homes or may hurt the wildlife or even remove the landscape and affect quality of life? Don’t these same people or entities already enjoy quality of life? And it is usually the bigger organization, political structures, or bigger businesses that are “bribing” you to do what your innards are telling you isn’t right.
They are removing your choice by offering you something. They know that you, in your income bracket, which is not the lowest, will not refuse a “donations”, a “gift”, or a lower price.
Hence, we get the millionaires scrimping on things, billionaires low-paying their employees, the wealthy outfitting their enterprises from second-hand stores. Others using services really just meant for the poor. We are not that poor, you know. But it is not just the “wealthy”. Those who can well afford it, or are not below the poverty level are sucked way past principles, and incidentally, out of their choice, by a buck-or two.
You can get sucked into what current demonstrators would call corporate greed, by accepting a donation to your favourite cause. You don’t want to admit that it means you’ve been sucked into “theirs*. For example, accepting a “gift”, or donation from a fast food joint for placing their logo on the playground. You’ve also, now by popular opinion, contributed to the highest rates of obesity, heart disease and illness this society has had EVER. Not only your kids, but your friends’ kids. Some people were “sold” by political and corporate agencies to put wind turbines in a sensitive ecological and pristine nature areas, clear cutting the forest and hillsides to do it, removing the vegetation that controls run-off, and provides the oxygen that humans need to breathe; taking way the homes and habitats of may wild creatures, putting spinning blades in the air on the migratory bird flyway of many visiting and rare bird species, and obliterating the landscape, which provides quality of life to humans and other species, and flies in the face of a now global phrase, altho’ you may not have heard it before: “landscape conservation”, which is now recognized as needed, and valuable, as this world resource is diminishing rapidly and yet contributes so much to our lives and the animal/plant kingdom. If you think well we’re only one small area, then you are conveniently missing the point-the bigger picture. The world cannot sustain these on-going, increasing, and cumulative onslaughts.
Moving on: doesn’t the world seem to be going towards bigger and bigger “entities”? And do you know why you don’t plant a lawn full of Kentucky bluegrass only? Hopefully you’ll see the connection soon. You don’t plant a lawn full of one species or one variety of grass only. Why? Because if the one species (or monoculture, which you’ve created) of grass get a disease, your whole lawn is destroyed.
Yet farm operations are huge operations now. Some now are controlled by larger corporations such as Monsanto. Even seeds now are controlled by about 3 huge entities. I’m not saying that they did this, but if farmers were sucked into an offer by some of these big “daddies”, then their “no choice” choice as the larger entities counted on, has led to the farmers having no choice at all, from seeds to crop, and us having no choice about what we eat-genetically modified plants, seeds and all. Even the seeds are owned by only a very small number of companies. Maybe it’s true, but it’s counted on, that you will have no choice but to accept the offer.
The bigger entities’ (government or big enterprises) premise is that the general population will always take an offer of money or a lower price for something. And then you’re in *their* pocket, hooked into their agenda of corporate greed, or for the purpose of creating a monopoly-for control and money, for power and ego. But remember the lawn?
What ever happened, and what’s happening to the little guy? It’s the little guys who will prevent the “monoculture” or lawn disaster. Are you starting to understand what I’m saying?
Back to politics: free enterprise, which goes along with our democratic system, is base on any number of people who want to start a business, being free to do so, and trying to exist in fair competition with other (small) businesses, and according to all that market mumbo jumbo. Far right socialism or communism is the opposite .Everything is owned and run by the State (or province?). It tries to gobble everything unto itself, eliminating small business, and much of what we call “free will”, our freedoms and our choices. The “offer” to you, to make you accept this, is a lower price for things or some things. “The STATE” or the province, with your money, of course, will subsidize this .Or that. You become part of the State and are controlled by it, just like, for example the big cold land in the north of Europe. Which we, in our democracies hated. We fought wars against governments like that one. Millions of people over the world died for democracy and our freedoms. On this November the11th, 2011, how would you say we are doing?
You may not this a fair parallel, but on Wednesday night, there was a meeting, in which the President of particular operation proudly proclaimed that “WE (his type of operation) have taken over most of Nova Scotia. There’s only one slice left”.
People, caught up in the glossy performance production of promo, in which no discussion was allowed except for 2 questions), almost clapped for him. Imagine.
His operation is subsidized. A lower price. If you don’t “get” this, and the bigger picture, I’m almost sorry you’ve read this far. It’s been a long read, I know.
Yesterday, someone whom I can’t find the right descriptor for….an emissary (political) or agent of his), came to me, professing of potential “offers’ soon to come. The implication was “if only I would agree…”.
What do you think folks? What should I do? What should *you* do?
As always, my opinion (without predudice), the Blogger.
On this day, when we celebrate our freedoms, paid for with the lives of so many, the coercion against democracy, the ever-increasing erosion of democracy and the free enterprise system continues, and you are part of it. You are, I fact choosing it. And while you may think that by choosing it you are exercising a democratic right, perhaps it is different than that. There is no doubt that democracy *means* free enterprise, right? If you live in a democracy, we have free enterprise. This is normal. We take it for granted; we think it’s “just there”. We also think that our right to choose is just there. But is it?
We like to think that as adults we are mature in thinking, think deeply about things, and try to do the right thing. Or things. So how can your choice be taken away? How can you be actually “choosing’ to leave your democratic/free enterprise system while at the same time proclaiming the symbolism of Remembrance Day (being freedom and democracy), and loudly (sometimes) proclaiming that our system is better than others because we are “free”? Just how free are you, when it comes to making decisions about money, in our democratic/free enterprise system? Our free enterprise system, by the way, is based on the freedom to start and to have a business, and our democracy allows for anyone to do that (based on fair competition).
Still with me? We all know the above. So do our governments, at all levels (federal, provincial, municipal and town). Big business knows it. Advertisers know it. Other types of government know it (socialist, communist, etc.). And a variety of agencies, too. Whether it’s a political or corporate entity, they all use research (polls, psychology, studies) to determine how to achieve their goals, wishes and aims. They know us. They know the consumer. In governance, they know, (or think they know), and how to govern us. We wouldn’t have the need for political science, anthropologists, psychologists or sociologists otherwise. (lol). We, or rather they, need to understand humans and how to use that understanding.
