Posts Tagged ‘Stephen Harper’

In Remembrance of the Charter of Rights and Freedom

Saturday, November 13th, 2010

William Hogarth, "Court of Law"By Elizabeth Littlejohn

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- John F. Kennedy (1917 – 1963), in a speech at the White House, 1962

I write this on the eve of Remembrance Day, 2010, as PM Harper flies to South Korea for a repeat performance of the G20, as three days of testimonies unfold in Toronto and Montreal to question RCMP conduct, and the government continues to refuse a public inquiry into the G20. This judicial inquiry is morally imperative as it would enable the federal court to subpoena evidence from witnesses under oath to knit together the patchwork of incriminating evidence, establish the chain of command of policing during the G20, and finally assign culpability. Both parties are standing firm- this all-encompassing inquiry must not be allowed happen. It may be the only issue they agree upon at this time, having closed ranks to goose-step around civil liberties. Meanwhile, PM Harper is fiddling while Rome burns, selling more of our assets to multinationals in South Korea. Has it occurred to him that Canada is not his to sell?

I dedicate this article to my grandfather, who fought in the First World War, and was one of the few who survived the air force. He came back so shell-shocked that if his family spoke while he drove, he had to pull over to the side of the road to calm down. Within my extended family, several members have been awarded Orders of Canada for public service. I am, however, a vilified ‘protester’, as I believe that there must be a full inquiry into the G8/G20 Summit so that both levels of government are forced to be responsible for the gross abuse of police power, violation of civil liberties and powers of taxation, and desecration of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the Charter cannot defend its own constitution and abrogation of civil rights, it is a constitution no longer.

It is exactly one week since I witnessed the voting down of the second reading of Bill 121, a public interest investigation into the G8/G20 Summit tabled by Welland’s NDP MPP, Peter Kormos, by 8 ‘ayes’ to 28 ‘neas’ in Queen’s Park. Upon the resounding ‘nea’ across the floor by the consolidated Liberals and Conservatives, there was a unanimous, audible gasp by those in the peanut gallery. Included in that singular voice was my own, and within an hour, having sped away on my round legs, I was listening to Chris Hedges talk about his new book, “The Death of the Liberal Class” at the Munk School for Global Affairs. His lecture was a play-by-play of what I had seen at Queen’s Park, and spoke directly to me.

Could it be, according to Chris Hedges, that the liberal left – unions, churches and universities, progressive political parties, and the press – has lost moral suasion as a guiding voice for democratic dialogue? Have we abandoned our moral compass in favour of corporate elitism? And have we allowed the gutting of ethics, and the erosion of civil liberties, for financial gain? As I watched the provincial NDP fight back at Queen’s Park, and be mocked for their efforts by the opposing parties, I thought no- it is worse- citizens’ rights are being viewed with contempt as they contest the streamlining of economic interests, the growing division between the rich and poor, and the destruction of the environment. As Chris Hedges notes, without a robust liberal voice to engage in this debate, there is a very real danger that things will degrade into violence as the middle and working classes become increasingly disenfranchised, angry and confused. Internationally, general strikes rage, generated by falsely imposed austerity measures imposed by the banks, and Chris Hedges predicts that the US, then Canada, will be next, on the front line. A cynical friend said that no doubt the Conservatives had a contingency fund for legal challenges as part of their G20 bottom line, a line item right after their $500, 000 worth of delegate party favours -glow sticks, hand sanitizer, and $100 pens.

At Queen’s Park, throughout the presentation of the bill, I was distressed by the disregard the opposition had for the NDP. They held extended conversations during their presentation, loud enough to be heard by me in the upper gallery, to show their displeasure at the possibility of the second reading of Bill 121. For me, as a Canadian citizen, it was a momentous historical occasion, for the Liberals and Conservatives, it was a $1.3 billion farce of the highest order, worthy of a William Hogarth cartoon – when Peter Kormos mentioned the editorial in the Star demanding a formal inquiry, a Liberal MPP turned to the fashion section, searching for it there. I watched her. A MPP from the Muskoka region, Garfield Dunlop, mentioned the success of the G8 in Huntsville, although I heard how golfers were losing balls off the green, and militia were crawling out of the brush, holding the golf ball up, and warning them not to hit off the fairway again.

