4.12.2011

senator tommy banks: moving one brick at a time, harper has renovated the entire country

Tommy Banks, a Liberal Senator from Alberta, has written a strong, cogent, stirring piece about what the 2011 Canadian federal election is about.

I re-post it here with one paragraph omitted and one disagreement with Senator Banks.

Banks frames the choice in this election as one between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Prime Minister Michael Ignatieff, and essentially dismisses (although he doesn't use that word) the NDP, the Greens and the Bloc Québécois.

It is vitally important that Canada has more than two parties, and indeed I wish it had more than five. (I dream of a Conservative break-up.) I've heard some people say that they support the NDP "in principle" but won't vote NDP federally, because the party have no chance of forming a government. This seems to me foolish and short-sighted. All parties in Parliament have an opportunity to shape policy. The existence of a left-of-liberal federal party may be the only thing keeping Canada from becoming the United States. Without the NDP, the Liberals would be the Democrats. (As bad as the Liberals are, they're better than that.) If I lived in a riding where the choice was between Liberal and NDP, I'd absolutely vote NDP.

But as you know, I think strategic voting in one's riding can be wise, and every seat that does not go to the Conservatives is a victory.

And with that note, here is Tommy Banks. Thank you to my friend who posted it on Facebook; I hope you will also share this widely.
That is the choice, and it is a very clear – in fact, stark choice. We will choose between openness or secrecy. Between listening or refusing to listen. Between someone who respects Parliament or someone who disdains it. Between things we can and will do now or things that, (provided of course that everything goes well), we might do in five or six years. Between someone who answers all questions from Canadians, or someone who won’t accept any.

Between Mr. Harper who said “It’s past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act”, or Mr. Ignatieff who said “ . . . we don’t want user fees. We want universal, accessible, free-at-the-point-of-service health care, paid out of general revenue. That’s just bottom line. Otherwise we get two-tiered”.

Between buying jets or helping vet’s. Between real early childhood learning and care or Saturday-night babysitting. Between respect for our great institutions or contempt for them. Between helping families or helping big corporations.

Between the Canada that we think we have, or the way in which Mr. Harper has already changed it.

Over the past few years Mr. Harper’s government has quietly engineered so many changes that there are some ways in which our country is barely recognizable. Many of us don’t yet realize the extent of those changes, because many of them have been brought about very carefully and gradually – almost imperceptibly in some cases.

This is diabolically clever. If these things had all been done at once, there would have been loud protests and reactions. But moving just one little brick at a time doesn’t cause much fuss – until you realize that the whole house has been renovated. And we’ve hardly noticed.

These are changes that are at the very heart of who and what Canadians are. They are changes to the protections that used to exist against the tyranny of the majority – or against a single-minded my-way-or-the-highway autocrat. These changes are losses to our very Canadian-ness. Let me remind you of some of them:

The Law Commission of Canada was created by an Act of Parliament in 1997. It worked very well. It kept an eye in a sort-of avuncular way, on necessary reforms of the law, including election law. The Commission couldn’t actually change law; but it was very good at letting governments and everybody else know when changes needed to be made and why. It was our legal Jiminy Cricket, and it performed a valuable service for Canada. The Commission was created by an Act of Parliament, and any government wanting to shut it down should have been up-front about it. It should have come to Parliament with a Bill to rescind The Law Commission of Canada Act. That’s what any of our 21 previous Prime Ministers would have done.

But to Mr. Harper, Parliament is an inconvenience. Somebody might ask “Why are you doing this?” But he didn’t want to go through all that Parliamentary trouble; so, rather than proposing the abolition of the Commission (a proposal about which there would have been pretty fierce debate on all sides), they just eliminated all funding for it in the federal budget. Governments can do that. Poof – no Law Commission. Nice and quiet. Just one little brick. Hardly noticed.

Then there was the Court Challenges Programme, set up in 1994, which was the means by which a bit of legal help could be provided to a private individual or small organization who didn’t have a lot of money, and who was taking on, or being taken on by, the Government of Canada. It leveled the legal playing field a bit. It was a perfect example of fundamental Canadian fairness.

By convincing a tough panel of judges of the reasonableness of your cause, you could get a little help in paying for some lawyers to go up against the phalanx of legal beagles that could always, and forever, and at public expense, be brought to bear against you by the State. In other words, if you weren’t rich, and if you were taking on or being taken on by the Feds, you might have had a chance. But Mr. Harper doesn’t like being questioned, let alone challenged. It’s so inconvenient! Solution? Quietly announce that the Court Challenges Programme is being, er, discontinued. Poof – no Court Challenges Programme – no court challenges. Hardly noticed.