So how is it that you can’t refuse a good sales pitch? (even tho’ you might have some inner qualms about it?).How come you can’t (or is it won’t) refuse a low low price on something, even tho’ your innards are thinking there might be something wrong with it?
We aren’t the poorest country, province or county in the world. We are one of the richest nations. Most of us, in Digby County, are not cooking our meals over open fires on the street as our only way of cooking or obtaining heat. We “choose” to BBQ in the summer. We “choose” to sit around a camp fire and toast marshmallow or warm our hands. And this is one of my points: “It’s the POOR who don’t have choices, right? They “have to” choose the lowest cost of doing anything, the lowest price from food to transportation. They’re the ones whose choices are severely limited.
If you are above the poverty line, do you have other choices? Can you make other choices than what’s the cheapest? Can you make another choice other than what’s the bottom line? Can you make another choice if your innards are not sure that it’s the right thing to do?
Why is it that there is a “wealthy” (not below the poverty line) person at the food bank? A neighbour accepting $500. a month not to tell a next door neighbour that a huge, destructive development will be taking place right next to him? An area where the standard of living is 10, 000 times over Biafra’s taking “donations” to the area’s clubs, societies, receipts of ball caps and T Shirts, for an activity that may cause others to lose their homes or may hurt the wildlife or even remove the landscape and affect quality of life? Don’t these same people or entities already enjoy quality of life? And it is usually the bigger organization, political structures, or bigger businesses that are “bribing” you to do what your innards are telling you isn’t right.
They are removing your choice by offering you something. They know that you, in your income bracket, which is not the lowest, will not refuse a “donations”, a “gift”, or a lower price.
Hence, we get the millionaires scrimping on things, billionaires low-paying their employees, the wealthy outfitting their enterprises from second-hand stores. Others using services really just meant for the poor. We are not that poor, you know. But it is not just the “wealthy”. Those who can well afford it, or are not below the poverty level are sucked way past principles, and incidentally, out of their choice, by a buck-or two.
You can get sucked into what current demonstrators would call corporate greed, by accepting a donation to your favourite cause. You don’t want to admit that it means you’ve been sucked into “theirs*. For example, accepting a “gift”, or donation from a fast food joint for placing their logo on the playground. You’ve also, now by popular opinion, contributed to the highest rates of obesity, heart disease and illness this society has had EVER. Not only your kids, but your friends’ kids. Some people were “sold” by political and corporate agencies to put wind turbines in a sensitive ecological and pristine nature areas, clear cutting the forest and hillsides to do it, removing the vegetation that controls run-off, and provides the oxygen that humans need to breathe; taking way the homes and habitats of may wild creatures, putting spinning blades in the air on the migratory bird flyway of many visiting and rare bird species, and obliterating the landscape, which provides quality of life to humans and other species, and flies in the face of a now global phrase, altho’ you may not have heard it before: “landscape conservation”, which is now recognized as needed, and valuable, as this world resource is diminishing rapidly and yet contributes so much to our lives and the animal/plant kingdom. If you think well we’re only one small area, then you are conveniently missing the point-the bigger picture. The world cannot sustain these on-going, increasing, and cumulative onslaughts.
Moving on: doesn’t the world seem to be going towards bigger and bigger “entities”? And do you know why you don’t plant a lawn full of Kentucky bluegrass only? Hopefully you’ll see the connection soon. You don’t plant a lawn full of one species or one variety of grass only. Why? Because if the one species (or monoculture, which you’ve created) of grass get a disease, your whole lawn is destroyed.
Yet farm operations are huge operations now. Some now are controlled by larger corporations such as Monsanto. Even seeds now are controlled by about 3 huge entities. I’m not saying that they did this, but if farmers were sucked into an offer by some of these big “daddies”, then their “no choice” choice as the larger entities counted on, has led to the farmers having no choice at all, from seeds to crop, and us having no choice about what we eat-genetically modified plants, seeds and all. Even the seeds are owned by only a very small number of companies. Maybe it’s true, but it’s counted on, that you will have no choice but to accept the offer.
The bigger entities’ (government or big enterprises) premise is that the general population will always take an offer of money or a lower price for something. And then you’re in *their* pocket, hooked into their agenda of corporate greed, or for the purpose of creating a monopoly-for control and money, for power and ego. But remember the lawn?
What ever happened, and what’s happening to the little guy? It’s the little guys who will prevent the “monoculture” or lawn disaster. Are you starting to understand what I’m saying?
Back to politics: free enterprise, which goes along with our democratic system, is base on any number of people who want to start a business, being free to do so, and trying to exist in fair competition with other (small) businesses, and according to all that market mumbo jumbo. Far right socialism or communism is the opposite .Everything is owned and run by the State (or province?). It tries to gobble everything unto itself, eliminating small business, and much of what we call “free will”, our freedoms and our choices. The “offer” to you, to make you accept this, is a lower price for things or some things. “The STATE” or the province, with your money, of course, will subsidize this .Or that. You become part of the State and are controlled by it, just like, for example the big cold land in the north of Europe. Which we, in our democracies hated. We fought wars against governments like that one. Millions of people over the world died for democracy and our freedoms. On this November the11th, 2011, how would you say we are doing?
You may not this a fair parallel, but on Wednesday night, there was a meeting, in which the President of particular operation proudly proclaimed that “WE (his type of operation) have taken over most of Nova Scotia. There’s only one slice left”.
People, caught up in the glossy performance production of promo, in which no discussion was allowed except for 2 questions), almost clapped for him. Imagine.
His operation is subsidized. A lower price. If you don’t “get” this, and the bigger picture, I’m almost sorry you’ve read this far. It’s been a long read, I know.
Yesterday, someone whom I can’t find the right descriptor for….an emissary (political) or agent of his), came to me, professing of potential “offers’ soon to come. The implication was “if only I would agree…”.
What do you think folks? What should I do? What should *you* do?
