A few thoughts:

1) This video is funny. It’s fun to make fun of our Conservatives who favour ideology over data. And Stockwell Day is a prime target.

2) Yes, crime rates per 1000 are higher than they were in the 60s. You can see it in the Corrections Canada article I link in #5.

3) Yes, there are unreported crime statistics. They compare reported crimes with surveys asking people if they have been the victim of a crime (victimization stats).

4) The Conservative attempts to justify their ‘tough on crime’ approach, and to take credit for a decline in crime that has been happening for over a decade, are painful yet hard to resist watching. By raising the mandatory sentences and changing the credit system for time already served they will increase the prison population significantly and thus require that $9b in new prisons and management.

5) This is an interesting article about the effect of the Baby Boom on the prison population and crime rate. The general idea is that when you have a massive population surge of young people you are going to see more crime. As people age, they are less likely to commit crime. However, they are increasingly paranoid and ready to believe that the world is a more dangerous place. Even if it isn’t. As an ideological government, it makes sense, therefore, not to tell the voting population the truth, but to tell them what they already believe.

6) As always, discussions on crime statistics remind me of FreakonomicsFreakonomics and the idea that legalized abortion has a significant impact on decreasing crime rates. Funny how the Conservatives don’t talk about that at all.

It took me five hours to read the motions, read the discussions, and cast my votes. If you’d like to shorten the process for yourself, and if you trust me, then I am happy to provide you with how I voted, and where I think it is important, my reasons for doing so.

This has been an eye-opening process, I think it is the first time I have ever taken the time to really look at the motions being put forward and by whom. The Green Party is a continually evolving organization, and as with any such process, there are always groups that envision the evolution proceeding in different directions.

I still believe the the GPC is the only place to be, and the only place to put my vote, and I further believe that our exhaustive policy formation process, from the grassroots, gives ordinary members an extraordinary ability to participate in the Party evolution.

I’m sure that I’ve offended just about everyone with at least one of my choices, but in the interests of transparency and accountability I remain willing to be called out on them, and to defend them, or to have my mind changed. I look forward to seeing you at the Convention, on the floor and in the workshops.

If you are not currently a GPC member, and are wondering what on earth I am talking about, you have until July 22nd to become a member, research, and vote on these issues yourself.

Here is the list, starting with Policy Motions:
p02 – Green
p24 – Red
p26 – Green
p27 – Green
p29 – Green
p12 – Red
p13 – Green
p14 – Yellow
p20 – Green
p28 – Green
p15 – Green
p16 – Green
p17 – Yellow
p18 – Yellow
p34 – Yellow
p04 – Green
p08 – Green
p10 – Yellow
p11 – Yellow
p19 – Yellow
p21 – Green
p25 – Red
p31 – Green
p32 – Green
p33 – Yellow
p07 – Green
p09 – Yellow
p22 – Yellow
p23 – Yellow
p30 – Green

Constitution Motions
c01 – Black
c09 – Green
c10 – Black
c11 – Red
c13 – Yellow
c25 – Red
c02 – Green
c03 – Green
c05 – Green
c24 – Yellow
c26 – Yellow
c27 – Yellow
c28 – Green
c12 – Green
c29 – Yellow
c30 – Green

c14 – Green
c15 – Yellow
c16 – Red
c17 – Yellow
c18 – Yellow
c19 – Yellow
c20 – Yellow
c21 – Red
c22 – Red
c23 – Red