The Coordination of Access to Information Request System (CAIRS) was created (by a Progressive-Conservative government) in 1989 so that departments of government could harmonize their responses to access-to-information requests that might need multi-departmental responses. It was efficient; it made sure that in most cases the left hand knew what the right hand was doing, or at least what they were saying; and it helped keep government open and accountable. Well, if you’re running a closed-door government, that’s not a good idea, is it? So, as a Treasury Board official explained to the Canadian Press, CAIRS was killed by the Harper government because “extensive” consultations showed it wasn’t valued by government departments. I guess that means that the extensive consultations were all with government departments. Wait! Wasn’t there anybody else with whom to extensively consult? Wasn’t there some other purpose and use for CAIRS? Didn’t it have something to do with openness and accountability? I guess not.

Robert Makichuk, speaking for Mr. Harper’s government, explained that “valuable resources currently being used to maintain CAIRS would be better used in the collection and analysis of improved statistical reporting”. Right. In other words, CAIRS was an inconvenience to the government. So poof – it’s disappeared. And, except for investigative reporters and other people who might (horrors!) ask questions, its loss is hardly noticed.

And the bridge too far for me: Cutting the already-utterly-inadequate funding for the exposure of Canadian art and artists in other countries. That funding was, by any comparison, already laughably miniscule. Mr. Harper says that “ordinary” Canadians don’t support the arts. He’s wrong. And his is now the only government of any significant country in the world that clearly just doesn’t get it.

All these changes were done quietly, cleverly, and under the radar. No fuss. No outcry. Just one little brick at a time. But in these and other ways, our Canadian house is no longer the kind of place it once was. Nobody minds good renovations. Nobody even minds tearing something down, as long as we put up something better in its place. That’s not what has happened.

Mr. Harper fired the head of the Canadian Wheat Board because he was doing his job properly. He removed the head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission because she wanted to make sure that the Chalk River nuclear reactor was safe. Hardly noticed.

There are many more things that were hardly noticed: Cuts to funding for the Status of Women, Adult Learning and Literacy, Environmental Programs, museums funding, and more. All quietly, just one brick at a time. Hardly noticed.

As to campaign promises, everybody in sight on every side is guilty of breaking those. Except the Federal NDP of course, who haven’t yet had the opportunity. (It’s very easy to make promises that you know you will not likely have to keep).

But the government promised to end wait times in health care. They didn’t. They promised to end, once and for all, the whining of some provinces about the non-existent “fiscal imbalance”. They didn’t. They said they had brought final resolution to the softwood lumber problem with the U.S. They haven’t. They promised to create thousands of new child-care spaces in Canada. They haven’t. They promised not to tax income trusts (“We will NEVER do that!” they said). They taxed them. They promised to lower your income tax. They raised it. They said they had a good “made-in-Canada” plan to meet our obligations on climate change. They don’t. Mr. Harper has said plainly that whatever the Americans do is what we’ll do too.

They campaign on a platform of transparency and accountability; but they’re now trying to discredit the Parliamentary Budget Officer that they created, because he’s trying to do the job that they gave him.

Mr. Harper said that our form of government, evolved over centuries from the 900-year-old British Westminster tradition, was all wrong. We had to have fixed election dates, because otherwise, democratic principles would be trampled. ”Fixed election dates”, he said, “stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar. They level the playing field for all parties”.

So Parliament (remember them?) at Mr. Harper’s insistence, passed a law requiring fixed election dates, which Mr. Harper promptly broke.

Somebody once said that we get the kind of government we deserve. What did we do to deserve Mr. Harper?

He once said that we should all “Stand Up for Canada”. Well, let’s do that. We just have to decide whether the present version of Canada is the one that we’ll stand up for. Or stand for.

in which i am halfway done with grad school

Whoo-hoo! Another semester down. Eight courses complete, eight to go. Halfway there!

Snoopy dance 3 Pictures, Images and Photos

4.11.2011

seals, dolphins, cats and other adorableness

Is there anything sweeter than inter-species love?




Check out the penguins in the background! The vid was filmed in South Georgia, which should be in Argentina but is actually part of the United Kingdom.

Many thanks to Stephanie for both of these.

4.10.2011

a book un-censored

I've blogged several times about the American Library Association's Banned Books Week and the Canadian equivalent, Freedom To Read Week. For those of us who care deeply about books and about intellectual freedom, these are important recognitions of the right of authors to publish freely, and the right of readers to encounter and explore ideas, free from fear, punishment or censorship.