As always, my opinion (without predudice), the Blogger.
The erosion of Canada's democracy
By Ralph Surette
April 11, 2011
Mr. Surette frequently authors articles which appear in the Halifax Chronicle Herald
I've spent the week fielding an avalanche of emails in response to my column of last week, "What's at stake in this election," that revealed typical Harperite manipulations from the largely ignored field of fisheries. They're from all over Canada, and they're still coming in as I write -- spread by people sending it to their friends, putting it on Facebook, and so on. So, if you're not one of those bored with the subject, let me carry on a bit more on the shaky issue of democracy.
Among the responses was a link sent by a reader that led me to something I almost wish I'd not seen -- an article in Australia's national newspaper, The Australian, entitled "Canada watches its democracy erode."
The author is Ramesh Thakur, a former assistant secretary general of the UN, author of some 30 books on governance, ethics, law and related topics, now affiliated with the University of Waterloo in Ontario and Griffiths University in Australia. Educated in India and Canada, his view is a substantial international one.
"Edmund Burke noted that all that was necessary for evil to triumph was for good men to do nothing," he writes. "Canadians are certainly good and worthy folks, but they suffer an excess of civil obedience, politeness and lack of civic rage that could be harnessed to combat political atrophy. At a time when Arabs risk life and limb for political freedoms, Canadians seem largely apathetic about the erosion of their democracy."
That's rough. But what else is an arm's-length observer to conclude? The Bev Oda affair, to top off a trend, indicates that "lying to Parliament, a cardinal sin of Westminster-style democracy, has become a political tactic," says Thakur. The degradation of Parliament goes on, through its prorogation for political advantage, the "cynically published guidelines to disrupt hostile parliamentary committees," a minister who abuses his public office to court ethnic votes and who attacks a judge for political-ideological reasons, civil servants and diplomats squelched and fired, boards stacked with ideologues, aid groups that don't toe the hard line cut, and generally more abuses than you can shake a stick at. He quotes author and Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin, who describes an "arc of duplicity" which is "remarkable to behold." What would you call it?
In addition, he mentions something that we are indeed too polite to mention ourselves, except in hushed tones. The new Governor General is a respected academic, but that's not mainly why he's there. He's there because he did the prime minister a monumental favour by narrowly drawing up the terms of the Mulroney/Schreiber inquiry to exclude the most potentially damaging questions. Is this another stacked office, and what would it mean if the GG has key decisions to make in the event of another Harper minority?
Yet, to be fair -- and as some of my emailers have reminded me -- it's not all Harper. It's just that he's pushing it dangerously over the top. Thakur puts it this way: "The centralization of power in the hands of the prime minister and political staffers -- with the resulting diminution of the role and status of cabinet, parliaments and parliamentarians -- is common to Anglo-Saxon democracies in Australia, Canada, Britain and the U.S., but the extent to which constitutional conventions, parliamentary etiquette and civil institutions of good governance have been worn away in Canada is cause for concern."
Advertising
Let me add that another cause for concern is the extent to which the democratic instinct is diminishing among the people. Our sense, growing imperceptibly for decades, is that the governments we elect have less and less actual authority in the face of globalization and the growing power of corporations. Further, we are valuing money over the good of society and its governance. Money is everything -- or as that blowhard tagline on CBC TV keeps repeating ad nauseam: "Greed is good and I love money." It's the billionaire culture, but it has trickled down. It's "me and my money" that counts, not the integrity of the whole. That's why Harper can use a spurious argument -- the economy will collapse if I go -- so effectively, even though the economy, down or up, has little to do with him. It's all about the money and nothing else.
Can we shape up and stop the bleeding before the world really catches on to what's going on? Thakur says it's still not clear whether all this is "an indictment of Canadians' indifference to democratic rights being curtailed or of the opposition parties, which have failed to harness the silent majority's outrage." Time is running short to find out.
Meanwhile, one comment on The Australian's site was from "Reed of Nova Scotia, Canada" who says, "I'm at a loss for why I have to be getting accurate news from the other side of the planet." Good one, Reed.
Ralph Surette is a veteran freelance journalist living in Yarmouth County in Nova Scotia. This article was originally published in The Chronicle Herald.
Print
Write to editor
Support rabble
Corrections
Tags:
democracy Canadian politics Harper government contempt of Parliament Election 2011 federal election government corruption
Related items
What's at stake in this election
Through a rising crescendo of deceit, manipulation, corruption and assaults on parliamentary democracy, the "that's them exactly!" of the Harper government has become abundantly clear.
The neo-Conservatives are at the gates
As Americans march for their rights in the memory of Dr. King on April 4, it instructs that we can mobilize now, or later, to deal with a Harper majority.
Why voters appear to accept Harper's contempt
Minimally engaged citizens are not equipped to deal with politicians who are willing to actually destroy the foundations of democracy and violate its most basic principles.
By Ralph Surette
April 11, 2011
Mr. Surette frequently authors articles which appear in the Halifax Chronicle Herald
I've spent the week fielding an avalanche of emails in response to my column of last week, "What's at stake in this election," that revealed typical Harperite manipulations from the largely ignored field of fisheries. They're from all over Canada, and they're still coming in as I write -- spread by people sending it to their friends, putting it on Facebook, and so on. So, if you're not one of those bored with the subject, let me carry on a bit more on the shaky issue of democracy.
Among the responses was a link sent by a reader that led me to something I almost wish I'd not seen -- an article in Australia's national newspaper, The Australian, entitled "Canada watches its democracy erode."
The author is Ramesh Thakur, a former assistant secretary general of the UN, author of some 30 books on governance, ethics, law and related topics, now affiliated with the University of Waterloo in Ontario and Griffiths University in Australia. Educated in India and Canada, his view is a substantial international one.
"Edmund Burke noted that all that was necessary for evil to triumph was for good men to do nothing," he writes. "Canadians are certainly good and worthy folks, but they suffer an excess of civil obedience, politeness and lack of civic rage that could be harnessed to combat political atrophy. At a time when Arabs risk life and limb for political freedoms, Canadians seem largely apathetic about the erosion of their democracy."