To be clear, I have serious issues with this group of Resolutions pertaining to EDAs (c14-c23). Beyond the rather pathetic flaw wherein they refer to EDAs as Riding Associations, and head office as ‘the Party’ (an issue I’ve already taken up with them in the context of their pithy preambles…), these seemingly reasonable motions have the cumulative effect of removing all independence from the EDAs and placing it in the hands of the central office, which, in my experience to date, has been incapable of organizing themselves effectively and should certainly not be put in charge of the entire EDA function as well. As an example, c15 mandates that the selection of candidates will be entirely prescribed by head office, and c16 that every EDA must adopt the Constitution provided by the central Party and that any proposed amendments must be approved by central Party through an undefined process. C14 through c21 would be damaging enough on their own but when combined with c22 and c23, two resolutions which allow central Party to negate the RSA or to completely deregister an EDA for noncompliance, they are unacceptable and need to be defeated. I get that we need to have a reasonable standard of compliance across our EDAs, but these heavy-handed, poorly thought out, and incredibly arrogant motions are not the way to do it. As an example, our EDA could be deregistered if we do not have an ‘acceptable’ Constitution on file with Head Office – with no redress. What if Head Office lost our Constitution? What if we disagreed? What if we simply wanted to keep the Constitution we already have? We would have no choice, and would lose our right to exist, simply because someone (and this is not defined either, by the way) said so. This is incredibly distressing to me.

c04 – Yellow
c07 – Red
c08 – Yellow

Directives
d02 – Black
d11 – Red
d10 – Yellow
d13 – Yellow
d01 – Green
d05 – Red
d09 – Green
d12 – Red
d14 – Red
d03 – Green
d04 – Yellow
d06 – Red
d07 – Green
d08 – Red

I was up in Barrie this morning having a leaky pipe replaced and my plumber (who is fabulous!) and we got to talking about politics – specifically the HST and the effect it will have on Ontario’s economy (he didn’t think it would be good). I let slip that I was the nominated GPC candidate in Newmarket-Aurora and that got him all excited, apparently he always votes Green.

Not only does he vote Green, he has a pretty good working knowledge of the local Barrie chapter, and the Canadian political landscape in general, and some very firm opinions about certain politicians, and, sadly, politicians as a group.

But it was when he welcomed me to the military-industrial complex while we were discussing the BP oil spill, that I knew I had met someone out of the ordinary. He mentioned Halliburton’s role in the crisis, their purchase of the company that manufactures the dispersant, and the divestiture of stock by a BP exec just before the explosion.

I confess, I find these coincidences to be rather intriguing:

“7. Curiously, CEO of BP, Tony Hayward dumped 1/3 of his BP stock holdings($2.1 million dollars) weeks before the oil rig explosion

8. Coincidentally, Goldman Sachs dumped 44% – 4,680,822 shares – of its stock in BP Oil weeks before the spill – no other oil company, just BP. This also represented an unusual transaction, being two times the size of any normal stock trade for an institution its size.

9. Weeks before the oil spill, Haliburton acquired Boots & Coots, a Houston-based oil well intervention/oil safety/oil spill cleanup company, an investment criticized by many as an “unwise” investment at the time”

I know it isn’t worthwhile to keep breaking pipes just so we can continue our conversation but I think it might very well be worthwhile to meet at the pub for a pint.

I confess, I did a bit of pleading to get Dave to agree to run for the Green Party Federal Council. Looking forward to retirement, after decades as a high school teacher, Dave wondered why he would want to add being a member of Federal Council to his list of advocacy and artistic projects.

Hmm… good question.

In Dave, I saw the opportunity for Ontario EDAs to have a real voice on Council – to be represented by someone who has a ferocious belief in grassroots democracy and the power of a Constitution to either hinder or help an organization in both the short- and long-term.

I knew that Dave loves Constitutions and By-laws, not because of his years of service on the OSSTF Provincial Council, but because he kept asking me questions about our EDA and Federal Constitutions. ‘What do we do in this situation?’ ‘What does this mean?’ ‘Who is responsible for this?’

All great questions. Questions that it had never occurred to me to ask. And definitely questions I did not know how to answer. While I take pride in my ability to balance a love of details with a passion for the big picture, Dave’s focus on Constitutional details blew me away, as did his positive attitude and great ideas for local EDA work.

There are a lot of gaps in our Constitution, gaps that Dave noticed right away, and made proposals to help close.

