Election!

Well I was working on FB but there is just too much to say. . . too many links I want to share . . .  so many feelings. . . so much to comment on. . .  so much to worry about. . .

First, my views are NOT reflected by any of the current political parties.   I have voted NDP for 25 years, love Megan Leslie and  will be supporting the NDP in this election.   (and I ask you to do so too )

I was actually impressed by Elizabeth May in the last election,  until she indicated that she was in fact a Liberal - just another opportunist apparently with no ideology/positions to speak of,  just a desire for power.   So although the CBC - find which party you are closest to -  poll today indicated that I was a Green (seems like if you come out on the left socially and economically you end up a Green - though truly I don't think that reflects where they are on the spectrum. . . ) I think that poll was either inadvertently skewed or intentionally telling people that they are Green and not NDP to split the progressive (though many of us holding our noses either way) votes.

I don't think that there is a lot of difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals - although I do think that the Conservatives have "fascist" tendencies, and so I fear them more.  I think that they were less transparent and border on corrupt. They hate women, and immigrants, and anyone who is not an able-bodied white male.  They certainly have no respect for parliament or for process - the only things that protect us in a democracy - along with Citizen participation, of course,  which is ebbing away in every election as people believe it makes no difference which party you vote for. . .

I no longer want armed revolution (aggressive violence seems pointless to me and just results in the death of too many innocent men, women and children) but, I am not sure that it is possible to vote ourselves outside of neo-liberalism.  Even the NDP,  I think, would only be kinder/gentler neo-liberals and ideally I want a whole new system that valourizes public good, that is centred around reproducing people (in reasonable numbers) and not producing "widgets", that is truly democratic and reflects the will of the majority, but defends the rights of minority views and communities. So yea, I am a democratic socialist.

So without another option I am supporting the NDP in this election and ask you to do so. (even though they for example, continue to, too often, defend Israel - what should be a pariah state - among other things)  I ask you to vote.  In fact, I beg you.  I suggested to my oldest son one day that the country had moved right (and it was depressing me) and he said - no it hasn't,  it is just that we have lost 15% of voters in the last 10 years -- please come back. See the table below from Elections Canada and Please vote.

4 September 1984	24,343,181	16,774,941	12,638,424	75.3
21 November 1988	25,309,331	17,639,001	13,281,191	75.3
26 October 19922-3	20,400,896	13,725,966	9,855,978	71.8
25 October 1993	27,296,859	19,906,796	13,863,135	69.64
2 June 1997	27,296,859	19,663,478	13,174,698	67.0
27 November 2000	28,846,761	21,243,473	12,997,185	61.25
28 June 2004	30,007,094	22,466,621	13,683,570	60.9
23 January 2006	30,007,094	23,054,615	14,908,703	64.7
14 October 2008	31,612,897	23,677,639	13,929,093	58.8

So more on this election. . .

I believe that a coalition government is a good idea unless the NDP can actually take power.  Not impossible as LaPresse poll indicates that the NDP is now at 20% in Quebec and the Liberals at 11%!!! (Bloc 38% and Cons 23%)   I don't know why we cannot at least discuss it now and I don't know why Canadians don't like it - perhaps I should blog about how Parliament works - we elect parliament and they elect the government. Once parliament is elected the members that represent the largest party normally become the government and their leader becomes Prime Minister but in a very minority situation many permutations are possible including a "coalition government" which is common in other countires - that's what they have no win the U.K.

Harper is constantly "on" about how this is some sort of "coup" or doesn't reflect the "will of the people". . . but I think that the people should be demanding that the government of Canada be made up of the largest number of  MP's possible and not just one party. . .   that is simply not working.   Harper shows his ignorance and pettiness and meanness and small mindedness and apparently gets away with it - as he himself signed onto a coalition of this sort in 2004.

So, just in case you have not yet got the message - support the NDP - no strategic voting please!  And if you need a history lesson on why Harper is sooooooo  bad - check this out. 10 reasons to oppose the Harper government - the Harperium. . .   those with contempt for Parliament and Canadians and who care more for coporations

Majority of Americans support the legalization of marijuana, Economist says.

According to this article, in the Economist, 

A huge majority of Americans, more than two to one once don’t knows have been excluded, support the legalisation and taxation of marijuana. Even without excluding the don’t knows, a clear majority favours treating the drug equivalently to tobacco and alcohol.

It also concludes that: 

If our poll is right, then it can only be a matter of time before laws start to change, at least in the more liberal states.

The poll is interesting, but I did think of equivalencies from the past. . .

E.g. During the heatlh care debate it was clear that the MAJORITY of  Americans wanted real health care reform, but the law makers - affected no doubt by the lobbyists from big-pharma, private hospitals and insurance companies were convinced, by lobbyists,  that doom and gloom were the only possible outcomes (or maybe American Politicians are literally just corrupt and giving into bribes - esp in the form of donations to their re-election campaigns) See, for example: this article from Physicians for a National Health Program
Once you explain health care reform to Americans - they support it.

So, I suspect that since legalizing marijuana would have a number of positive effects on the general population - fewer people, especially young people with criminal records, fewer people in prison, fewer people gumming up the court system etc. All of these factors reducing costs that must be born by taxpayers.  That is, it is not just the potential tax revenue. . .   Anyway, I can see that "the people" will want to legalize it (personally I wish it were not regulated for personal use - except maybe by limiting what you could grow - to avoid large scale operations - so that one could grow 6-8 plants for personal use without having to resort to buying from the state - but that debate is for another day. . . much like you can make wine and consume it but not sell it.) but that there are "interests" in society that oppose it, in self-interest.

Anyway, the legalization of marijuana has a negative effect on some parts of the economy and might reduce the need for or reduce the expansion of prisons, policing, courts, and even other medications.  So, who do you figure is lobbying against the legalization and regulation of marijuana?  Llikely those companies that build and operate private prisons, those that make a living from the courts and that need or want large volumes of cases  and those that sell drugs that a cheap or home grown marijuana could replace.