I have always been ambivalent about the Ontario Parliament Network, the official channel of the provincial legislature, but I was glad that it was recording and broadcasting this debate for posterity, ignored as it was by the opposition. MPPs, please be aware that you are being observed. I have heard how the intellectual level of discourse, as transcribed in the Hansard, the official record, is the lowest it has ever been historically, but the resounding speeches of NDP MPPs, Peter Kormos, Andrea Horwath, and Cheri DiNovo , showed courage, a monumental standing up for the underdog. As I left the gallery, I made the universal symbol for typing to Cheri DiNovo. I will transcribe my own citizen’s Hansard of events, and I will remember this travesty of justice in the defense of the Charter, and my grandfather, who fought for a kinder, gentler Canada, and my right to protest. During the G20, police erased incriminating photographs on iPhones by resetting the factory settings to default, and stomping on memory cards, to erase incriminating evidence of police brutality. I refuse to let these memories be erased.

Later, at the lecture, deeply shaken, I asked Chris Hedges about the vilification of protesters, and he spoke of having his microphone cut off, twice, during a lecture, and being escorted off a university campus. The press reported that he had created a riot, and the university sent him his coat by mail. Protesters, intellectuals, academics, environmentalists- these are all epithets, just as a Liberal MP pointed out the eloquence of Peter Kormos was due to his background as a lawyer during the Bill 121 debate. Those who ask for educated discussion are discredited to enable bigotry and prejudice, as PM Harper plays his role as ideologue to evade facts, discourage analysis, and hold court through emotion. Elitists, environmentalists, lawyers, lefties, union members, protesters- these have all become dirty words – just read the comments section online, and see how democratic discourse has descended into name calling, supported by this new form of government.

There will be no justice until there is a public inquiry, which ties together the disparate inquiries into a coherent series of events enabled by a chain of command, and yes, assigns blame. We deserve to know what happened, and not to be distracted by the pomp and circumstance of yet another G20 Summit, quick on the heels of our own. Regulation 233/10, the five meter fence rule, will lead right back to the Premier McGuinty’s office, then to the Prime Minister’s Office.

Investigation of this fallacious law will prove PM Harper’s desire to cut away the backbone of peaceful resistance by targeting caring, educated and engaged youth to ensure their future political passivity. The young woman, hit by rubber bullets, may never return to Toronto, and sadly, these memories of the state of martial law have changed a generation’s perception of police. As an educator, I will never forget this deliberate humiliation of over eleven hundred protesters, and as a citizen, I will never forget that my grandfather fought for naught, because I can be taxed to the hilt to have my civil liberties suspended for a political spectacle enabling police brutality, and civilian abuse. Canada is not safer since the Summits and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been allowed to be put into question, and with that, the fundamental rights of every citizen. Shame.

References:
Hedges, Chris. The Death of the Liberal Class. New York: Nation, 2010. Print.
Theo Moudakis, Opinion in Toronto Star, Public Inquiry November 1st, link at http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/article/883743–g20-summit-public-inquiry-still-required
Krystalline Kraus, “Activist Communique: Ontario G20 inquiry public members bill failed to pass second reading and the Summit cost totals”, ‏link at http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/krystalline-kraus/2010/11/activist-communiqu%C3%A9-ontario-g20-inquiry-public-members-bill
The Hansard, November 4th, http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?locale=en&Date=2010-11-04&detailPage=%2Fhouse-proceedings%2Ftranscripts%2Ffiles_html%2F04-NOV-2010_L066.htm&Parl=39&Sess=2#P1300_294131

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Assault on Democracy, Corporate Globalization, Economic policies, Environment, Featured, Labour, The Real Issues | No Comments »

A registry to prevent crime, not domestic violence

Wednesday, September 29th, 2010

By Claire Tremblay at rabble.ca,  September 28, 2010.