That's rough. But what else is an arm's-length observer to conclude? The Bev Oda affair, to top off a trend, indicates that "lying to Parliament, a cardinal sin of Westminster-style democracy, has become a political tactic," says Thakur. The degradation of Parliament goes on, through its prorogation for political advantage, the "cynically published guidelines to disrupt hostile parliamentary committees," a minister who abuses his public office to court ethnic votes and who attacks a judge for political-ideological reasons, civil servants and diplomats squelched and fired, boards stacked with ideologues, aid groups that don't toe the hard line cut, and generally more abuses than you can shake a stick at. He quotes author and Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin, who describes an "arc of duplicity" which is "remarkable to behold." What would you call it?
In addition, he mentions something that we are indeed too polite to mention ourselves, except in hushed tones. The new Governor General is a respected academic, but that's not mainly why he's there. He's there because he did the prime minister a monumental favour by narrowly drawing up the terms of the Mulroney/Schreiber inquiry to exclude the most potentially damaging questions. Is this another stacked office, and what would it mean if the GG has key decisions to make in the event of another Harper minority?
Yet, to be fair -- and as some of my emailers have reminded me -- it's not all Harper. It's just that he's pushing it dangerously over the top. Thakur puts it this way: "The centralization of power in the hands of the prime minister and political staffers -- with the resulting diminution of the role and status of cabinet, parliaments and parliamentarians -- is common to Anglo-Saxon democracies in Australia, Canada, Britain and the U.S., but the extent to which constitutional conventions, parliamentary etiquette and civil institutions of good governance have been worn away in Canada is cause for concern."
Advertising
Let me add that another cause for concern is the extent to which the democratic instinct is diminishing among the people. Our sense, growing imperceptibly for decades, is that the governments we elect have less and less actual authority in the face of globalization and the growing power of corporations. Further, we are valuing money over the good of society and its governance. Money is everything -- or as that blowhard tagline on CBC TV keeps repeating ad nauseam: "Greed is good and I love money." It's the billionaire culture, but it has trickled down. It's "me and my money" that counts, not the integrity of the whole. That's why Harper can use a spurious argument -- the economy will collapse if I go -- so effectively, even though the economy, down or up, has little to do with him. It's all about the money and nothing else.
Can we shape up and stop the bleeding before the world really catches on to what's going on? Thakur says it's still not clear whether all this is "an indictment of Canadians' indifference to democratic rights being curtailed or of the opposition parties, which have failed to harness the silent majority's outrage." Time is running short to find out.
Meanwhile, one comment on The Australian's site was from "Reed of Nova Scotia, Canada" who says, "I'm at a loss for why I have to be getting accurate news from the other side of the planet." Good one, Reed.
Ralph Surette is a veteran freelance journalist living in Yarmouth County in Nova Scotia. This article was originally published in The Chronicle Herald.
Write to editor
Support rabble
Corrections
Tags:
democracy Canadian politics Harper government contempt of Parliament Election 2011 federal election government corruption
Related items
What's at stake in this election
Through a rising crescendo of deceit, manipulation, corruption and assaults on parliamentary democracy, the "that's them exactly!" of the Harper government has become abundantly clear.
The neo-Conservatives are at the gates
As Americans march for their rights in the memory of Dr. King on April 4, it instructs that we can mobilize now, or later, to deal with a Harper majority.
Why voters appear to accept Harper's contempt
Minimally engaged citizens are not equipped to deal with politicians who are willing to actually destroy the foundations of democracy and violate its most basic principles.
Labels:
Democracy Nova Scotia Canada
Why They Protest
Why they protest
Against all odds, the Occupy Nova Scotia group is demonstrating values that we’ll all need to find justice.
by Tim Bousquet @Tim_Bousquet
from "The Coast" publication
Graham Pilsworth
Judging by my Twitter feed, the Occupy Nova Scotia demonstrators are annoying some people. "Canada didn't have American-type financial deregulation, so the protests are misplaced," is a typical tweet dismissing the group camped out in Grand Parade (and who mayor Peter Kelly is threatening to evict).
It's true that Canada didn't follow the insane deregulation route charted out by the US, but that wasn't because Canadian banks are somehow more virtuous than their American brethren. Indeed, if you go back and read the business press of the 1990s, you'll see Canadian bankers and their political supporters, including Stephen Harper, were demanding that Canada deregulate the industry, and it was only the stalwart opposition of Jean Chrétien that prevented that from happening.
More to the point, while Canadian banks weren't able to directly join the $620 trillion global trade in derivatives---that's 10 times the actual money supply in all the world--- Canada was making many other policy decisions that contributed to what journalist Chris Hedges calls the "corporate coup." And in terms of shifting wealth from working people to the wealthiest one percent over the past two decades, Canada is third, after only the US and Australia---see a detailed analysis of Canada's horrid economic record via thecoast.ca/CanadasOnePercent.
While the richest are doing just fine, Canadian workers' pension funds have been gutted, students graduating with huge debt loads face bleak employment opportunities and those lucky enough to have jobs rightly fret about the future as the federal government attacks unions at every turn. And on the bottom edge of society sits a growing number of the completely dispossessed, some of whom are camped out in Grand Parade.
Critics of the occupation condemn the demonstrators for lacking detailed explanations of their position and understandings of the world of global finance, but since when do people need to be certified with a PhD in economics or political science before they are given the right to protest? And let's remember that most of our economic and political elite actually created the problem in the first place, breaking the global economy. Why should we trust anyone with such credentials?
To be sure, along with an incredibly knowledgeable and dedicated core, the Occupy NS group includes street kids, some homeless people and a very few people with mental health issues. It's not likely everyone on Grand Parade can maneuver through an academic debate on economic policy issues, but so what? Their very presence is giving testimony that's better than a thousand textbooks: We matter, damn it, and our society has failed us.