There also seem to be a lot of people at the Federal level willing to ignore the Constitution and the grassroots nature of the Party while they concentrate power at the centre and present us as a Party of One. Several of the Constitutional amendments proposed cause me a great deal of concern about where the Party is headed and how committed Federal Council is to an impartial, grassroots approach. I do not believe that we have had a truly effective Provincial Councilor in the past. In my years of CEO I can attest that I was never consulted by our Provincial Rep, and received the most minimal support from Provincial Organizers. I would love to see this change, would love to see more focus on supporting local EDAs.

We are more than one candidate, more than Head Office, and waaaay more than a climate change advocacy group and I firmly believe that Dave shares these views and will work hard as Provincial rep to ensure that the Party is guided by a vision rooted locally.

I totally support Dave Kempton in his campaign to become the new Provincial Councilor for Ontario. We desperately need new voices and ideas on Federal Council, and we desperately need the voices of those who have experience outside of the environmental lobby.

It is time for the GPC to grow up and become the federal Party that I know we can be and having Dave on Federal Council would be a great start. You can find out more about him here.

Checked the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, after all the talk of the last few days. Of particular interest, I believe, are Sections 8, 9, and 10. For your perusing pleasure:

SEARCH OR SEIZURE. 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

DETENTION OR IMPRISONMENT. 9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

ARREST OR DETENTION. 10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

The question becomes, I believe, if you are exercising your FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM (Sections 2c and 2d) to freedom of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association do the police have the right to search your belongings and/or person, or haul you away and throw you in a detention centre?

Here’s the text of the amendment filed with e-laws earlier this month, designating “the area, within the area described in Schedule 1, that is within five metres…” So, it sounds like the five-metre security zone was actually inside the fence, not outside, as we were led to believe.

So, what’s up with our Chief and Police telling us that the five-metre zone was outside the fence? According to the Chief earlier today, he was “trying to keep the criminals out.”

Nice.

What does the Public Works Protection Act, actually say? Here is the full text, but, the gist is that any person “entering or attempting to enter any public work or any approach thereto” can be required “to furnish his or her name and address, to identify himself or herself and to state the purpose for which he or she desires to enter the public work, in writing or otherwise” and that the guard “may search, without warrant, any person entering or attempting to enter a public work.”

If the person refuses, they are guilty, because “the statement under oath of an officer or employee of the government, board, commission, municipal or other corporation or other person owning, operating or having control of a public work, as to the boundaries of the public work is conclusive evidence thereof. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.55, s. 4.”

I guess it doesn’t matter, then, whether the five-metres was inside or outside the fence, you could still be arrested for ‘approach’ to the fence, and you would be guilty based on the word of the person who arrested you.

Sigh. I’m going to have a nap. Maybe it’s all a dream.

Or, then again, maybe what we need to do is look at where else this Act has been applied (airports?) and question whether we are cool with forfeiting our civil liberties in the name of ’security’.

Continuing from my last post, I have to say that this weekend’s G8 and G20 protests and police responses both demonstrated a distinct lack of reverence. Where was the reverence by the protesters for the near-impossible task that our police were asked to do as protectors of the peace? And by the police towards the democratic expression of views by the protesters? That almost 900 people were arrested in the days leading up to and including the Summits is ridiculous. That there are people still being held in improvised and unlawful conditions is unacceptable.

First, I am horrified at the arrest, abuse, and detention of media representatives – a free and open media is essential to a healthy democracy. While I appreciate that throwing them in jail is one way to ensure that they get an excellent story, I believe it sets a horrible precedent and must be dealt with immediately.

Second, the policing does not appear to have been organized well. Of particular concern to me was the elimination of the ’safe’ protest zone at Queen’s Park. Far removed from the actual Summit area, I am still having trouble understanding why the police would (seemingly on a whim) decide to clear this area and send protesters scuttling through the downtown. It seems to me that keeping protesters contained in one safe area would have been a better idea. If the priority was the fenced-in area, why were they harassing protesters on the Esplanade?

I am also disappointed in the organizers who seemed to abandon the protesters after the planned walk during the day, leaving them in disarray and at the mercy of the more-prepared police forces who decided to start arresting later in the evening, after the vivid images of destruction were obtained (and played over and over and over).