As a result I am not expecting legalization or regulation, in the U.S.  any time soon -

Canadians seem to be split on the issue of legalization in most polls, but it seem more likely to happen here first. . . though not with the present government!   They apparently want to lock up as many people as possible and put them into private, for profit prisons - I am guessing owned by their friends or people they want for some reason to impress - the market should not be in the business of prisons!!!!

I remember once before linking to an article by Conrad Black about how private prisons are bad - and I have read information by Marc Emory (Prince of Pot) who is currently incarcerated in an American private prison - which he claims does not operate according to the rules set out for prisons in the U.S. - but since one is a "prisoner" there is no place to complain.

I think legalized and regulated marijuana would be a good thing - unlike most Canadians though I would like to see all drug problems treated like a health problem and not a criminal one -

Democracy

______________________________________________________________________
Yesterday, I wrote about the goings on in the U.S. about legislating away Collective Bargaining. I tripped over a great interview with Noam Chomsky, by Amy Goodman analyzing the U.S. drive to bust the unions. . . 
"Democracy Uprising" in the U.S.A.?: Noam Chomsky on Wisconsin’s
______________________________________________________________________

Just BTW - In Egypt - not a single woman on the committee to write the constitution. . .    just sayin'.
The Egyptian Centre for Women's Rights
 ________________________________________________
Today I am thinking about "democracy" . . . 

Definitions of democracy on the web include:  

• the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives
• a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
• majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

What is democracy?  Is it always "representative"?  Does one "have to believe in it"?  Is it a "political orientation", a natural occurrence, a learned tactic, a principle or an ideology?  Is it an economic statement, a political one or a social ideal?  Do we have it in Canada?  Is it "democracy with limits", "democracy with exceptions" or just limited democracy.  It certainly exists in only certain spheres - like at the ballot box, but not generally at work, and for too many women and children still not at home.


People think about democracy a  lot and conflate it a lot with capitalism.   I wrote a blog about that a while back - but now I think people are possibly even more confused about democracy but also have had "enough".   The word "democracy" is getting thrown around a lot as the middle east engages in "demonstrations for democracy". or "pro-democracy demonstrations".   

I began to think about "democracy" (again) more earnestly when an article in an Israeli paper made mention of "democracy with exceptions". . . meaning that you cannot vote for those we do not like. (i.e Islamists)   For instance, even though, in Gaza,  the Hamas was elected (though now saying, according to some suspect sources, that they will not participate in elections) and Hugo Chavez was elected President in Venezuela (see South of the Border - a film about the South American/Bolivarian revolutions) -- through "democratic elections". . . on the news, though, (even CBC radio recently!) they are often called "dictators" as they are opposed to U.S. hegemony in their respective regions. . .


So, trying to relate these thoughts about "democracy"  to my city, region, province, country, work and home life. . . I thought first about work -- I teach courses to union members, generally trying to make them "active";  to give them tools and information to help them mobilize, organize and monitor in their workplace.  The union is truly democratic and run by those who are elected and/or by those who take on tasks and show up to do the work.   But, given the total size of the organization few people are real participants in this truly democratic organization.  So, the processes are democratic (and they truly are) but the participation is small and so is it really "democratic"?   Do people get what they want?   Do they want what is good for them?  Is it the greatest good for the greatest number? What if the majority want to leave the union, or bargain away overtime, in order to feel like management rather than union employees.  Will this really improve things for them at work?  Does democracy just mean "majority rules"?  Does it need to be tempered with individual rights, ad rights for minorities?   What about the right to eat, or have a house, or work, or have children?


I have been thinking about a comment made by a participant in a class in December, 2010.  She said that people "don't believe in democracy anymore", and, by that, she did not mean that people don't see it as an ideal - but that people no longer think there is actually any democracy, anywhere.   That's why they do not show up to vote in elections - it makes no difference, they say, there is no point in participating - someone (the rich and corporations if they think it through, though most don't)  else's needs and desires will be filled but not mine. . .whether I donate to a political party, vote in an election, write a letter to the editor or get on the street with my co-workers. I won't get what I need, so what is the point?  (Partly for myself - I wonder sometimes - what do you need in Canada?  when 80% of the world lives on $5.50 (USD) per day or less. . .  just sayin' - should probably think about that 80% of the world more and stop sweating over our receding democracy. . . ) 


Still connected to thinking about democracy - Last summer, I attended a fabulous conference in Montreal - held by Civicus.  The Civicus World Assembly was 800 or so people from 94 countries talking about how to make progress with civil society players - "the people" - not political parties or governments or corporations but people (and they definitely include unions in the list of "civil society actors".|)  

Aside --  I got access to this pricey conference (for an individual in North America - those from the south pay less) by being a "professional blogger",  part of their Web 2.0 team and was one of the very few folks there from a union (and the union did not actually send me) but I hope that more union folks will attend this year - it was fabulous, and definitely worthwhile!) Go check it out -- http://www.civicusassembly.org/  60% off now!  Unions should send people - I cannot go this year because the dates,  in Sept.,  are right at the beginning of my busiest period in my union's two year education cycle.  But it is one last time in Montreal next year (2012) and I hope to be able to attend before it moves to some more distant part of the world. 

At one 2010 Civicus workshop session (at a table of 6-7) two of the participants were from Burma (Myanmar) and when I complained about the lack of participation of Canadians - especially in political parties or election outcomes, even voting - an older man from Burma - said - "ah and here we are thinking that if we just had pluralistic political parties and democracy, all of our problems would be solved!"  (Guess it is all a matter of perspective and how many people in your country watch TV and who controls the content of the TV or radio broadcasts).


Another aside (a little trouble staying coherent this morning!)  - www.Rabble.ca  had a great article about how we believe things to be "true" and that if the same person tells you over and over wrong facts or strange analysis you will soon come to believe that many people believe those same things. It was in an article about Fox News North bt I cannot find it now. . .   Anyway, if there is no truth, is it possible democracy can exist.   If the majority want what is good for a tiny minority (the rich are blessed by god and we should deny them nothing) is that democracy?