We suspected it and now it is confirmed. The Conservatives don’t think domestic violence is a crime.

MP Candace Hoeppner said as much on CBC Radio, no less, in Toronto last week. At the tail-end of her long, failed crusade against the long-gun registry, she distinguished use of the registry in domestic violence from fighting crime.

She said: “if the only defence of it [the gun registry] right now is domestic violence” then that means “nobody is saying that it [the registry] stops crime anymore.” It’s hard to interpret that any other way than it expressing the thought that domestic violence is not a crime.

Conservatives appear to think preventing suicides is a bit of a waste of time too. Apparently, the only lives the gun registry is worth saving are those that are caused by “criminal” activity. Or, as Hoeppner puts it: “I’m kind of watching with interest the pro argument that’s being made. It doesn’t even have to do with stopping crime in the sense of criminal activity. It has to do with domestic violence and suicide.”

So, as this reasoning would appear to suggest: if someone wants to go ahead and kill themselves, fine — it ain’t a crime is it? And the gun registry is supposed to be there to prevent crimes, like duh. In this argument, Ms Hoeppner appears to be working with a different definition of crime on behalf of her Conservative colleagues. A definition that defies the Criminal Code of Canada that says a murder is a murder no matter who commits it. One that says when a woman is killed by her husband it’s not a crime, but if she’s killed by a stranger on the street, it is a crime. A definition that in a nutshell that diminishes the nature and impact of a husband killing his wife, because a man’s home is his castle.

Or perhaps Hoeppner isn’t aware that most murders are not committed by strangers. The fact is, women are more often than not murdered by the intimate males in their lives. In the seven-year period from 2000 to 2006, more than 500 women in Canada were shot, stabbed, strangled or beaten to death by the intimate males in their lives. To provide perspective on these figures: 101 Canadian soldiers and police officers were killed here at home and in Afghanistan during a seven-year period of war in the same decade(Figures are from The War on Women: Elly Amour, Jane Hurshman and Criminal Violence in Canadian Homes, by Brian Vallée.)

In Hoeppner’s view, it would appear that the gun registry is a dud because it doesn’t prevent deaths cause by crime, you know, the Conservative’s definition of a “real” crime. But for those of us who are an uneducated lot who call a tragedy a tragedy no matter how it occurs, the gun registry really does seem to have something going for it. Gun deaths have dropped by a third since implementation. And for those even less uneducated of us who think that a murder is a crime — whether it happens on the street or behind closed doors, it is great value. Police use this tool more than 13,000 times a day. There is a reason for that. That’s because unlike Hoeppner, police treat an attempted murder as a crime — where it happens or by whom and to whom doesn’t matter. But, then again, the police and the Conservatives haven’t been agreeing on much lately.

“Uneducated” policemen, who wouldn’t know a crime if it hit them, know that a woman is 12 times more likely to be murdered if a gun is involved in domestic violence. They know that they need to remove a gun from someone who is beating up another person. They know if they remove a gun from a premises where a woman and or her children are at risk, they might save their lives. There is a reason for that: statistics from the Domestic Violence Death Review Committee found firearms to be present in 47 per cent of domestic homicides in 2007. They also know that 88 per cent of women shot in domestic violence are shot by a long gun. If police know a registered long gun is on the premises and someone is at risk, it needs to be removed. Guns can kill, period.

At $4 million a year, the gun registry costs two times the price tag of the G8/G20 Fake Lake pavillion. Or if you really want to knuckle down to it — it costs 10 cents per Canadian per year to operate. Better still, it costs nothing to register a gun and is a simple on-line “operation” (so it won’t hurt a bit) that takes no longer than booking a hotel. So let’s all pry those two nickels from our cold, cold hands and get on with the business of protecting public safety.