Books are banned and censored all the time, so when an important book is restored to its original form - including four-letter words and references to gay sex - it's cause for celebration. I've always wanted to read this book; I picked up a used copy somewhere and it's been on our shelf for years. Now I'll wait to get this new digital version.
When the classic novel "From Here to Eternity" was published in 1951, a few things were gone that had been in the original manuscript: explicit mentions of gay sex and a number of four-letter words.

The author, James Jones, objected to the changes at the time, arguing in a letter to his editor at Scribner that "the things we change in this book for propriety's sake will in five years, or ten years, come in someone else's book anyway." But eventually he gave in to his publisher.

Sixty years later Mr. Jones's estate has made a deal to reissue a digital version of the book that restores those cuts. The book is still in print.

"It's been on my mind for quite a few years, and the right moment just hadn't come up yet," Kaylie Jones, Mr. Jones's daughter, said in a telephone interview. "My father fought bitterly to hold on to every four-letter word in the manuscript. The publisher was concerned about getting through the censors."

The novel follows a group of soldiers at an Army post in Hawaii a few months before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Mr. Jones, who died in 1977, drew from his own Army experiences on Oahu for the novel, which won the National Book Award and is frequently cited as one of the best American novels of the 20th century.

. . . "The text we have has been read by millions of people, and clearly it has been one of the major novels of the middle- and late-20th century," Mr. Hendrick said. "But what was left out of the novel because of the editing in 1950 and 1951 left out many of the gritty details."

The novel was turned into a classic movie with one of the most memorable heterosexual sex scenes of all time, a passionate romp on the beach starring Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr.

Mr. Hendrick said two scenes that had homosexual content were cut from the original version of the book and have been restored in the digital version. In one, a soldier, Pvt. Angelo Maggio (played by Frank Sinatra in the 1953 movie) mentions how he has oral sex with a wealthy man in exchange for $5 or $10 that "comes in handy the middle of the month." Another deals with a military investigation into possible homosexual activity.

Jane Friedman, a former president and chief executive of HarperCollins Publishers, who is a co-founder and chief executive of Open Road, said that republishing Mr. Jones's books was an example of Open Road's mission "to bring the greats back to life."

one not-so-simple rule for all healthy eating

Many many years ago, I was talking with a friend about cooking and food, and she said, "You know what the key to good cooking is? Fresh, quality ingredients." At the time, I didn't know what she meant, but I learned that she was right.

Of course there can be techniques and all manner of specialized knowledge involved in cooking, which I know very little about. And there's experimentation and good recipe advice. Cooking is an evolving process and can always be improved. But the key to solid, basic cooking is using fresh, quality ingredients. Start there, pay attention, and you almost can't go wrong. It's the cornerstone of the whole process.

Recently I realized that healthy eating has a cornerstone, too, one key concept from which everything flows: advanced planning.

You can't eat healthfully without planning in advance. The more you can plan ahead, the more you can control what you eat. The more last-minute and spontaneous your eating, the less healthy it will be.

This applies to whatever manner of healthy eating you're trying to achieve, whether it's cutting down on sodium, fat, white sugar, or processed food, eating less meat, eating more vegetables, or anything else. It all comes down to planning. There are probably exceptions to this, but it's as close to an infallible rule as you'll find.

Here's one small example from my own life. Healthy breakfasts are an ongoing challenge for me. One healthy breakfast that I like is scrambling egg whites with some veggies. If I'm going to eat that once or twice a week, I have to remember to put frozen egg whites and the vegetables I want on the shopping list, thaw the egg whites in advance, and - this is the key - cut up the vegetables and put them in containers in the fridge in advance. Without that, it doesn't happen.

In the morning, after I take Tala out, have my coffee and check my email, I'm hungry, and I'm anxious to start my day. If I have to chop onions, wash and slice mushrooms, and wash and slice bell peppers, this healthy breakfast is not gonna happen. But at another time, maybe when I'm taking a break or already preparing some other food, if I run an onion through the food processor, slice a whole container of mushrooms, and dice a whole bell pepper, then put them in separate containers in the refrigerator... then in the morning, everything is there when I need it. The actual cooking takes only a few minutes.

Not only does this encourage me to eat the better breakfast, it's also much more efficient, since the onion, shrooms and pepper will stay fresh for around two weeks. In fact, it was while I was throwing some already-chopped onions into the skillet, so pleased with myself for having organized this yummy breakfast, that I thought of writing this post.

[You can create an exception to the Advanced Planning Rule if you can afford to buy salads already prepared, lettuce already washed (a mainstay in our home), or vegetables already washed and cut up. This can be very helpful, but still requires some advance planning, as these won't stay fresh as long as whole vegetables.]

To people who are natural planners, the idea that healthy eating requires advanced planning may seem incredibly obvious. But to people who are not naturally inclined to plan ahead or who are resistant to planning, or both, it can be a major obstacle.