If the majority of Canadians want the rich and corporations to pay more taxes,  and if even the NDP is taking it off the table - and the Liberals (who have the same Neoliberal economic policies as the Conservatives) for the moment still say they want the most recent reductions rolled back. . . What IS THE POINT?  Maybe Capitalism simply does not allow for real democracy.   What do you think?

Make the Rich Pay.

I am at a bit of a loss to explain the attack on the public sector these days. . . it is fast and furious - and culminates this week in a cry for reduced pensions for politicians.

They (the media?  the public?  the right masquerading as one or both?) have already called noisily for the reduction of public sector pensions - because after working 30 years at a decent salary and contributing ( in my case) nearly 10% of every pay to pension contributions - public sector workers are being told that the pension is "too rich". . .   what is that about?

By the way, like most other Canadians,  when/if I retire (if I could at 65) I will have 12 years in a public sector pension plan, that pension plan paying me about 24% of my pay in a pension, when I retire.  I have about about $16,000 in personal RRSP's, from when I had no pension plan (working for non-profits and trying to save the world,  and not worrying about my income now or later,  even though I am well educated and have a lot of skills) and a husband who worked part time, freelance jobs in film and TV all his life,  and has nothing but a small CPP pension.  We will  be poor, if and when I retire.  I had hoped to retire young enough to "see the world" but as a parent with a boomerang who returned with two small children, a husband who became unemployed (and is over 50 and not finding it easy to get work that does not involve saying "you want fries with that" - and in fact, not sure he could get hired in fast food!) late in life, and a reasonable public sector type income (I, in fact, now work for a union); it is not going to happen - no "seeing the world" for me - at least not when I retire - no volunteering in India (after all that effort to study Hindi!), and no money to take the grand kids to Disney World. . .  or winter in sunny climes or summer on the beach. . .

In addition, the provincial and national debts are being blamed on public sector workers - who do not set the tax rates, or decide (they can advise but not decide - I draw your attention to exhibit A - the Oda Case) where money, and how much money, will be spent - they do deliver the services that the public howls about when they are NOT delivered or there is a wait, or they refuse to work unpaid overtime to make up for staff shortages  and/or unfilled positions . . .


Anyway, now the U.S. is trying it on big time -  OUTLAWING collective bargaining in the public sector

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin lawmakers are prepared to pass a momentous bill that would strip government workers of nearly all collective bargaining rights over the loud objections of thousands of teachers, students and prison guards who packed the Capitol for two days of protests.The nation's most aggressive anti-union proposal has been speeding through the Legislature since Republican Gov. Scott Walker introduced it a week ago. After clearing a major legislative hurdle Wednesday night, it was headed to votes in the Senate and Assembly.

Up to 20,000 people filled the Statehouse on Wednesday, cheering, singing and chanting in demonstrations unlike any seen in Madison for decades. Their numbers included many families and teachers from the Madison school district, which was forced to close after more than 40% of its 2,600-union covered employees called in sick.

and with Harper in Ottawa looking for a majority - and his penchant to follow the lead of the U.S. these news stories are startling. . .   Rob Ford in Toronto wants to follow some of this lead, too (He's the new crazy right wing mayor of Toronto whose win is barely fathomable) and start privatizing city services from garbage to transit in order to "bust the unions".   Sigh . . .   So, in the U.S. actual outlawing of collective bargaining - we are where?  In some middle east or North African  dictatorship ?   Bit of a joke there, this week as the middle east populations get to their feet and demand real democracy (our phony kind is gonna' look bad soon).


Canada had a middle class partly based on our union density and the ability of labour to make sure that some profits stayed in the country and benefited Canadians. . .  in taxes paid and purchasing power to improve and expand the economy . . .

But there has been no increase in real wages in the last 2-3 decades (see The Bubble, James Laxer, The Trouble with Billionaires - Linda McQuiag and Neil Brooks or   
The spirit level : why greater equality makes societies stronger /by Wilkinson, Richard G.)  and instead of getting together and demanding more, voting the bums out (and a real government of the people in) or demanding changes in taxation most people seem to have accepted that it is all the fault of their neighbours and work colleagues, a fault of the "overpaid" public service workers.

If you want to have a nurse that's competent and happy, the next time you or a loved one is in hospital; if you want to have forest workers, and fire fighters risk their lives the next time a forest burns too close to your home; if you want to get an appointment to apply for a driver's license or you want some one making sure that the drugs you take (OK that system is not working very well but that's for another post!) are safe - then you have to defend, and not attack, public sector workers.

Is there a solution?   to debt, reduction of services and increased taxes on the poor and middle class - Well one is proposed by the National Union of Government and General Employees - a union of public sector unions across the country - Have the rich and corporations pay their share!   it is a much better solution than blaming public sector workers!  They - who help maintain a middle class int his country - and should not be blamed for it.

International Day to Eliminate Poverty

	"The campaign to make poverty history - a central moral challenge of our age - cannot remain a task for the few, it must become a calling for the many. On this International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, I urge everyone to join this struggle. Together, we can make real and sufficient progress towards the end of poverty."
	United Nations Ex-Secretary-General, Kofi Annan "Excerpts taken from his message  to be delivered on the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty , 17 October 2006".

 Today, October 17th is the International day to Eradicate Poverty, and as a result I have spent some considerable time this week in meetings, or just in conversation with people about poverty. . .   and here is what I have learned . . .

The vast majority of people here in Nova Scotia, Canada believe that poverty (in Nova Scotia, not in the Global South)  is pretty personal, that the causes are identifiable as lack of education or opportunity and  and that the solutions lie in charity and better public services.   Although there are many reasons for the income discrepancies in this country, no one seems, at least at first blush, to think about   the systemic reasons. . .  

