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.

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?

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.

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.

Yesterday, an update from Proud Fringers scrolled across my Facebook page regarding Vic Toews and his desire to re-introduce the term ‘rape’ as opposed to the now used ’sexual assault’. With everything this government has been doing to crush women’s groups and anything resembling forward thinking and social progress I found it hard to believe that he was doing this in my best interest – or the interests of women as a group. So I thought I would dig a bit deeper.

My first question was, “Why was ‘rape’ removed as a charge and replaced with ’sexual assault’ in 1983?” From the articles I checked, the change was instigated by women’s groups themselves, not for political correctness, but to reduce the stigma that women experienced as ‘victims of rape’ and to include people who had perhaps not been ‘penetrated’ (as rape was then defined) but were still violated (Tibbetts, Renner, Tang).

Back then, it was almost impossible to get a rape conviction, the vast majority of cases were not brought to police, let alone prosecuted, and sentences were very light. Sadly, this is still the case today, however the stigma has been reduced and more women do come forward.

It looks like Toews is trying to change the law so that they can more easily implement their legislation to eliminate pardons for sex crimes against children, the feeling now being that having three levels of sexual assault makes it too ‘confusing’ to figure out who should be allowed pardons and who should not.

Toews admitted that there may be issues with the change but brushed them aside, saying, “I understand the desire not to victimize women again in the court system, but that is something that may have to be looked at in the future” (Tibbett).

Very reassuring. It seems to me that with their brilliant legal minds they should be able to craft legislation that distinguishes between the three levels of sexual assault and does not re-introduce a term that led to the stigmatization of the victim and reduced the chances of conviction. How about we don’t roll the clock back 27 years but instead look towards a future where women are not treated as disposable property?

Great post from Glenn Hubbers on the wider implications of the ongoing BP oil disaster. Glenn has inspired me (as he so often does) and I’d like to add my two cents. It’s a bit of a diatribe but it feels good every now and then to blow off some steam. Hold on tight.

Let’s look at the widening circles of responsibility from this ‘low-probability/high-impact’ incident, which, by the way, is exactly how a nuclear meltdown would be described. Just sayin’.

The first circle is BP itself. There appears to be no doubt that the company was negligent, and willfully so, using lobbying money to buy their way out of legislated safety and environmental standards. But this is only the latest episode is a long series of moves by corporations to maximize profit. The next circle would be the oil and gas transnational but that rant has been done a thousand times.

The circle widens quickly to what it means to be a corporation. Certainly making money is not a bad thing but our government (which means WE the voters) has created an Incorporation system that allows, no, demands, that corporations act without social conscience in the maximization of profit for shareholders. In fact, the Conservatives are doing everything they can to block a piece of member-introduced Corporate Social Responsibility legislation from being passed. But that’s another rant.

As it stands, a company that does show care or consideration for its community and the earth can be sued by shareholders for not serving their financial interests fully. I believe that our Incorporation Acts need to be changed. Corporations are supposed to exist for the benefit of the community, but now it seems that the community exists only for the profit of the corporation. We have allowed ourselves to be reduced to consumers, mere units in an economic system that has somehow become more important than family, happiness, and spirit. No wonder we feel we have no power.

And wider. But who allowed this to happen? The government? It seems to me that our governments are increasingly more responsible to corporations than to citizens. Corporations use their influence more effectively than citizens and they are also able to create a culture that convinces us that Lost or American Idol matters more than paying attention to the food we eat, the air we breathe, or the water we need to live. Not to mention our next-door neighbour, or the despair of a country halfway around the world.

And, finally, it widens right out to us… as consumers: Glenn focused on the role of consumers in creating the demand that drives oil companies to increasing levels of profit. And it is true that we live in a culture that thrives on disposable, one-time-use products that is in no way sustainable, or justifiable from a social justice or global viewpoint.

… and as voters: I would put the focus right back on to the voters. One of the commenters on Glenn’s post suggested that voters have no power over public policy. Further, that we show up once ever few years, vote for a Party platform, and then have the right to return to our media-induced slumber, allowing our elected officials to do the best they can in our absence.

What a load of crap.

That is not democracy. And if we accept or, even worse, use that as an excuse to throw up our hands and say, ‘Oopsies, it isn’t my fault, I’m just a voter/consumer,’ then we will get the government that we deserve.

A democracy is not something that will sustain itself against the onslaught of private interests and vice. A democracy cannot just be a hobby, and certainly not something you only have to look at once every four years.

Our democracy is our job. If it is weak, then it is our responsibility to strengthen it. If our democracy is ailing (look at my post to see that this is a growing perception) then it is our job to revive it. Yes. Ours. We voters have allowed our democracy to slip away into the hands of power-hungry ‘leaders’ and profit-driven corporations.

And it is time to take it back.

I listened to Ursula Franklin interviewed on The Current on Friday and the part that is really sticking with me, other than how inspiring she is and how I can only hope to ever be as passionate and cool as she is, is her concern about Conservative insinuations, if not outright accusations, that the Opposition Parties are not ‘trustworthy’. This is in relation, of course, to the government’s refusal to disclose un-censored documents to members of the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan. This issue has been somewhat mitigated by the Speaker’s decision that is forcing the documents’ release but it is the underlying implications that have really got me thinking.