If you're accustomed to a lifestyle where you shop weekly with a list, make dinner at home most nights, bring your lunch to work, then planning ahead is so ingrained in your life, you may barely think about it, even though it's something you do all the time.

If your schedule is erratic, or you're constantly pressed for time, if you generally don't think about food until you're hungry, if you have the means to frequently dine out, or any combination of these, planning ahead may seem impossible or undesirable. But you may not realize how much that spontaneity is preventing you from having healthier eating habits.

For many of us, the movement from no or minimal planning to a greater degree of planning occurred with age. In general, young adults plan less, eat more convenience food, are less concerned with nutrition or economizing. But learning how to plan ahead doesn't necessarily come naturally with age. I know lots of people my age who find it very difficult. I'll bet many planners, like me, have partners whose response to "What do you want to do for dinner tonight?" is "I don't know, I can't think that far ahead."

I've learned not to ask, just to plan. I take responsibility for planning dinners for the week - which nights we'll be home, what we have in the house already, what we need to buy - because I don't like what happens when I don't. I like efficiency. Even though I'm not the one doing the shopping, I hate needing multiple trips to the same store that could have been avoided with better planning, or going out to dinner not because we want to, but because there's nothing in the house to eat. Plus, our budget is so tight these days; unplanned dinners out create budget havoc.

Flexibility is important. Sometimes when you have a bad or crazy day, the best thing you can do for yourself is to say, "Let's make this chicken tomorrow night, let's get Chinese food tonight." But on a regular basis, if you "can't think that far ahead" to dinner, chances are good that you'll spend more money and eat less healthfully than you would have if you had planned. No matter how many restaurants include healthy choices on their menus, most people end up eating more and less healthfully in restaurants than they do at home.

If this is an issue for you, like any new habits, you might try starting small: make one change, live with it a while, let it take root as a habit, before adding in another change. If bringing your lunch to work is a stumbling block that you'd like to get past, maybe aim for bringing lunch one day a week. See how that works, then add a second day.

4.09.2011

jason kenney, young u.s. anti-choice activist, part two

Further to my post here, please enjoy this placard.

Thanks to the tweeter who said this and the organizer who put it on a sign!

strategic voting made simple

Further to my essay "why i'm voting liberal even though i don't support michael ignatieff or the liberal party", Impudent Strumpet explains how strategic voting works and how you can make it work for your riding and for Canada.

today, day of action against the war, solidarity with the people of the middle east, rally for respect in toronto

Today, April 9, is a pan-Canadian Day of Action against the War in Afghanistan.

Here we are in the midst of an federal election, and for both the Conservative and the Liberal Parties, the war is not even an issue. We need to put it on the map. At the Canadian Peace Alliance website, you can download posters, fact sheets, window signs, and other resources.

TODAY, you can join an event in your area. And if, like me, you can't come out to demonstrate, you can still email the candidates standing for your riding. Tell them you opposed the extension of Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan. Tell them that Canadian foreign policy should reflect the sensibilities of Canadians, not do the bidding of the US State Department. Tell them: Canada out of Afghanistan!

This is also a day of protest and action in the US: Solidarity with the People of Iraq, Afghanistan and Across the Middle East to End Wars and Occupations, to Bring Our Troops Home and To Rebuild A Fair Economy for All!

On April 9, eight Iraqi civil-society organizations will stage open-ended sit-ins in front of many US military bases scattered throughout their country until "the occupier and its agents" leave. They have called the 9th "The Day of Salvation". To show solidarity with Iraqis and others directly impacted by the US's wars, USians will gather in both New York (April 9) and San Francisco (April 10), in addition to other decentralized actions, including a national phone-in to the White House, urging President Obama to intervene with the Maliki Government to stop violent crackdowns on Iraqi protests: 202.456.1111.

In Toronto, it's not too late to join the Rally for Respect, meeting at Dundas Square and marching to Toronto City Hall to defend communities, public services, and good jobs. Join your neighbours in demanding an end to the budget cuts, closures, user fees, and privatization that will hurt every person and every neighbourhood in Toronto. First Toronto - then all of Ontario. This is organized by dozens of community groups, and endorsed by: ACORN Canada, Toronto and York Region Labour Council, International Women's Day Committee, Good Jobs for All Coalition, Ontario Federation of Labour, Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario, and Canadian Labour Congress. The peace rally in Toronto will march and join up with the Rally for Respect. It's all part of the same picture.

4.08.2011

support bradley manning: sign the petition to end his torture

From Avaaz:
Right now, Wikileaks whistleblower Bradley Manning is being tortured in a US military prison. Manning is subjected to utter isolation that can drive many people insane, with short periods each day where he is stripped naked and abused by jeering inmates.