Isn't poverty a result of the income distribution system?   A large portion of jobs (I wish I knew how many) are minimum wage or low income jobs. (5.5% of jobs in Nova Scotia were minimum wage in 2005.  I cannot find data for the last 5 years  -- any suggestions?  Since the minimum wage has increased three times since then and since the actual real dollar increase in wages has been pretty stagnant it does make me wonder if the percentage might be higher now. . .)  Since we primarily use work to distribute income, if you are sick or disabled or mentally challenged, or mentally ill, or addicted or a hundred other reasons that keep you from working, then you will receive  so-called "income assistance" which, of course puts you well below the poverty line.  Usually assumed to be the LICO's set by stats Canada.   

There is an old Marxist theory about "surplus labour".  The theory being that employers want to keep an "army" or "pool" of surplus labour (those not working)  in order to keep wages low.  With capital able to gallop around the world they not only encourage that but it is a matter of public policy.  (Starting with Paul Martin and probably before, the government believes that they have no need to work to lower the unemployment rate;  that around 8% is acceptable.) They have been moving capital around for 30 years and out of North America for the last 20+.   Just take the plant/factory/call centre and move it to where wages are lower.    Now, in a place like Nova Scotia, where we have an aging population and we are not even replacing the steadily declining population - there is a shortage of labour,.   That should drive wages up, but guess what? It does not.  Instead,  the federal government allows what they call "temporary foreign workers" to take jobs that cannot be filled by Canadians.   When you look at the list of occupations they all look like professionals. but the reality is here in Nova Scotia that there are many workers (mostly from the Philippines) that are here on these work permits to work at Wendy's and Tim Horton's; there are 9-12 working at the St. Mary's Smoke House (fish plant) in Sherbrooke, Guysborough County, Nova Scotia where there is a 30% unemployment rate and where there would have been a line to get these $10 an hour jobs.   No one knows how they got approved. ..

Anyway, my point is that poverty is not caused by my personal failings or illness - my addiction is as likely to be a symptom of poverty (thank you,  Gina) as the cause - but is systemic.

 This video of Malcolm Gladwell is American but identifies part of the problem -- the rich are NOT paying their share in the north,  and rich corporations and a small number of ultra rich folks are just reaping the rewards of thieving the resources from the Global South.

Palestinians, Fighting Poverty, Bill C-354 and thoughts on Cuba

This week the Human Rights Committee, of the U.N. made public their paper on the May 2010 attack on the Flotilla trying to take aid to Gaza, and the murders on the Mavi Marmara.

The draft paper which will be presented to the committee on Monday,  called:
Report of the international fact-finding mission to investigate violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, resulting from the Israeli attacks on the flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian assistance.

They say in the summary that:

This report was prepared by the fact-finding mission established by the Human Rights Council in resolution A/HRC/RES/14/1 of 2 June 2010 to investigate violations of international law, including international humanitarian law and human rights law,  resulting from the interception by Israeli forces of the humanitarian aid flotilla bound for  Gaza on 31 May 2010 during which nine people were killed and many others injured. . .

             . . .

The report contains a legal analysis of facts as determined by the Mission with a view to determining whether violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, took place.
The fact-finding mission concluded that a series of violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, were committed by the Israeli forces during the interception of the flotilla and during the detention of passengers in  Israel prior to deportation.

 The whole report is rather damning, although most media coverage in Israel writes it off suggesting that the committee was "biased from the beginning" and that the U.N. is generally biased toward Israel.

The report suggests that Israel's boarding of the Mavi Marmara (and others in the flotilla) in International Waters, was illegal and that they have broken the 4th Geneva Convention and that some people could face criminal charges, as there is "clear evidence to support prosecutions."  There are many more conclusions and recommendations - from paying compensation to victims to returning the property that Israel seized from passengers.

Part of the recommendation which also includes a statement that there IS, in fact, a humanitarian crisis in Gaza,  says:

The Mission considers that several violations and offences have been committed. It
is not satisfied that, in the time available, it can say that it has been able to compile a
comprehensive list of all offences. However, there is clear evidence to support prosecutions of the following crimes within the terms of article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:
• wilful killing;
• torture or inhuman treatment;
• wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.

The Mission also considers that a series of violations of Israel’s obligations under
international human rights law have taken place, including:
• right to life (article 6, ICCPR);
• torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (article 7,
ICCPR; CAT);
• right to liberty and security of the person and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention (article 9, ICCPR);
• right of detainees to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of
the human person (article 10, ICCPR);
• freedom of expression (article 19, ICCPR).
The right to an effective remedy should be guaranteed to all victims. The mission must not
be understood to be saying that this is a comprehensive list by any means.

A Canadian boat to Gaza is planned for another Int'l Contingent - - to assist or donate see more at:
http://canadaboatgaza.org/cms/sites/cbg/en/statement.aspx

Another interesting development in the Middle East - there is now an IPhone app created by Americans for Peace Now  re: "facts on the ground" in the occupied territories.   It is quite a WOW sounding app - though I have not had a chance to try it.   The story says that:

Settlements are symbolized by little blue houses on the map. Clicking once on the icon gives its land area. A second click brings up a window with more details: the year it was established, population, ideology (or lack of), character (secular or religious), amount of 'private Palestinian land' it occupies, and a graph that tracks its population growth.
iPhone users can also zoom in on outposts marked in red. The map includes the route of the Green Line, Jerusalem's municipal boundaries, and the various zones under different security arrangements, Area A and Area B.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Also today - some (I think) good news from Cuba.


A story today,  following on the announcement that they are laying off a lot of government workers says:

Cuban authorities will issue licences to open small private businesses starting next month in 138 different areas of economic activity, as well as to rent out homes, Cuban state media reported Friday.
The move follows Cuba's announcement earlier this month of plans to eliminate 500,000 jobs in its sprawling government sector by the first quarter of 2011.
The Cuban Communist Party daily Granma published a list of trades that will be allowed to engage in self-employment, including masons, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, massage therapists, typists, hairdressers, computer programmers, domestic personnel, driving instructors and flower salesmen.
'Those who are registered as self-employed and those who join them will have the obligation to pay taxes on personal income, on sales, on public services and on the use of labour force, beyond contributing to social security,' Granma said.