But I am most disturbed by the ease with which our leaders surrendered our democratic rights in the name of ’security’. When I posted my concerns on Facebook the response was, generally, ‘Oh yes, that Harper is so horrible,’ followed by silence when I pointed out that my biggest concern was with McGuinty and the Liberal Party of Ontario’s move to enact secret police powers under the Public Works Protection Act. Though temporary, the arbitrary right to detain, search, and arrest civilians is a terrifying glimpse of just how fragile our civil liberties are. Rights that have been won through blood and struggle over the past several hundred years. To see them wiped away for the sake of a political summit is unforgivable. I look forward to the Charter challenges, and class actions suits, should they proceed, and to the explanation by our Leaders as to how they justify forfeiting my rights for their convenience.

It is the Police Chief’s job to recommend over-the-top security measures, he’s a cop. To be cliché, when your tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I get that. I have little problem with Blair’s strategy this weekend, though some of his tactics were very questionable. But it is the job of a politician, a strong political leader (and this goes for the Mayor, the Premier, and the PM!) to say, “NO! The rights of our citizens are more important than that. We need to find a way to protect both the fence and the people of Toronto, including those who are protesting.” That is the job of a Leader, and if our leaders are too weak, or too uncaring to do that, then it is time to start looking for new ones. Right now.

Finally, this weekend has added more strength to my belief that voting Liberal or Conservative doesn’t make a bit of difference – they both care little about democracy. We need electoral reform so that every vote counts equally, and we need it now. We have leaders who have no reverence for democracy, or for the rights of their citizens, and that needs to change.

I’m reading a wonderful little book on Reverence by Paul Woodruff and, very close to the beginning, he asserts that reverence is really more about politics and living in community than religion. For Woodruff, reverence is the feeling of awe and respect towards something that is not created by humans, something beyond us to which we secede authority.

So, for example, one would not feel reverence for the Canadian Parliament because it is an institution created by humans but one could feel reverence for the ideals of discourse, unity, truth, harmony, democracy, and freedom. Ideals which, I believe, are the ultimate goal of our Parliament but that our representatives seem to have forgotten.

To me, the current level of political discourse has become incredibly shallow and mean-spirited. I have not heard our political ‘leaders’ providing us with anything approaching a vision for the future of Canada that rises above the ‘we’re not them’ and ‘aren’t they terrible’ arguments. Nothing that deals with the realities of democratic and ecological crisis, globalization, peak oil, peak water, climate change, a crumbling infrastructure, and a radically changing demographic.

If our MPs had reverence for the ideals which inspired our democratic system they would remember that they are in Ottawa to help our country function better, both domestically and internationally, and to further the success and happiness of Canadians. They would remember that though they have different views, they are united by a love of Canada and democracy and would work to craft legislation that furthered that vision. They would listen with respect and stay open-minded to new solutions.

But they don’t. They appear to be ideologically frozen and bicker as they jockey for position in a series of meaningless and endless polls. It leads me to wonder if those who claim to represent us are irreverent, not recognizing the higher authorities of the ideals that led to the institutions where they practice. And, if this is true, weep for our children.

I’ve been captivated by happiness lately. I’m currently reading Marci Shimoff’s book, “Happy for No Reason” and have taken the last year to figure out what makes me happy. Interestingly, it was not a question I was raised to ask. In my family, we were concerned with financial security… and that was pretty much it. It was certainly better to be miserable and financially secure than to be taking a risk but ridiculously happy. And fulfilled? Authentic? It never even came up.

I came across this op-ed in the New York Times by David Brooks in March. Based on decades of research into happiness and fulfillment, Brooks makes the argument that “once the basic necessities have been achieved, future income is lightly connected to well-being… the United States is much richer than it was 50 years ago, but this has produced no measurable increase in overall happiness.” And yet, for most of us, money is where we focus almost all of our efforts.

It leads me to question our government’s focus on the economy. What is the point of focusing on increasing economic prosperity if it is only loosely related to the happiness and fulfillment of the populace? Or is being happy irrelevant to our society?