Manning is awaiting trial for releasing secret military documents to Wikileaks – including a video of US soldiers massacring Iraqi civilians. And his brutal treatment appears to be part of an intimidation campaign to silence whistleblowers and crack down on Wikileaks. The US government is split on this issue, with diplomats publicly criticizing the military for Manning's treatment, but President Obama has stood aside so far.

Obama cares about the US's global reputation - we need to show him that it's at stake here. Let's build a massive global call to the US government to stop torturing Manning and uphold the law. Sign the petition below -- our message will be delivered through hard-hitting ads and actions in Washington DC as soon as we reach 250,000 signatures.
Sign here.

killing is not a game: keep slaughter contests out of ontario


With the federal election in full swing, this is a tough time for any group in Canada trying to gain attention to a local cause. Bad timing, plus the usual dollops of fear and ignorance, may lead Ontario to legalize a disgusting practice that makes a game out of animal slaughter.

Coyote-killing contests - which apparently take place in this province but are illegal - may soon openly flourish. Ontario is considering legalizing coyote-kill contests, and - I've just learned - the period for public comment ends this Monday, April 11. It only takes a moment to click and send a letter to Dalton McGuinty opposing such idiocy.

From an email from the Humane Society International Canada:
Killing animals is not a game. That's why coyote contest kills are illegal in Ontario. But not only do they go on here with a vengeance, now, instead of protecting wildlife, the provincial government is considering making these contests legal.

Unbelievably, Minister of Natural Resources Linda Jeffrey -- who was "absolutely" opposed to the killing -- now says she'll consider endorsing the contests. The laws regulating these contests will be reviewed by the government following a public comment period that ends April 11.

Please contact Premier McGuinty by April 11 and ask him to keep the contests illegal. . . .

In these contests, winners take home a pile of cash for killing the most or biggest animals. It isn't unusual for several hundred coyotes to be killed in a 3 or 4 day event. Instead of teaching the community that we should treasure wildlife, contest kills send the message that entire species of animals are disposable.

Coyote killers claim they're protecting livestock, but other ways exist to protect livestock from coyotes such as electric fencing, strobe lights, and guard animals -- including dogs and llamas -- who integrate very well into livestock herds. Killing coyotes for cash and kicks isn't one of them.


Please click and sign.

4.07.2011

out of context: 9/11, homoerotica and the not-heroic dead

Finding words that do justice to a momentous event is always difficult — especially so, perhaps, in the age of Internet trawling, when a wary eye needs to be kept for the bothersome baggage that may be attached to the perfect-sounding expression. There is an easy mechanism, also time-hallowed, for winnowing out what may be right from what is clearly wrong: it’s called reading.
What do a 9/11 memorial, The Aeneid and gay ancient Greeks* have in common? Find out: "Out of Context".



* Actually Troy, but "gay Trojans" was just too much! The accepted archaeological site of ancient Troy is found in modern-day Turkey; the Troy of Homer and Virgil was Greek.

must-see video: jason kenney as young u.s. anti-choice activist


In the US in the late 1980s, Catholic universities were punishing students for being pro-choice. In one Jesuit-affiliated university in San Francisco, the students did that job themselves, demanding that pro-choice students be expelled from the school.

When the university affirmed students' right to free expression, one student activist petitioned the Church to remove the school's Catholic designation. He vowed to take the fight all the way to Rome if he had to. You'll recognize that enterprising student as the illustrious Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, one Jason Kenney.

There's more - much more - but in order to get the details right, I have to wait for Anglophone media to pick this up.

Story in Le Devoir: Des fous de Dieu chez les conservateurs.

4.06.2011

good war resister news: positive decision in dean walcott's case!

Another Victory for War resisters in Federal Court: Federal Court judge orders new Humanitarian and Compassionate Application and Pre-Removal Risk Assessment for war resister Dean Walcott!

In a strongly worded decision, Justice de Montigny affirmed that the Immigration Officer who denied Dean’s application to stay in Canada did not adequately address his conscientious objections to the war and the harsh punishment he would face if deported to the United States.

The court made it clear that applications to stay in Canada on Humanitarian & Compassionate grounds cannot be properly addressed unless “the sincere moral and political objections that motivated” war resisters to refuse to participate in the Iraq war are taken into account.

The judge strongly affirmed that the long prison sentences and other harsh treatment given to war resisters who publicly speak out against the war amounts to persecution.