Allowing Cubans to have small businesses, and to hire other workers is new - here's hoping that it is of assistance, and that once the economy is a little less controlled, perhaps the controls on civil society will be lessened, although I do not want to see Cuba become another poor Caribbean nation with huge income disparities. . .   as well as an example of civil society and Trade Union repression.    My own experiences in Cuba (but I do not speak Spanish well enough to have a political discussion) are that people don;t like the system but think it is "fair".  They are reasonably happy with  the fact that incomes are pretty fairly allocated and they do not see a big difference.  They are, though, rather unhappy to be prohibited from leaving the country "on holiday", and some people complained about lack of access to medicine even though they had money.  In Havana that was the most common complaint from hospitality workers who can amass the cash (from tips) but cannot take a trip (money cannot leave the country frivolously I guess. . . )

_________________________________________________________________________________

When I attended the Civicus Congress  this year, I learned a bit about fighting  against poverty and for Human rights.  One of the people I interviewed was Sylvia Borren, the co-chair of the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (Whiteband) Campaign.   She spoke at length about how we, in the north,  have laws that protect the children and women (and men, of course) in our countries from gross exploitation.    If a company was to use child labour in Canada they would face stiff penalties, especially if there was trafficking involved. . . .  But, if a Canadian company is using child labour in India or China, or some other country, there are no such penalties.  Now NDP member of the House of Commons Peter Julien has introduced a Private members Bill - Bill 354  to support international protection of human rights - not just in Canada,  anymore.

There is a conference on Parliament hill tomorrow that I wish I could attend on this topic.  There is a Rabble story about it - but what you can do if you cannot attend the conference is help Peter push the Bill by printing out and signing the petition at:
http://peterjulian.ndp.ca/sites/default/files/Petition- A call to support Bill C-354_The international promotion and protection of human rights act. ENG.pdf

Wouldn't it be meaningful if we could force Canadian companies to act with ethics, considering human rights and non-exploitation everywhere they worked/invested/manufactured etc.   I do not expect the Bill to pass -- there are too many people in Ottawa beholden to or too friendly with international corporations/finance,  but it is dream that I support, and that I think would/could be supported by most working Canadians.  Bravo Peter J.

Democracy, "free markets" and a "free press".

A month or so ago, I wrote a post about Economic Justice and it has caused some questions - but one of the main ones is about the relationship of economics to democracy.

Can you have democracy without a free press, or a free market?   What is a free press or a free market?  What is democracy,  anyway?

 Even if a consensus on precise definitions has proved elusive, most observers today would agree that, at a minimum, the fundamental features of a democracy include government based on majority rule and the consent of the governed, the existence of free and fair elections, the protection of minorities and respect for basic human rights. Democracy presupposes equality before the law, due process and political pluralism. Is reference to these basic features sufficient for a satisfactory concept of democracy?

That definition from the Economist's, Democracy Index, is,  I think,  OK with me.  Too often though there is conflation of the concept of democracy with unfettered markets.   In my view, the words free press and free market generally mean a society where one can purchase and invest without limitations,  in which one can purchase a press/media/access to an audience and run it unencumbered - these days even by promoting insurrection or an overthrow of the government, if you happen to be in a State that wants a non-American model. (Cuba and Venezuela and China come to mind, though obviously Cuba takes the worst of the criticism,  then Venezuela and then China,  even though Venezuela has free and independent elections and China has none.)  But, we do have a lot of trade with China (they make it, we buy it) and they are not expected to part with their "state" oil, whereas small South American countries are expected to make it available, cheaply to U.S. interests or they are "dictatorships" - like Venezuela which, in fact, has had free elections with int'l observers.



Most definitions seem to assume that a free press is just one which runs encumbered by the State and it's regulations - where the state does not regulate the press in any way.  But is this really a "free" press?  Those governments that have more planned economies, promote legislation to help the poor, and/or that do not have completely open "markets" where rich Americans (primarily) cannot just come in and take the resources and flee, or exploit the labour and flee, and who regulate the press, to try and educate people and resist the attempts of trans-national corporations and their lies  - can they have a "free" press?  How would we measure it?  Hopefully,  not by following the resistance to hate speech, and calling it a failure of free speech, as the so-called "International Free Press Society" does.

Too often I hear people talk about democracy related to "free markets".  Free markets generally means an unencumbered, even unregulated market - one where people are less important than profit; one where corporations have the same rights as people,  and where you have more "rights" when you have more money.  As soon as a society starts to regulate, to make society "fairer", more "just" -  at that point - corporations, and people with lots of money,  start crying foul because they cannot make a profit from your labour, or by exploiting our common resources, without paying a fee/royalties or taxes, or just being outright prevented from their aims.

There is a difference between democracy and a free market.  One can vote for leadership, at the neighbourhood, district, region, province/state or national level.  If the votes are fair and no one is banned from voting,  (there is total suffrage),  if the system is fair (probably a system of proportional representation) and if votes cannot be purchased either directly or through media buys, there is a level of human rights, and no oppression of minorities,  then one has a democracy, I think.   But if, as in the U.S., there is no control over who can fund, or how much one can fund a political campaign, and no regulation of what you can say once you buy the time to broadcast or deliver in print, then it becomes, in my analysis, less democratic.

Now, what about the so-called "free press" - what makes it free?  Is it access for all?  Is it a fair distribution of paper and the airways?   No - it is a so-called "free press" when it can be purchased and when you can say anything that you like with that purchased access to an audience.   Is it really a "free press" when it is only available to those with the money to purchase national media?  Again, my analysis would suggest that this is not in fact a "free press".  This is a press available to the highest bidder, or the one with cronies in the business, or who controls a large corporation that can make a media buy like the recent purchase of CTV by BCE Inc.