Claire Tremblay is the Co-ordinator of the Ad Hoc Coalition for Women’s Equality and Human Rights.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Featured, Gender and Sexuality, The Real Issues | No Comments »

Annual bird mortality in tar sands tailings ponds exceeds government/industry figures: Study

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

By Treeline Ecological Research | September 7, 2010

Edmonton – A study in the peer-reviewed journal The Wilson Journal of Ornithology to be published in early September (online in late August) shows annual bird mortality in the bitumen tailings ponds of northeastern Alberta – an internationally significant migratory bird corridor – greatly exceeds industry estimates.

The authors investigated three types of data: government-industry reported mortalities; rates of bird deaths at tailings ponds; and rates of landing, oiling, and mortality to quantify annual bird mortality due to exposure to tailings ponds.

For the period 2000 to 2007, reporting by industry indicated a mean annual mortality from tailings pond exposure of 65 birds. The study, entitled “Annual Bird Mortality in the Bitumen Tailings Ponds in Northeastern Alberta,” however, indicated an annual mortality in the range of 458 to 5,029 birds – a range deemed conservative because birds found dead represent an unknown fraction of true mortality and data do not include mortalities that occur before spring, between spring and fall migration, and after fall migration. The wide range in the annual mortality estimates is due in large part to spatial and temporal variations in bird mortality rates.

“The ad hoc monitoring by industry, sanctioned by government, cannot address pressing questions whose answers would aid in the conservation of both migratory and resident birds,” said Dr. Kevin Timoney of Treeline Ecological Research, one of the study’s authors along with Dr. Robert Roncini of Dalhousie University.

Other findings of the study include:

Landing deterrent systems at tailings ponds are only partially effective. The only way to prevent bird deaths is to discontinue the use of tailings ponds.

While tailings ponds, which contain bitumen, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, naphthenic acids, brine, heavy metals, and ammonia, pose the greatest threat in spring when warm effluent-fed tailings ponds provide open water at a time when natural water bodies remain frozen, a high risk of oiling may extend throughout the open water season.

The fate of lightly oiled birds that continue migration, in particular to summer breeding areas, is unknown.

The total number of birds migrating through the region and the total annual bird mortality due to tailings ponds are not known with sufficient scientific rigor.

Data on mortalities during extreme weather events and on the frequency of mass mortality events are lacking.

The study concludes: “Government-overseen monitoring within a statistically valid design, standardized across all facilities, is needed. Systematic monitoring and accurate, timely reporting would provide data useful to all those concerned with bird conservation and management in the tar sands region.”

This press release appeared on rabble.ca on September 7, 2010

Image via treehugger.com

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Animal Rights, Environment, Health, The Real Issues | 5 Comments »

Clare Demerse: Leaked G20 documents – Canada won’t cut extra subsidies for fossil fuels

Wednesday, August 18th, 2010

Canada’s section of a leaked G20 document detailing plans to phase out fossil fuel subsidies reveals that Canada has no plans to phase out any of its estimated $2 billion a year in tax breaks to oil and gas producers.

By Clare Demerse, Pembina Institute Climate Change Blog
Originally Published Jun 29, 2010
Image courtesy of ImageShack.us

Despite the Harper government’s decision to downplay climate and energy issues at the G20 summit, there was no way to avoid a discussion of phasing out fossil fuel subsides. That’s because leaders at the previous G20 summit, held in Pittsburgh in September 2009, decided to phase out these subsidies “over the medium term” – and specifically asked ministers to prepare implementation plans and timetables for discussion in Toronto.

The Toronto summit gave G20 leaders an opportunity to take the next step with their subsidy commitment by agreeing to a joint target and timeline. (That’s exactly the approach that Stephen Harper proposed, and won agreement on, for reducing the G20′s budget deficits.) And G20′s Toronto declaration does refer to fossil fuel subsidies – but it doesn’t set a common target or timeline. Instead, Paragraph 42 welcomes “the work of Finance and Energy Ministers in delivering implementation strategies and timeframes, based on national circumstances.” It also encourages “continued and full implementation of country-specific strategies” and commits to reviewing “progress towards this commitment at upcoming summits.”