Along with the recent Federal Court of Appeals decision Jeremy Hinzman's case, this decision is in keeping with the beliefs of the majority of Canadian people. We again call on the Canadian government to make a provision to allow war resisters to stay. We urge supporters of US war resisters in Canada to continue to raise this issue at every opportunity. During the federal election campaign, we are demanding that Operational Bulletin 202 be rescinded. You can find resources here.

* * * *

Lawyer Alyssa Manning gave us the rundown on this decision tonight, and it could not have been more positive. Once again, the Federal Court took the Harper Government and its politicized Ministry of Immigration to task. This decision has the potential to impact the cases of all war resisters from now on. And seen through an even wider lens, the decision clearly shows that the law is moving towards recognizing any punishment of conscientious objectors as persecution. We're not there yet, but we're moving in that direction, and Alyssa's work is part of the picture.

You can read the decision here.

4.05.2011

which canada will you vote for? in words and pictures

Here are two excellent election-related pieces, both lists of a sort - lists about what Stephen Harper has done to Canada.

"Canada watches its democracy erode" by Ramesh Thakur, who teaches political science at University of Waterloo

and

"Which Canada will You vote for?", a graphic essay by Michael Nabert.

The Thakur essay ran in the The Australian and in various internet venues, you'll find people claiming that "the Aussies" know more about Canada than Canadians do. I'll grant you that many Canadians live in a bubble of ignorance, but this essay is not proof of anything except why you should not vote Conservative.
Edmund Burke noted that all that was necessary for evil to triumph was for good men to do nothing. 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.

The centralisation 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, Britain, Canada and the US, 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.

A minister told parliament she did not know who had altered a document that cut funding to a foreign aid group. Later, she admitted to ordering the changes, but did not know who had carried out the order. Lying to parliament, a cardinal sin of Westminster-style democracy, has become a political tactic.

Following rulings by Speaker Peter Milliken, for the first time in Canadian history, the government and a minister have been found to be in contempt of parliament for withholding information and misleading the house.

The Integrity Commissioner was so inept that she failed to uphold a single one of more than 200 whistle-blowing complaints.

Forced out of office by the ensuing public outcry, she was awarded a $C500,000 severance package on condition that neither she nor the government talk about it.

That is, a public servant paid by the taxpayer was financially gagged by yet more taxpayer money to stop taxpayers finding out what was going on.

When a foreign service officer blew the whistle on the Canadian military handing over detainees to Afghan security forces, in likely violation of international humanitarian law, the government tried to destroy him and refused to give documents to a parliamentary inquiry. The Speaker reminded the government parliament controlled cabinet, not the other way round.
Michael Nabert's can't be adequately quoted here; you've got to click through.

Thanks to James for both of these!

"why i'm voting liberal even though i'm not a liberal" at the mark

My piece "Why I'm Holding My Nose and Voting Ignatieff" is now running at The Mark.

I still don't feel altogether comfortable with the choice, and I'm sure I never will. But I've examined it from every angle, and this time out, this is what I have to do.

4.04.2011

slutwalk toronto a success, the struggle the continues

This past weekend in Toronto, more than 1,000 people participated in SlutWalk Toronto, a public demonstration to assert women's rights to dress and act as they wish, without fear of sexual violence, and to assert that how a woman dresses is not the cause of sexual violence.

SlutWalk was inspired by a recent incident at York University: at a forum on campus safety, a police officer remarked that women should not "dress like sluts" in order to not be victimized. For more on SlutWalk, its origins and its goals, please visit the SlutWalk Toronto website.

The officer later apologized, but like most public statements that require apologies, the initial statement was revelatory. It offered more proof of something we already know: that many people still subscribe to antiquated myths and stereotypes about sexual assault, and beliefs about sexual assault are still used to attempt to control women's behaviour. The officer's remark made it clear (yet again) that the people who are supposed to be protecting the public are often doing just the opposite.

Thus, SlutWalk was born. Sonya Barnett, an organizer of SlutWalk, is quoted on blogTO:
As the city's major protective service, the Toronto Police have perpetuated the myth and stereotype of 'the slut', and in doing so have failed us.... Being assaulted isn't about what you wear; it's not even about sex; but using a pejorative term to rationalize inexcusable behaviour creates an environment in which it's okay to blame the victim."
The blogTO interview with Barnett about the origins of SlutWalk is very good.

In many ways, the police in most North American and European cities have come a very long way from the bad old days when women were routinely blamed for having been raped, then forced to endure the "second rape" by the judicial system. Laws have changed, prosecution has changed, and many, many police and juries have changed, too.

This change didn't happen through some natural evolutionary process. Police, prosecutors and judges didn't wake up one day and decide rape was the fault of rapists, not their victims. It is the hard-won product of decades of feminist activism.