I simply cannot understand why universally, people are not constantly asking questions about this democracy, free press, free market set of false notions.   No one (well not on the TV news, or in the national/mainstream press) calls Saudi Arabia a dictatorship, or an authoritarian regime, or worries that it is undemocratic, no one sends me petitions to sign about the position of women in Saudi, no one talks about press censorship in Saudi or any of the related Arab states. . . (OK occasionally there is news that a Canadian or U.S. national is going to be "put to death" or "flogged' for some  - by our standards - insignificant crime, but this tends to be short lived) Why?  Because although they are extreme and undemocratic - they have "free markets", and a press friendly to a capitalist economic system, unfettered markets and foreign investment.   In Saudi Arabia, only males over 21 may vote, there are few ballots, and, according to The Economist's Democracy Index, the Saudi government is the seventh most authoritarian regime from among the 167 countries rated.  It is also according to the World Bank - the 13th easiest country in the world in which to do business. . . and really,  they seem to ask - what could be more important?  I am having a "go" at Saudi because they are not democratic, bad on Human Rights and yet they are considered a good, easy place to do business and so we seldom see them maligned in the "free press".   Iran on the other hand - also with Sharia law, with actually more freedom for women, and which ranks higher on the democracy scale (for authoritarian regimes mind you) is constantly maligned in the press (not that I am suggesting that it should not be) and although higher on the democracy scale than Saudi, is 137th in ease of doing business, compared to Saudi's 13th. Also, Saudi Arabia is the world's leading country in the case of torture-by-flogging , public beheadings and publically crucifying condemned prisoners.  But Iran as we know, is far more vilified.

Again, according to the Economist Democracy Index -

The principle of the protection of basic human rights is widely accepted.
It is embodied in constitutions throughout the world as well as in the UN Charter and international agreements such as the Helsinki Final Act. Basic human rights include
freedom of speech, expression and the press; freedom of religion; freedom of assembly and association;  and the right to due judicial process. All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule. But rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic. In a democracy majority rule must be combined with guarantees of individual human rights and the rights of minorities.

Sept. 12, 2010 - this morning there is also this story at Rabble -

As a hunger strike by over 30 Mapuche political prisoners in Chile reaches a critical stage, international media attention is growing for their demands for an end to the anti-terrorist laws under which they were tried and convicted. These regressive laws remain on the books from the era of the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, and have been routinely used against leaders of the Mapuche's struggle to defend their land and autonomy.
The hunger strike began on July 12, and many of the prisoners are now in very precarious health, having lost up to 18 kg.
The Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada website does not include a word about the Mapuche hunger strike. In contrast, over the past two months the Canadian government has issued five press releases concerning human rights in Iran.[my bolding]

So why don't our "democratic" countries speak out for the rights of others,  in these countries, even the ones that are "easy to do business in".  We would not allow someone to procure children for sexual slavery or trafficking of their labour in our own country,  but we do not condemn it or allow charges against those of our own citizens who do this in other countries,  and,  although there is at least some outcry about individual child sexual abusers (even if it happens in Thailand) there is no outcry when corporations with a "head office", or  with substantial interests here, in Canada, use child labour in other countries.   There is no demand that there be open disclosure from corporations about where and how they source their products and the conditions of work and the workers who make,  or pick,  or sew the products in question.   Why not?  If there is democracy here, and we consider it of value, why shouldn't there be democracy everywhere and why should we not demand it/insist on it -  at least with our purchasing power,  and of those corporations who want to have the right of a citizen here - then have the responsibility of a citizen of a democracy -  everywhere. 

In the meantime, how do you define democracy?  Is the Economist Index helpful, does it measure the right things?  Are capitalism and so-called "free markets" related to democracy or does democracy mean something different to you?  What would democracy at work, look like?

For me,  democracy should mean that everyone has access to citizen participation tools and organizations that can improve economic justice, the environment, relative poverty and improved distribution of income, everyone has equal access to the opportunities in the society, and no class or gender or race or religion, or ability or lack of it,  holds you back from participating in making things better for yourself, your family, your community and the world.

CEO's, charities and private members' bills

A couple of days ago,  there was an unbelievable post in the Globe and Mail.   I am sputtering with a kind of rage after reading it, although daily the mainstream press does make me rage or cry.

The Globe piece was written in response to a private member's bill that sets out to limit the salaries of CEO's of charities.  I don't know what drove the member to introduce the bill, but it seems reasonable to me, although it might have been good to include something about minimum salaries because too many people in the sector make way too little money!

It is the case that everyone pays a portion of these salaries since charities pay NO taxes - so there does need to be a public good in the work that they do, and the public should be benefiting from their work.  The federal government registers charities and gives them numbers so that they can in turn, give out charitable receipts for the donations,  so that people do NOT pay taxes on the money that they donate (or at least it has a tax benefit - not $1 -$1 depending on how much you donate and your income.)

So the federal government on behalf of Canadians, gives out the numbers and set out rules for charities about how much you can spend on administration,  and how you have to report,  and how quickly you must spend the donated money etc.  (It is a complex system and people without MBA's and law degrees figure it out every year. )   Anyway the private members bill, for good reason wants to limit the salaries of charities to no more than $250,000 per year.  Now given that amount  is 5X the average salary of a Canadian that seems like it should attract sufficient "talent". . .   As far as I can see, to make big money,  you just have to not care - and to take the lesser dollars one has to care about the work and not the income.   I mean $100,000 a year is in the top 5% of income earners in this country - 250,0000 is in the top 1-2% . . . we really cannot find the talent to run a charity (even a big one) in 95-98% of the working population?

The article says in part:

But what if, in fact, we’re actually hurting the needy by restricting charity salaries? What if it is the case – as it is with most of the rest of the economic world – that when you increase the amount of money you are willing to pay, you can recruit from a better talent pool, and if you recruit from a better talent pool, you can get leaders who can increase the amount of money being raised for the needy?