The problem with a “country-specific” approach is that there’s no common definition of what constitutes a subsidy, and no collective deadline for getting rid of them. So instead of a joint commitment with mutual accountability, you end up with a potluck, where everyone can decide for themselves what they want to bring. Some people will make a mouthwatering dessert, but others will merely pick up some ketchup chips en route to the party – or even arrive empty-handed.

Canada’s Contribution

Officially, the G20 has not released countries’ implementation plans and timeframes. But thanks to a leaked document published yesterday by the U.S. news service ClimateWire , we now know that they prepared to do exactly that: the group drafted a 50-page annex listing the G20′s plans and actions, with the words “Not for distribution until the Toronto summit” right on the cover.

Unfortunately, Canada’s section does not make for inspiring reading. It offers no new plans to phase out any of the estimated $2 billion a year (as described in a previous blog post ) in current tax breaks to oil and gas producers. Instead, it relies on a commitment from Budget 2007 to phase out a specific subsidy to the oil sands – a good decision, but one made long before the Pittsburgh commitment.

In other words, if the G20′s approach is a potluck dinner, Canada arrived with some stale leftovers.

We can’t say that we weren’t warned. In late May, articles from journalist Mike de Souza described a leaked memo from the Department of Finance to federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. The memo gave the minister two choices:

• “Lead by example” in phasing out Canada’s remaining tax breaks to the producers of oil, gas and coal. This was the option that the department recommended, for a number of very sound environmental and economic reasons.

• Make no policy change and instead “seek to minimize the commitment”.

Just in case Minister Flaherty went against the department’s advice and chose the second option, his officials provided him the arguments he could use to try to defend it. On page six of the memo, Finance officials suggest listing three older commitments as evidence of Canada’s early action.[1] The government’s 2007 decision to phase out the accelerated capital cost allowance to the oil sands could be portrayed as “a current action helping to fulfill the commitment,” according to the memo.

It’s very telling to compare that list with Canada’s actual G20 submission : while the G20 document is a bit longer, the content is almost identical. You rarely get to see such clear documentation of a minister’s decision to override his own officials’ recommendations on the right course of action. 

We outlined our concerns with Canada’s approach at a media briefing over the weekend, and we’re going to keep pushing the government to re-think its attempt to “minimize” the Pittsburgh commitment.

One argument we’ll be making is to compare and contrast Canada’s approach with President Obama’s, because Canada’s government often likes to say that it’s harmonized with the U.S. on climate policy. But in his budget plan for this year (see Table 14.3 on p.30), President Obama has proposed phasing out 12 specific subsidies to the producers of oil, gas and coal, which they estimate will save a cumulative total of $38 billion from 2011 to 2020.

So it turns out that some countries did show up with goodies in hand to the G20′s subsidies potluck. But despite the extra pressure of hosting the party, Canada wasn’t one of them.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Economic policies, Environment, Featured, The Real Issues | 3 Comments »

Sing it! “I don’t like Stephen Harper”

Sunday, August 1st, 2010

A Video by Michael Napiorkowski

This is a song that was performed by Richard Underhill in Kensington Market in 2008. Perhaps this can become the theme song for those of us who are concerned about the direction this government is taking our country in. Hopefully,  it will inspire those who are not happy with the leadership of the Harper government, but haven’t gotten involved yet, to get active, get organized and get involved!

For more videos by Michael, visit his YouTube page.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Featured Video, Political Art, The Real Issues, Video | No Comments »

What the media ignored: 25,000 peacefully demonstrate against G20 policies in Toronto

Monday, July 5th, 2010

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in The Real Issues, Video | No Comments »