But most often, such progress applies only to women considered "good victims" - white, middle class, behaving in socially sanctioned ways - and in stranger assaults (that is, where the victim doesn't know her assailant). Women of colour, low-income women, women from marginalized communities (sex workers, drug addicts, trans women), and almost all men, can still expect police to treat them like trash, and so, rarely report sexual assault.

In assaults where the victim knows her or his assailant, of if the victim and assailant have had prior consensual sex, it's still very tough going for almost anyone. The old standby applies: we've come a long way, and we have a long way to go.

Good coverage and pics from SlutWalk Toronto are here. Worth reading if you can avoid comments.

dog-adoption heartache part two and updates on other nonsense

Looking for a Dog Number Six is turning out to be very painful.

You'll recall that we narrowed the field to two dogs. The one in the shelter has been adopted. Yay! The other, being fostered by a local rescue group, is not going to be ours. Rescue Group wants a $400 adoption fee, which is about twice what we were expecting.

We routinely pay hundreds of dollars of vet bills, and many time have spent (rather, charged) thousands of dollars of surgery and all manners of special procedures when our dogs have needed anything. Our monthly expenses have always included dog medications, often to an extent that many people would find ridiculous. In our experience, a new dog always needs some medical care right out of the gate. We expect that. Yet to spend $400 just to bring a dog home, when that dog is with a loving foster family right now, is a bit rough for us right now - especially considering there are so many other dogs that need homes.

I had an e-mail conversation with Rescue Group. From her point of view, a person who won't spend whatever adoption fee is requested is a bad risk, someone who doesn't understand that a dog is "well worth that money". From my point of view, she is preventing this dog from finding an excellent forever home over $200. She made it clear the fee was non-negotiable, we wished each other well, and that was that.

I wonder if people in our area who can easily afford a $400 adoption fee are going the rescue route or would tend to purchase a pure-bred dog. Rescue does not seem to be as common here as it is, for example, in New York.

But more importantly, there are so many dogs who need homes. I'd rather spend that $200 on food and care for our new dog than reimburse someone else for their fostering expenses. There are so many dogs at Toronto Animal Services. Why not take one of those?

Why not indeed. I looked at so many dogs on Petfinder this weekend, my heart is aching. I saw so many older dogs in need of adoption. Why are so many older dogs surrendered? What does it feel like to be dropped off at a shelter or a vet's office, to wait for your family's return, only they never come back? What is wrong with people, why do they do that, how do they live with themselves?

We clearly started looking too early. Here's our new plan. Our projected adoption date is Monday, April 25. We'll look at the shelter website that weekend. Of whoever is available, we'll pick a dog closest to our preferred type, and that will be Dog Number Six.

Elsewhere in Allan-and-Laura-land, our washing machine broke in the middle of a cycle, we are writing our Small Claims Court claim, and I still have a final exam to study for and write. Whine, whine, whine. I'm feeling a bit put-upon.

4.03.2011

must-share video: dog rescue in japan


My heart goes out to the amazing Japanese rescue people who went to such lengths to save a dog's life.
The Japanese coast guard today rescued a dog washed out to sea with a house by the tsunami from the March 11 earthquake, Reuters reports.

A coast guard helicopter was investigating an island of debris off Kesennuma, in northern Japan, when the dog was spotted on a house roof. Frightened by the rotors, the animal disappeared inside, evading efforts to save him. A boat was sent after the helicopter ran low on fuel, and rescuers were able to catch the dog, who was described as "emaciated but alive."
The video won't embed, but you can watch it here, after 27 seconds of product pitch.

Wonderful update! The dog has been reunited with its owner!

4.02.2011

five questions for stephen harper: post yours here

Stephen Harper - famous for sticking to his prepared script and not answering questions from the media (that is, from the people, because that's as close as we get) - has decided he will answer questions after all.

Five.

He'll answer five questions.

Harper has transferred his famously control-freak style of governance from the PMO to the campaign trail. He will answer questions, but only five, and from a media held behind a yellow fence, 12 metres away.

The strategy described by this Vancouver Sun commentary is well-known to USians: it's exactly how Republican handlers worked GWB.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper held his news conference Thursday and declined to tell journalists — corralled behind a yellow fence over 12 metres away — why he limits the daily encounters to just five questions.

The episode highlighted the brewing issue of whether Harper, as the apparent front-runner in the race, is running a campaign in a bubble to prevent embarrassing mistakes.

After several days, it is clear his daily schedule is carefully designed to minimize political risk. Harper has not done any "walkabouts" on city streets where average voters can meet him. Moreover, the photo-ops with voters — such as at a seniors' home and a deli — have been pre-arranged. Also, people who attend rallies must be on a list to gain entry to the event.