What we don’t realize is that the kinds of restrictions being proposed have a powerful negative effect. They create stark, mutually exclusive choices between doing well and doing good for the brightest young minds coming out of our best universities, law schools and business schools. As a result, tens of thousands of them – any one of whom might have made an enormous difference fighting social problems – march directly into the for-profit sector each year without even considering a career in charity, because they are unwilling to make the kind of lifelong economic sacrifice that the charity ethic requires of them. Their talents are lost to the needy forever and gained for a lifetime by the marketers of Budweiser, BMW and Botox. How is that smart? 

 Because I can see the heads nodding, I felt compelled to explain why this is so misguided.

I would like to see data, applying to non-profits and charities that suggests that "when you increase the amount of money you are willing to pay, you can recruit from a better talent pool, and if you recruit from a better talent pool, you can get leaders who can increase the amount of money being raised for the needy?"

All those people that are only out for their own benefit, who go where their income can be maximized, they are a better talent pool for the charity sector?  This may be great for the "Capital Casino" that  these folks normally work in, and they may be smart enough to run a charity, but I fail to see the connection.  There is some magic about $250,000 to get the best and most committed?   If you get more talent, you get better leaders?   Of course being a talented money maker/manager makes you great at running a charity because it is just like the "capital casino" - it is just like the captains of industry to want to "increase the amount of money raised for the "needy"!  For the Needy?   What year is this? This smacks of improving life for those in the poor house.   You know what else? Those charities that pay the big bucks - hospitals and universities are at the top of the list are hardly for the needy -- charities for the so-called needy - we are talking the Elizabeth Fry and John Howard Societies, the drop in's for the mentally ill, the Oxfam's and Care and Service Canada. . . for the 70% of the world even worse off than poor Canadians.    Will increasing their CEO's salary really get better talent that can raise more money?   Maybe,  but only because they are better connected to the money already!  And I will take THAT into consideration,  (always hire rich people to raise money as they can make their rich friends donate in larger numbers than I can) but more "talent"? - not on your life.

Imagine the talent that it takes to run an operation on a shoe strong, so that all the money can go to "clients and services";  where you have to worry about the number of photocopies that you are using; or making sure that you keep enough money in the bank,  after providing service,  to make payroll every two weeks; where you have to worry about your administration costs as a percentage of your income,  because you don't have an organization like a University or a hospital that has a separate "foundation" that raises the money so that all that University and hospital admin is covered not by the charity dollars but by the hospital or university. . .  yup we really need those financial cowboys to be running the charities of the country.

Last thing about salaries - somehow the author of this article keeps stating that people shouldn't have to make "financial sacrifices" in order to do charitable work -  and I agree - but let's lift all those folks making $25-45,000 per year up - let's have them earn in the $60-80,000 range - CEO's? they can make up to $100,000 or,  as the Bill's author suggests - $250,000.   Who, is making a financial sacrifice at $250,000/year?  More than double, nearly triple,  the average family income in Canada.

You know what else, there is more that is wrong with "charities". . . the charities in this country were once advocates for the poor,  and if you like,  "needy" - but that is no longer allowed.  If you want to advocate for the poor, a change in legislation, an increase in benefit,  or a change in taxes - you better not be doing it as a charity.  So, these days my money  goes to organizations that advocate and educate but cannot get charitable status - the CCPA, the Media Coop(The Dominion), Rabble and Straight Goods, Greenpeace.    (Well OK I gave money for Pakistan, and a couple of friends were raising money for the Stephen Lewis Foundation and N.S. Gambia and well OK - I am loose with my bucks, and I carry change to give away on the street)  I certainly don't think that immediately, everyone should do this - especially when it comes to charities that work on Int'l Development but. . .

I have a suggestion - lets not have this discussion about how much to pay the Charity CEO's - lets have a progressive tax system where the rich and the corporations pay their share; lets have a decent guaranteed annual income, use tax dollars to provide needed services,  and use our charity dollars to try and eliminate the $2.00 divide. (70%+ of the world lives on less than $2.00 a day)  That will eliminate a need for six figure salaries for those running "charities" altogether, we can just eliminate the need for the work.

Corporate and Gov't Internet Control

This was originally written for and posted on the Civicus Blog 

Short but sweet - Just thought I should post a link to a piece in the Economist . . . as it is of interest to those defending a civil society space . . . as an internet - no longer accessible, no longer free and possibly controlled and monitored by states could be an increasing problem.

It shows a graph of country's requests to remove information . . .

[caption id="attachment_276" align="alignnone" width="595" caption="From the Economist"][/caption]

There is also a full article on controls that governments and corporations are trying to set up to have more "sovereignty" over the information on the web.

It speaks to the "balkanization and possible reduction in "freedom" and free access to and on the internet.

That article says in part:

. . . a decade and a half ago. . . [it was]prophesied [that] a digital paradise in which not only would commerce be frictionless and growth exponential, but democracy would be direct and the nation-state would no longer exist.

. . .

. . . The internet was a wide-open space, a new frontier. For the first time, anyone could communicate electronically with anyone else—globally and essentially free of charge. . .

. . .


Fifteen years after its first manifestation as a global, unifying network, it has entered its second phase: it appears to be balkanising, torn apart by three separate, but related forces.

First, governments are increasingly reasserting their sovereignty. Recently several countries have demanded that their law-enforcement agencies have access to e-mails sent from BlackBerry smart-phones. This week India, which had threatened to cut off BlackBerry service at the end of August, granted RIM, the device’s maker, an extra two months while authorities consider the firm’s proposal to comply. However, it has also said that it is going after other communication-service providers, notably Google and Skype.

Second, big IT companies are building their own digital territories, where they set the rules and control or limit connections to other parts of the internet. Third, network owners would like to treat different types of traffic differently, in effect creating faster and slower lanes on the internet.

It is still too early to say that the internet has fragmented into “internets”, but there is a danger that it may splinter along geographical and commercial boundaries.