What does it mean when the leader of the country says that the Opposition cannot be trusted? Where could this lead? Well, in the past it has led to the elimination of democracy under the guise of ‘national security’, a phrase that has been tossed about quite a lot lately. It has led to the rise of totalitarian states who claim to be acting in the best interests of the country and citizens and who allow their lust for power to guide them.

How much power should the Prime Minister’s Office have? How much power should a government that received less than a quarter of the potential vote have?*

I was just wondering: Are Canadians ready to give up their democracy for the illusion of security? Now is a good time to re-watch Professor Fonseca’s videos and maybe take a listen to Ms. Ursula Franklin – two people who chose to come to Canada from countries that had experienced dictators in order to participate in a lively democracy and who now feel that it is slipping away.

That queasy feeling in the pit of your stomach? Don’t ignore it. There is trouble afoot.

*Note: The Conservatives received 37.65% of the popular vote, but the voter turnout was the lowest in Canadian history at 59.1%, so the total percentage for the Conservatives was 22%.

A friend of mine sent me this interesting, and kind of disturbing article about Detroit’s proposed solution to its urban sprawl and diminishing populations: tearing down the neighbourhoods and creating new agricultural land.

It has taken me a while to write about it, because, honestly, I wasn’t sure what I could say – it is heartbreaking to see a city that was built on the promises of a modern world in decay and decline. But it is also unsurprising – thanks to Michael Moore’s early films like Roger and Me (which focused on Flint, MI), it is widely known that Detroit was made promises by the auto industry that were not kept.

Promises that could not be kept given the current legislation that deals with corporations (and, yes, I realize that legislation in the States is different than here). Corporate Charter legislation that demands they provide ever-increasing profit to their shareholders, regardless of consequences. ‘Free’-Trade Legislation that makes it more affordable to build cars 1,000 or 5,000 kilometres away from the market where they will be sold than to pay union wages. Accounting and Income Tax legislation that allows companies to externalize environmental and social justice repercussions of the decisions they make. And, finally, a legislative bundle that has created an entire generation of corporate CEOs and profiteers with a twisted set of values where a dollar is more important that a human life and lying is justified when it will make more profit.

I don’t really have a problem with delivering value and profit, that is what companies are for, after all. The problem I have is with the current definition of ‘value’. As a Green, if a company wants to deliver value to me, then it had better be thinking, not just about the jingle of money in my piggy bank, but also the long-term health and well-being of me, my children and my community. I care about the sustainability of my investments, I want to know that it is a good idea not just for me, but for my kids and their grand-kids.

And I have to say that the current corporate culture does not seem to be taking us in that direction. Our current system of fines is largely meaningless and has almost no power to change the behaviour of a corporation – especially for the largest ones, the current fines are considered part of doing business, certainly not a deterrent. Yet, in case after case, companies that take better care of their employees, community, and the environment are more profitable than those who insist on sticking to the ’status quo’.

So here’s what I would like to see: a Corporate Charter granted in Canada would be dependent upon the company agreeing to both domestic and foreign Corporate Social Responsibility Charters and that, if a corporation was in violation of that Charter on a regular basis, that the Charter would be revoked, the Corporation would be dissolved, and the proceeds of asset sales would be used to compensate employees and shareholders. I would like to see the onus of proof on the corporations themselves, and I would like to see this legislation enforced.

Oh, and one other tidbit I would love to see thrown in to deal with exorbitant executive salaries: let’s cap their compensation at 1000x that of the lowest paid worker. That’s right, if you operate in a free trade zone and the worker there makes $0.50 or $1.00 per day, your total compensation (no sneaking around with stock transfers) is going to work out to around $52,000 per year. Too low, you protest. How about 10,000 times? $520,000 doesn’t sound too bad. Does it? Right now, there are many executives being paid 100,000 to 1 million times more than their lowest paid worker. Does that seem right? Do you think that companies would behave differently if their compensation were tied to that of their lowliest employee (contract or part-time)? I do.

As for Detroit, a relic of the modern-age experiment in automobiles, perhaps they will figure out a way to revitalize their economy and transition to sustainable growth through green industry… or maybe it will just become a great place to own a farm.

Why not? They’re doing it for health care as well.

Thanks to William Munsey over at the Berry Patch for highlighting this threat in his latest post. He focuses on the ever-increasing plight of family farms, threatened by agri-business and indifferent government. The Green Party is certainly on the side of the small- to medium-sized farms and has an extensive policy to support them and make farming rewarding, financially as well as spiritually.

What concerns me here, what becomes an issue for the whole country, is the threat of NAFTA. As soon as we allow one jurisdiction to commoditize water we open the door to MNCs under NAFTA and our various free trade agreements.

Once we do that, we can kiss our right to water good-bye. Personally, I don’t want to live in a country where we have the most abundant freshwater resources in the world but we can’t access them, where they are no longer part of the Commons.

Let’s hope that the Council of Canadians and the Green Party hop on this bandwagon and rallies support to stop this move by a short-sighted, oil sands-obsessed government.