Harper only provides one news conference per day, and it is specifically designed to ensure that it is not free-wheeling. Journalists who are travelling with his campaign tour are, as a group, only allowed to ask four questions. One more question goes to a local journalist at the news conference.

On Thursday, Harper was asked to explain why — when Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP leader Jack Layton provide news conferences with no limits on questions — he insists on no more five questions.

Harper chose not to answer that question and moved on to the next questioner. [See comments for more on this.]
In light of this, I thought we should start compiling our own five-question lists for Harper. It's not easy to do, but if we each take five, we could cover a lot of ground.

I'll kick things off. Please add yours in comments.

Five questions for Stephen Harper:

1. Why do you refuse to answer certain questions during this election campaign?

2. Do you believe Canadians have a right to know the truth about the government they are being asked to elect?

3. Do you believe Canadians have a right to ask the government questions?

4. Many Canadians feel your government and your style of leadership has been un-democratic, even anti-democratic. Without reference to partisanship or the opposition, what is your response to those concerns?

5. Given that, in the past, you have acknowledged the need for and the legitimacy of coalition governments - and given that coalition governments are constitutional and are quite common in other Parliamentary systems - isn't your ongoing campaign against a coalition government deceitful, as your real motive for opposing coalitions is simply to remain in power?

4.01.2011

elections are not decided by polls, and other thoughts on fair elections

I'm starting to think that in order to have fair elections, we not only have to ban all paid political advertising - an obvious improvement I've been running on about for years - but we must ban political polling too.

Maybe as soon as the writ drops, all pollsters should a mandatory six-week vacation. They could work privately for the parties and whoever else commissions them, but they would be embargoed from releasing results to media, and parties would be similarly prohibited. If we are concerned with the integrity of elections, this daily barrage of poll numbers has got to stop.

This country is insane for polls. We are constantly bombarded with the percentage of Canadians who have done this, haven't done that, bought something, ate something, thought about buying something, thought about trying something... it never ends. But daily polling during an election campaign is not only annoying and unnecessary. It's potentially damaging to democracy.

In a perfect world, voter turnout would always be high. Citizens would understand that there are substantial differences between the major political parties, and that decisions made in Parliament have profound and permanent effects. Everyone would understand that voting is the bare minimum of political participation, and they would take their voting rights and responsibilities seriously.

But, much to the joy of the corporate rulers of our world, and whichever black cat or white cat is currently in power, masses of people in North America who are eligible to vote, don't. Like most measures of quality of life and health of democracy, things are a bit better in Canada than the US. The 2008 federal elections in Canada showed the lowest turnout in Canadian history, yet that exceeded turnout in every US presidential election except three (1960, 1964, 1968, all in the low 60% range). (Sources: here, here, here.)

When it comes to US elections, turnout may be the least important problem. Elections are fraudulent in many respects: political parties control voter registration, voter rolls, vote counting, and a host of other shenanigans. There is no US equivalent of Elections Canada - a fact many Canadians are amazed to learn. It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that both the 2000 and 2004 US presidential elections were fixed. And of course, there are only two parties, and they differ only in rhetoric.

Both countries use an undemocratic first-past-the-post system, but at least in Canada the units are much smaller. Imagine if every Ontario vote went to one party! And at least in Canada there's hope that we may one day have a proportional representation election system. I think.

So, returning from my digression... turnout is low all around. There are many reasons for this - lack of trust in the system, learned helplessness (the belief that one's actions cannot affect outcomes), ignorance, fear, and probably many other complex reasons that are poorly understood. It's often called "apathy", but that's a broad term that explains very little. People do care about their own lives, and they do care about issues. But they may not understand how what happens in government actually affects those issues they care about. Or they may not believe they have any choice.

But given that so many people don't vote, isn't it likely that constant predictions on the outcome of an election - especially that one particular outcome is all but certain - only serve to further suppress voting?

I suppose there's an argument that certain poll results might stimulate voting. For example, we recently heard that 74% of Canadians do not want a Harper majority government. If polls show the Conservatives on the verge of a majority, perhaps more people will vote in order to prevent it. It's a weak argument, at best. It applies only to very specific situations, and it's based mainly on wishful thinking. Rather than try to calculate which poll results might increase turnout and which may decrease it, why not just wait until the people have their say?

We're all so accustomed to this constant polling that we accept it as a natural fixture of the political landscape. But if you stand back and think about it, what good do polls serve? Not to the parties and the candidates - to the public. If we had absolutely no idea what was going to happen on election day, or if we are constantly being told what will happen, what difference does it make?

I can think of only one difference this constant polling might reasonably make: people thinking they already know the outcome of the election - so why vote.