Having spent some time at Occupy NS, I've come away with profound respect for the enterprise. Even the most disenfranchised of the group, who have legitimate reason to be most angry, have committed themselves to non-violence and are working through the process of understanding the consensus decision-making process. With little outside help and a lot working against them, and using only their own resourcefulness and sense of justice, they've created a workable community that provides basic health care and a decent meal for all, that takes a responsibility for its most vulnerable, that has shared purpose. They're demonstrating values that are eluding the larger society; they should be proud of themselves.
And what about the rest of us: Are we proud of ourselves? Are we doing the best we can to object and stand up for ourselves in a broken economy? Or do we just put up with it, getting along to get along with an unjust system?
I met an engaging young woman involved with Occupy NS who had parked herself in Granville Mall to do outreach to NSCAD students, stressing the need for solidarity in the face of a common struggle. She's right, of course, and the rest of us can learn from her---we're in this together. The powerless have thrown down the gauntlet: How do we do right by each other?
The one percent has succeeded in coming to the trough time and again, demanding that the 99 percent bail out their false economy with ever deeper austerity, raided retirement funds and broken wage contracts. We could keep acquiescing, or we could learn from the Occupy folks and say enough is enough
Against all odds, the Occupy Nova Scotia group is demonstrating values that we’ll all need to find justice.
by Tim Bousquet @Tim_Bousquet
from "The Coast" publication
Graham Pilsworth
Judging by my Twitter feed, the Occupy Nova Scotia demonstrators are annoying some people. "Canada didn't have American-type financial deregulation, so the protests are misplaced," is a typical tweet dismissing the group camped out in Grand Parade (and who mayor Peter Kelly is threatening to evict).
It's true that Canada didn't follow the insane deregulation route charted out by the US, but that wasn't because Canadian banks are somehow more virtuous than their American brethren. Indeed, if you go back and read the business press of the 1990s, you'll see Canadian bankers and their political supporters, including Stephen Harper, were demanding that Canada deregulate the industry, and it was only the stalwart opposition of Jean Chrétien that prevented that from happening.
More to the point, while Canadian banks weren't able to directly join the $620 trillion global trade in derivatives---that's 10 times the actual money supply in all the world--- Canada was making many other policy decisions that contributed to what journalist Chris Hedges calls the "corporate coup." And in terms of shifting wealth from working people to the wealthiest one percent over the past two decades, Canada is third, after only the US and Australia---see a detailed analysis of Canada's horrid economic record via thecoast.ca/CanadasOnePercent.
While the richest are doing just fine, Canadian workers' pension funds have been gutted, students graduating with huge debt loads face bleak employment opportunities and those lucky enough to have jobs rightly fret about the future as the federal government attacks unions at every turn. And on the bottom edge of society sits a growing number of the completely dispossessed, some of whom are camped out in Grand Parade.
Critics of the occupation condemn the demonstrators for lacking detailed explanations of their position and understandings of the world of global finance, but since when do people need to be certified with a PhD in economics or political science before they are given the right to protest? And let's remember that most of our economic and political elite actually created the problem in the first place, breaking the global economy. Why should we trust anyone with such credentials?
To be sure, along with an incredibly knowledgeable and dedicated core, the Occupy NS group includes street kids, some homeless people and a very few people with mental health issues. It's not likely everyone on Grand Parade can maneuver through an academic debate on economic policy issues, but so what? Their very presence is giving testimony that's better than a thousand textbooks: We matter, damn it, and our society has failed us.
Having spent some time at Occupy NS, I've come away with profound respect for the enterprise. Even the most disenfranchised of the group, who have legitimate reason to be most angry, have committed themselves to non-violence and are working through the process of understanding the consensus decision-making process. With little outside help and a lot working against them, and using only their own resourcefulness and sense of justice, they've created a workable community that provides basic health care and a decent meal for all, that takes a responsibility for its most vulnerable, that has shared purpose. They're demonstrating values that are eluding the larger society; they should be proud of themselves.
And what about the rest of us: Are we proud of ourselves? Are we doing the best we can to object and stand up for ourselves in a broken economy? Or do we just put up with it, getting along to get along with an unjust system?
I met an engaging young woman involved with Occupy NS who had parked herself in Granville Mall to do outreach to NSCAD students, stressing the need for solidarity in the face of a common struggle. She's right, of course, and the rest of us can learn from her---we're in this together. The powerless have thrown down the gauntlet: How do we do right by each other?
The one percent has succeeded in coming to the trough time and again, demanding that the 99 percent bail out their false economy with ever deeper austerity, raided retirement funds and broken wage contracts. We could keep acquiescing, or we could learn from the Occupy folks and say enough is enough
The Occupy Movement and Halifax , N.S.
Mayor Kelly Muffs His Moment
Submitted by Silver Donald Cameron on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 19:54
from The Green Interview www.greeninterview.com
History just tossed Halifax Mayor Peter Kelly the political opportunity of a lifetime. Kelly blew it spectacularly. And everyone in the city is diminished by his failure.
For decades, the chattering classes have been deploring the apathy of the young. The young don't care about public affairs, they don't vote, they have no interest in democracy and social justice. Imprisoned between their earbuds, wired into their iPods and PlayStations, focussed on nasty music and texting endlessly, they're immersed in selfish amusements.
And then, one October day, democracy erupted on the Mayor's front lawn, right in front of his office window, in the Grand Parade square in downtown Halifax. Suddenly there was a little encampment of people, mostly young, crying aloud for democracy and social justice, trying to practice it, their tiny colourful tents encircling the cenotaph that honours the Haligonian men and women who died for democracy and social justice. A little community in the middle of the city, full of the vigour and idealism of youth, eager to address the multiple wrongs of our time – gross social inequality, the despoliation of the planet, women's rights, public health, climate change, the war industry, the patenting of life forms, the affordability of education, trade rules, all kinds of things.
Occupy Nova Scotia in the Grand Parade (from Occupy NS site)
Occupy Nova Scotia in the Grand Parade (from Occupy NS site)
What an opportunity!
And what was Mayor Kelly's attitude to this outburst of democracy and youthful idealism?
He saw it as a problem.