The current paradigm, based on consumerism and materialism, tells us that more money will buy us more stuff, give us more prestige, and make us happier. Stuff = Happiness.

So we tuck our heads down and work harder, harder, harder. We earn more money, we buy more stuff, we increase our standard of living again and again…

Why?

Why do we work so hard? Are we afraid? We are certainly told by media, religion and our government that there is much to be afraid of and that to be secure we have to have more money. More money = more security. Also, more money = more power. But why do we want power and security? I would argue that it is to feel fulfilled. Because we want to feel happy.

I think (and feel free to disagree) that we have allowed ourselves to be convinced that economic success at a national level = security = happiness. We, as a society, have developed tunnel vision that excludes all other possibilities for how to live. We glue ourselves to the daily stock reports, regardless of our investment portfolio, with mood swings tied to the vagaries of the Dow, NASDAQ, and TSE. What have we been thinking?

Our PM recently said that all other issues are a sideshow compared to the economy, especially at the G8, even as he proposes a global maternal health initiative (maybe they are looking to sell Canadian technology and pharma overseas…) and this is somehow acceptable. I think not.

The Green Party of Canada proposes a fundamental shift in this thinking. Money is important, there is no doubt. Maslow’s hierarchy makes it very clear that until we can provide ourselves and our loved ones with the basics of food, clothing and shelter, we cannot aspire towards greater things and greater happiness. Trust me, I totally understand that when one is worrying about money and what they will feed their kids tomorrow, it is hard to be lofty and spiritual.

But once we satisfy those basic needs, where do we aim our attention? Let’s say that I make lots of money and I have it invested well and I am feeling pretty secure. What then? Is that all there is to life? Security?

Brooks argues that the relationship between happiness and personal relationship (both intimate relationships and the social network) is very closely correlated. In study after study, “the daily activities most associated with happiness are sex, socializing after work, and having dinner with others. The daily activity most injurious to happiness is commuting… countries with high social trust have happier people, better health, more efficient government, more economic growth, and less fear of crime.”

Brooks concludes, “modern societies have developed vast institutions oriented around the things that are easy to count, not around the things that matter most. They have an affinity for material concerns and a primordial fear of moral and social ones.”

I don’t want to live a life solely focused on the ‘economy’ or the markets. Happily, the Green Party agrees with me. We propose the development and implementation of a Canadian Well-Being Index that would be used in conjunction with the GDP and other indices to present a more accurate measure of how Canadians are doing.

How we are really doing. Do we feel safe? Do we feel trust? Do we know our neighbours? Heck, do we know our kids and spouse? How strong are our connections to the community? How large are our social networks? Do we enjoy time in nature? Do we have access to beauty?

Because, ultimately, we all want to be happy. And our current system isn’t getting us there.

While perusing my Facebook updates I came across an article about Bill C510 (Roxanne’s Law) from the National Post. The idea of the Bill is that it would criminalize the ‘coercion’ of abortion. Interestingly, Harper is reported to be voting against the legislation and strongly recommending that his caucus do the same, though it will be a free vote. If so, it looks like the government will be keeping their promise to not introduce or support anti-choice legislation. Cool.

Dammit Janet did a great job of breaking down why it is ridiculous to call it Roxanne’s Law. And in the Comments to her post SustainableFamilies wrote the following:

“But I would like, in my imagined utopia, for crisis pregnancy services to basically first ask a woman if she could have her DREAM situation… if she had support, resources, emotional support, financial support… would she want to parent? And if so, I would like for her to be offered all known parenting resources in the area.

Likewise. If she says there is no way, this is not what I want right now, abortion services would be offered compassionately and quickly (and affordably.)”

I love that vision. Is it only possible in a utopia? Or is it possible for family planning/crisis services to step beyond their own political positions and empower the young women who come to them to make the choice that is best for themselves?

Has anyone had good or bad experiences with these services that they want to share? I’d love to hear about it. I think it is important that those who are most vulnerable are given the power to create their own lives.