Although not mentioned in this article, I have some similar concerns related to the explosion of "cloud" computing. Although storing all of your data, on someone else's hardware may be convenient (accessible from anywhere) it does cede control over the data to a central player/location and make it harder to keep data private. Controls are so much easier in a centralized rather than diffuse network - just another area in which Civil Society needs to be vigilant.

Open Space Technology at Civicus 2010

This blog was written,  by me, for,  and originally posted on,  the Civicus World Assembly Blog.

This year at the Civicus World Assembly, in addition to sessions that involved detailed presentations, there were three days - three afternoons from 2-5 - that were devoted to sessions with very generalized titles and that were conducted using Open Space Technology. This is not "technology" in the sense of computing, phones, tweeting or Web 2.0 generally, but is a very simple democratic facilitation technique (very "low tech" in fact. )

Open Space Technology is a facilitation method that has no structure, within a defined set of rules. I have seen it work amazingly well but I think it did not work well (although it was done very well) at the Civcus Assembly, for a number of reasons. There were three Open Space groups and my experience is based only on one; the other groups may have had more cohesion and better/more satisfying outcomes. . .

According to Open Space World

In Open Space meetings, events and organizations, participants create and manage their own agenda of parallel working sessions around a central theme of strategic importance, such as: What is the strategy, group, organization or community that all stakeholders can support and work together to create?

Usually, in my limited experience, with Open Space, the participants create the agenda, and the questions, based around a shared or mutual interest in the outcome – for instance – every one works for the same organization and wants to maximize profits, or increase impact, or improve service. In my experience, it does not work well when the outcome, that we want to achieve, is a weak or vague vision, or so large that the people in the group cannot take control of the strategies that need to be implemented to achieve the desired outcomes.

So my group was titled: Reconciling economic development, the fight against poverty and climate justice: what and how can civil society contribute?

The first day the room was full. I am guessing, perhaps more than 50-60 people were in the room, maybe more (I never thought to count). We had some opening remarks from Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International and Past General Secretary of Civicus, that were appropriately directed to the question of how the three things were related and how they intersect. I was excited. I definitely see tensions between these three – not outright hostility just a question of priorities. If you are busy trying to get the world to cut down on carbon, or save the ocean, or get rid of cars, in order to save the planet and eventually improve people's lives, even save them from climate devastation/crisis - your priority may not be working on poverty and social justice/human rights, today. But people are dying and being imprisoned and kept from organizing to improve their lives - today! Not that environmentalists don't care about that, I realize it is just not what they are working on – but everyone cannot be doing big climate change work. . . Although people do not always like the comparisons, I think that the concept is useful: someone has to be building the dam while others are pulling the drowning out of the water. The question - how do we make sure that we are all working together - no point in your diverting the river so that others will flood. . .

I felt that the agenda on day two became one in which direct action on climate change became the priority and the question that was posed and the issues represented in the title were lost by the end of day 2. The agenda was essentially “hi-jacked” buy a focus on the environment. Now I understand all the way, that the south is going to be affected first by climate change and that drought and floods are going to affect the south first, and most extremely. I wrote about it in a previous blog, but I felt that too much time was spent on individual solutions for the north – get rid of cars, use your purchases to buy a new world. . . etc. I wanted to see solutions based on green jobs and technologies for the developing world – how small farms, eco-farming, agroecology, and perma-culture could help and would be good for the environment and people. How does moving to sustainable fishing or farming or manufacturing help the move to improve democracy, human rights, gender equity and civil society space (yup – I love the big questions?)

So although unsatisfied at the end of day two, I was nevertheless interested enough to return, as I wanted to see what kind of action would emerge from some rather “deep” discussion. By Day 3 though, we were a very small group – one of the “rules” of Open Space is that “you let your feet talk” - if you are not getting anything out of your group – move to another group – or go out in the hall, or go home, but don't hang around feeling that you are wasting your time. The other principles are: 1) Whoever comes are the right people, 2) whatever happens is the only thing that could have, 3) when it starts is the right time, 4) when it's over it's over. These aren't prescriptive, according to Open Space World - they are the results of thousands of little experiments.

So none of the actions on Day 3 seemed to include all of the elements of the question – how can civil society contribute to the reconciliation of the fight against poverty, economic development and climate justice. The discussion that came closest – and the one that I worked on - was to create an index against which governments of any economic model, north or south, could be rated against, with data mostly available, and that would measure poverty, human rights and environmental impact/justice. But this action was far too big for anyone in the group to take on, although all of us were willing to work on it. There are many other measures, indexes etc., but they take many people to analyze the data and they are usually based on the OECD only, or on the U.N. development index etc. Another problem with most current indexes is that they use the current economic model of growth as an indicator – this needs to be altered to measure improved sustainability, relative poverty and inequality, and Human Rights. Other groups came up with great projects – plant a million trees in Mozambique, or distribute Diva Cups (reusable menstrual cups)to young women in a country in the global south. . . but they seemed specific and didn't seem to reconcile all three issues at all – but then I was not in those groups – feel free to tell me about your different experience in the same group.

So I enjoyed my time in the space, and think it is a great facilitation technique because it demonstrates what can arise out of an open, free democratic space. Personally, I learned some things and made some friends, but I thought that there was not enough cohesion in the group, to ask harder questions - that the overall question/goal/outcome/ of the group was ignored by the majority (or perhaps everyone was influenced by the more aggressive) in the group. It was a great use of open, democratic space – the group takes control - but a disappointment for me and I expect others. . . since the group went from so large, to so small.

I would use Open Space again for a Civicus Assembly, (though I am not involved in those decisions!) but I would suggest that either the questions be ones that would attract a group of people with a more common goal/outcome (who could debate ways of getting there); that how the actions would be implemented (web based follow up - Civicus as an organization committed to follow up on one or two most promising items?) was clearly outlined, or, alternatively, that the entire Civicus Assembly be involved in creating the agendas, groups and spaces in the first place so that we could follow the group questions to a group facilitator with a specific agenda, that I share, and want to work on. It would be unwieldy with so many people but it could also be magic.