As the protests rolled around the world, the Halifax occupiers settled in, some of them with their dogs. The fire inspectors and the health inspectors came and made suggestions, which the occupiers followed. As they did elsewhere, the occupiers developed a community, making decisions by consensus, compensating for the lack of microphones by repeating aloud whatever the speaker was saying. Labour unions brought them truckloads of bottled water. A nearby restaurant gave them tubs of soup. Sympathizers – including me – brought them warm clothing and boxes of food.
Remembrance Day approached. The Grand Parade, where Occupy Nova Scotia was camped, is the place where the annual remembrance ceremonies are held. The Mayor wanted the square cleared for the ceremonies. The protesters discussed the situation with the Mayor and the veterans. They wanted to win support, and non-violence is at the core of their world-view. So they put poppies on their windbreakers and agreed that they would move to Victoria Park, a dozen blocks away, until after Remembrance Day, and then move back. And the Mayor allowed them to believe that he agreed. His later interviews about whether or not he intended what happened next reveal him as an absolute virtuoso of weaseling and dodging.
Remembrance Day in Nova Scotia was so stormy that many ceremonies were moved inside, though not in Halifax. The wind howled, the leaves flew, the rain fell in torrents. At 11:00 at the Grand Parade, dignitaries and others laid wreaths. One of the wreaths was laid jointly by an Afghanistan veteran and a representative from Occupy Nova Scotia. The occupier met Mayor Kelly and shook his hand. The Mayor smiled.
And at that very moment, the police encircled the encampment at Victoria Park and served an eviction notice.
Two hours later, the police charged, beating and arresting fourteen protesters, dragging them through the mud to the paddy wagons, hauling away their tents. There's lots of video of the arrests on the web; here's one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMAelP2KnxQ&feature=related As the word went around the city, other supporters – including me – went down to join the occupiers, standing in the pouring rain, arms linked in a circle around the remaining tents, while the occupiers debated their next move. In the end they took down all the tents but one, leaving the last tent for the police, and went to a near by church to regroup. The next day saw an angry rally at the Grand Parade, and there, as this is written, the matter rests.
Silver Donald Cameron at Victoria Park on Remembrance Day. (Chris Majka)
Is this what our veterans fought for? Is this the way the city celebrates Remembrance Day – with handcuffs and truncheons and Mace for people who are simply sitting on their tents in the rain?
The Mayor says that the council unanimously made the decision to evict in an in-camera meeting on Tuesday, and after that it was “an operational issue” to be dealt with by the police. Nothing to do with him. But who chose the timing and the method? The councillors, the cops, the city staff, the Mayor? Silence.
By Sunday, the councillors were distancing themselves from the Mayor.
"The Mayor is using council as a scapegoat right now to support his decision making,” says Councillor Linda Mosher. “It was completely unnecessary to do that and council did not give that directive."
I believe her. This is a Mayor who spends a lot of time making bad decisions and initiating questionable actions, and hiding behind others when the brown stuff hits the blades. Earlier in 2011 Kelly was caught having agreed, in writing, and without authority, to guarantee loans totalling $5.6 million to the promoter of a rock concert to be held on the Halifax Common. The city is still on the hook for about $360,000, and the Mayor narrowly avoided a police investigation that would have been entirely appropriate.
But the loans fiasco wasn't his fault either. It was those confounded city staffers again. Tsk, tsk.
All of which raises another interesting question: why is it all right for the Mayor to risk a ton of public money for a private operator to occupy and tear up a city park – and it's not all right for citizens to camp peacefully in a city park, doing a lot less damage than a rock concert does?
On Monday, in a press conference, Police Chief Frank Beazley told the press that he made the decision to evict the occupiers by force – and to do it on Remembrance Day, because not many people would be around, and he didn't expect the protesters to leave peacefully. Really? All by himself? Knowing that it would cause a political uproar, he didn't seek the approval of the Mayor? Pah! No matter how you look at it, the responsibility circles back to Peter Kelly. Nor should we entirely exempt the councillors, who seem similarly addicted to secret meetings after which nobody has to take responsbility for anything.
Halifax deserves better than this.
In case you do not have the good fortune to live here, I should tell you a bit about Halifax, population about 300,000, a beautiful old seaport, the capital of Nova Scotia, the largest city on Canada's Atlantic coast. Halifax was established in 1749 on one of the biggest, safest deepwater harbours in the world. It was a pivot in the wars between the French and the English, and later between the English and the Americans. During the two World Wars, Halifax was the portal through which troops, ships, munitions and supplies poured across to Europe. It is home to Canada's principal naval and Coast Guard bases. It contains half-a-dozen universities and numerous research institutes, and it's the regional headquarters for innumerable agencies and companies. It is well supplied with parks and green spaces, and is said to have the largest urban forest in Canada. It is a city of scholars and shipwrights, legislators and law courts, broadcasters and boutiques, symphonies and scientists, art galleries and admirals and archbishops.
Linked to international events by its location, its history and the ocean, Halifax is a world city on an intimate scale, and it has sometimes had leadership adequate to its character. The very first national magazine article I ever wrote, in 1968, was a profile of the Mayor of Halifax, Allen O'Brien. A tough-minded businessman who was also a vice president of Canada's semi-socialist New Democratic Party, Mayor O'Brien marched in street protests against the Vietnam war. Was this appropriate for a municipal leader?
“We certainly have problems here at home, and I work on them every day,” he said – as I remember it; I'm quoting from memory. “But that is no excuse to ignore the plight of our neighbours – anywhere in the world.”
And what about his role as Mayor?
“The Mayor,” he said, “ has very little actual power – but he has the power to bring people together, to encourage action on matters that he considers important. He has the power to influence the public agenda. He has access to the press. And if you use those powers strategically, you can accomplish quite a bit.”
Young man acting as host at the November 12 rally (SDC)
Now just imagine. Imagine if Peter Kelly had that kind of awareness, that sense of direction, when he looked out the window in the middle of October. Imagine if he'd gone down there with his eyes and ears open. Who are you? Where do you come from? What do you do? When I asked those questions, I found I was talking with some very interesting people. An education graduate from St. Francis Xavier University who was playing a mad scientist in a children's theatre. A sustainability consultant. A young boutique farmer. A Mi'maq veteran. A postal worker. A filmmaker.
Okay (the Mayor might have said), let's not talk too much about things that are clearly national or provincial. What are the things that municipal governments actually can affect? Food? Maybe we need an innovative urban agriculture policy. What do you think such a policy might look like? Homelessness? Let me get a couple of property developers and someone from the province down here, and let's brainstorm a little. Tell me about youth unemployment. Say that again, will you – there's an organization in Winnipeg called Build that trains street people to do energy refits? Fascinating. Let's get someone from Winnipeg down here to talk about that. How can I reach them? (Answer: at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x4shcdZ8QI )
Anti-poverty activist Sharon Murphy addresses November 12 rally (SDC)
I'm pulling examples from my own experience and imagination, but you get the idea. What if the Mayor had treated the occupiers respectfully, as though they were actually citizens whose voices deserved to be heard, whose ideas might have merit, whose concerns might reflect the concerns of other citizens? What if the city had welcomed the arrival of new ideas, new insights, a passionate commitment to a better future? What if the Mayor had paused to reflect that the young people among them were not aliens or monsters – or bums or dregs or scum, as they have been called by adult commentators who should know better? These are our own children, brought up in Dartmouth and Moser River, Blandford and Fairview. What if the Mayor had contemplated the possibility that those young people probably arethe future?
What if the Mayor had acted not as a short-sighted enforcer of petty bylaws, but as the wise, patient leader of a functioning community?
If he had acted like that, Peter Kelly would have taught the occupiers that civic engagement actually works, that change is possible, that older people can and do welcome the energy of youth in the quest for a better tomorrow. Instead, he taught them the exact opposite – that their concerns are not of interest, that their involvement in politics is not welcome, that civic leaders cannot be trusted, that violence is just fine as long as it's the police who start the brawl.
If Peter Kelly had found a fresh, positive way to engage with Occupy Nova Scotia, the news would have gone around the world – just as the news of the eviction has gone around the world. Other cities that are also trying to figure out what to do next would have taken note. Halifax would have looked like the thoughtful, creative community that it is. And Peter Kelly would have been a hero, a prime contender for higher political office had he chosen to pursue that.
Like I said, history just tossed Kelly the political opportunity of a lifetime. He blew it. And we are all diminished by his failure.
Submitted by Silver Donald Cameron on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 19:54
from The Green Interview www.greeninterview.com
History just tossed Halifax Mayor Peter Kelly the political opportunity of a lifetime. Kelly blew it spectacularly. And everyone in the city is diminished by his failure.
For decades, the chattering classes have been deploring the apathy of the young. The young don't care about public affairs, they don't vote, they have no interest in democracy and social justice. Imprisoned between their earbuds, wired into their iPods and PlayStations, focussed on nasty music and texting endlessly, they're immersed in selfish amusements.
And then, one October day, democracy erupted on the Mayor's front lawn, right in front of his office window, in the Grand Parade square in downtown Halifax. Suddenly there was a little encampment of people, mostly young, crying aloud for democracy and social justice, trying to practice it, their tiny colourful tents encircling the cenotaph that honours the Haligonian men and women who died for democracy and social justice. A little community in the middle of the city, full of the vigour and idealism of youth, eager to address the multiple wrongs of our time – gross social inequality, the despoliation of the planet, women's rights, public health, climate change, the war industry, the patenting of life forms, the affordability of education, trade rules, all kinds of things.
Occupy Nova Scotia in the Grand Parade (from Occupy NS site)
Occupy Nova Scotia in the Grand Parade (from Occupy NS site)
What an opportunity!
And what was Mayor Kelly's attitude to this outburst of democracy and youthful idealism?
He saw it as a problem.
As the protests rolled around the world, the Halifax occupiers settled in, some of them with their dogs. The fire inspectors and the health inspectors came and made suggestions, which the occupiers followed. As they did elsewhere, the occupiers developed a community, making decisions by consensus, compensating for the lack of microphones by repeating aloud whatever the speaker was saying. Labour unions brought them truckloads of bottled water. A nearby restaurant gave them tubs of soup. Sympathizers – including me – brought them warm clothing and boxes of food.
Remembrance Day approached. The Grand Parade, where Occupy Nova Scotia was camped, is the place where the annual remembrance ceremonies are held. The Mayor wanted the square cleared for the ceremonies. The protesters discussed the situation with the Mayor and the veterans. They wanted to win support, and non-violence is at the core of their world-view. So they put poppies on their windbreakers and agreed that they would move to Victoria Park, a dozen blocks away, until after Remembrance Day, and then move back. And the Mayor allowed them to believe that he agreed. His later interviews about whether or not he intended what happened next reveal him as an absolute virtuoso of weaseling and dodging.
Remembrance Day in Nova Scotia was so stormy that many ceremonies were moved inside, though not in Halifax. The wind howled, the leaves flew, the rain fell in torrents. At 11:00 at the Grand Parade, dignitaries and others laid wreaths. One of the wreaths was laid jointly by an Afghanistan veteran and a representative from Occupy Nova Scotia. The occupier met Mayor Kelly and shook his hand. The Mayor smiled.
And at that very moment, the police encircled the encampment at Victoria Park and served an eviction notice.
Two hours later, the police charged, beating and arresting fourteen protesters, dragging them through the mud to the paddy wagons, hauling away their tents. There's lots of video of the arrests on the web; here's one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMAelP2KnxQ&feature=related As the word went around the city, other supporters – including me – went down to join the occupiers, standing in the pouring rain, arms linked in a circle around the remaining tents, while the occupiers debated their next move. In the end they took down all the tents but one, leaving the last tent for the police, and went to a near by church to regroup. The next day saw an angry rally at the Grand Parade, and there, as this is written, the matter rests.
Silver Donald Cameron at Victoria Park on Remembrance Day. (Chris Majka)
Is this what our veterans fought for? Is this the way the city celebrates Remembrance Day – with handcuffs and truncheons and Mace for people who are simply sitting on their tents in the rain?
The Mayor says that the council unanimously made the decision to evict in an in-camera meeting on Tuesday, and after that it was “an operational issue” to be dealt with by the police. Nothing to do with him. But who chose the timing and the method? The councillors, the cops, the city staff, the Mayor? Silence.
By Sunday, the councillors were distancing themselves from the Mayor.
"The Mayor is using council as a scapegoat right now to support his decision making,” says Councillor Linda Mosher. “It was completely unnecessary to do that and council did not give that directive."
I believe her. This is a Mayor who spends a lot of time making bad decisions and initiating questionable actions, and hiding behind others when the brown stuff hits the blades. Earlier in 2011 Kelly was caught having agreed, in writing, and without authority, to guarantee loans totalling $5.6 million to the promoter of a rock concert to be held on the Halifax Common. The city is still on the hook for about $360,000, and the Mayor narrowly avoided a police investigation that would have been entirely appropriate.
But the loans fiasco wasn't his fault either. It was those confounded city staffers again. Tsk, tsk.
All of which raises another interesting question: why is it all right for the Mayor to risk a ton of public money for a private operator to occupy and tear up a city park – and it's not all right for citizens to camp peacefully in a city park, doing a lot less damage than a rock concert does?
On Monday, in a press conference, Police Chief Frank Beazley told the press that he made the decision to evict the occupiers by force – and to do it on Remembrance Day, because not many people would be around, and he didn't expect the protesters to leave peacefully. Really? All by himself? Knowing that it would cause a political uproar, he didn't seek the approval of the Mayor? Pah! No matter how you look at it, the responsibility circles back to Peter Kelly. Nor should we entirely exempt the councillors, who seem similarly addicted to secret meetings after which nobody has to take responsbility for anything.
Halifax deserves better than this.
In case you do not have the good fortune to live here, I should tell you a bit about Halifax, population about 300,000, a beautiful old seaport, the capital of Nova Scotia, the largest city on Canada's Atlantic coast. Halifax was established in 1749 on one of the biggest, safest deepwater harbours in the world. It was a pivot in the wars between the French and the English, and later between the English and the Americans. During the two World Wars, Halifax was the portal through which troops, ships, munitions and supplies poured across to Europe. It is home to Canada's principal naval and Coast Guard bases. It contains half-a-dozen universities and numerous research institutes, and it's the regional headquarters for innumerable agencies and companies. It is well supplied with parks and green spaces, and is said to have the largest urban forest in Canada. It is a city of scholars and shipwrights, legislators and law courts, broadcasters and boutiques, symphonies and scientists, art galleries and admirals and archbishops.
Linked to international events by its location, its history and the ocean, Halifax is a world city on an intimate scale, and it has sometimes had leadership adequate to its character. The very first national magazine article I ever wrote, in 1968, was a profile of the Mayor of Halifax, Allen O'Brien. A tough-minded businessman who was also a vice president of Canada's semi-socialist New Democratic Party, Mayor O'Brien marched in street protests against the Vietnam war. Was this appropriate for a municipal leader?
“We certainly have problems here at home, and I work on them every day,” he said – as I remember it; I'm quoting from memory. “But that is no excuse to ignore the plight of our neighbours – anywhere in the world.”
And what about his role as Mayor?
“The Mayor,” he said, “ has very little actual power – but he has the power to bring people together, to encourage action on matters that he considers important. He has the power to influence the public agenda. He has access to the press. And if you use those powers strategically, you can accomplish quite a bit.”
Young man acting as host at the November 12 rally (SDC)
Now just imagine. Imagine if Peter Kelly had that kind of awareness, that sense of direction, when he looked out the window in the middle of October. Imagine if he'd gone down there with his eyes and ears open. Who are you? Where do you come from? What do you do? When I asked those questions, I found I was talking with some very interesting people. An education graduate from St. Francis Xavier University who was playing a mad scientist in a children's theatre. A sustainability consultant. A young boutique farmer. A Mi'maq veteran. A postal worker. A filmmaker.
Okay (the Mayor might have said), let's not talk too much about things that are clearly national or provincial. What are the things that municipal governments actually can affect? Food? Maybe we need an innovative urban agriculture policy. What do you think such a policy might look like? Homelessness? Let me get a couple of property developers and someone from the province down here, and let's brainstorm a little. Tell me about youth unemployment. Say that again, will you – there's an organization in Winnipeg called Build that trains street people to do energy refits? Fascinating. Let's get someone from Winnipeg down here to talk about that. How can I reach them? (Answer: at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x4shcdZ8QI )
Anti-poverty activist Sharon Murphy addresses November 12 rally (SDC)
I'm pulling examples from my own experience and imagination, but you get the idea. What if the Mayor had treated the occupiers respectfully, as though they were actually citizens whose voices deserved to be heard, whose ideas might have merit, whose concerns might reflect the concerns of other citizens? What if the city had welcomed the arrival of new ideas, new insights, a passionate commitment to a better future? What if the Mayor had paused to reflect that the young people among them were not aliens or monsters – or bums or dregs or scum, as they have been called by adult commentators who should know better? These are our own children, brought up in Dartmouth and Moser River, Blandford and Fairview. What if the Mayor had contemplated the possibility that those young people probably arethe future?
What if the Mayor had acted not as a short-sighted enforcer of petty bylaws, but as the wise, patient leader of a functioning community?
If he had acted like that, Peter Kelly would have taught the occupiers that civic engagement actually works, that change is possible, that older people can and do welcome the energy of youth in the quest for a better tomorrow. Instead, he taught them the exact opposite – that their concerns are not of interest, that their involvement in politics is not welcome, that civic leaders cannot be trusted, that violence is just fine as long as it's the police who start the brawl.
If Peter Kelly had found a fresh, positive way to engage with Occupy Nova Scotia, the news would have gone around the world – just as the news of the eviction has gone around the world. Other cities that are also trying to figure out what to do next would have taken note. Halifax would have looked like the thoughtful, creative community that it is. And Peter Kelly would have been a hero, a prime contender for higher political office had he chosen to pursue that.
Like I said, history just tossed Kelly the political opportunity of a lifetime. He blew it. And we are all diminished by his failure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
