Instead of just being tired from fighting many battles with social and economic conservatism, more and more progressives I’m encountering have become disillusioned with those who ought to be our champions.

There are number of head-scratching events in progressive politics in recent years that tend to sap our energy. In response, we can either cocoon or rebuild. Rebuilding community is the far better choice.

FOOD FOR CYNICISM

Without even describing the litany of right-wing causes of our malaise, here are some left-wing let-downs:

1) Obama is not Jesus and didn’t/couldn’t deliver on really good healthcare. So, we continue to fight harder to protect our system from American privateers while American progressives figure out how much their new president can actually accomplish.

2) The B.C. NDP failed to stop the mean, right-wing Liberal party from winning a third straight election largely because it alienated its base by rejecting its own party policy supporting carbon taxes. In reaching for centrists, the B.C. NDP lost much of its progressive base, who stopped funding, volunteering for, and even voting for, the NDP. Welcome to a third term of abuse after an election with the lowest voter turnout ever.

3) On the Saskatchewan NDP’s website the party leader declares these priorities: “strong business, strong labour, strong government.” Putting business first is disconcerting. Putting government last is no salve.

4) Proportional representation movements across Canada fail to resonate with the masses, in part from corporate media attacks and concerted neglect from mainstream progressive parties.

5) Split electorates in this decade lead to near ties in U.S. presidential elections, and stalemate minority governments in Canada and spurts of stillborn coalitions. But, within days of a minority government election in Britain, two parties form a functioning coalition, with hope for electoral reform. We should not be standing by while politicians form a coalition and pursue electoral reform in the UK when we could mobilize for the same goals. Yet, we do.

POLITICAL ABUSE SYNDROME

American psychologist Bruce Levine wrote on Alternet.org last December about the abuse syndrome that progressives seem to embody. Beaten down by the soft fascism of the corporate-government partnership, interpersonal alienation, consumerism and suburbanization, Canadians, too, seem unable to rise above our humiliation to exercise our democracy and vote out our economic and social abusers.

In his book, Soul of a Citizen: Living with Conviction in Challenging Times, Paul Rogat Loeb warns against allowing our defeats to push us into a private life, ignoring the public sphere in despair. We cannot subcontract our democratic activism to professional political operatives. Democracy is a muscle that can atrophy. Obama’s healthcare plan is weak, in part, because the millions who mobilized to elect him stopped mobilizing after he was elected, not realizing that the same kind of effort was required for the next four years in order to force Congress to actually implement change.

THE COMMUNITY TONIC

So how do we lift ourselves out of our abuse syndrome? We can take our cue from the hive minds around us: monarch butterflies, bees, ants, starlings – those awesome birds that fly inches from each other in tight formation. If we human beings were able to cooperate to even a fraction of how the hive species cooperate, think what we could accomplish. Yet, our abuse syndrome keeps us from believing that the power of cooperation can defeat the isolation of the consumer individual. It’s so easy to forget the complexity of the social systems we have already created. We built them incrementally, with occasional grand leaps forward (Medicare, CPP). They have been steadily dismantled incrementally as well. And we cower as a people instead of linking arms to regain what we’ve lost.

Beyond recalling the power of human collectivity, we can remember the recent rebirth of the salon movement to fight social decay. We need to re-purpose that positive social movement to embrace those of us who suffer from disillusionment in progressive leaders and institutions. We need to begin by looking to one another.

Instead of retreating to our living rooms, we must invite people into our living rooms to work through the angst of missed expectations. Then we need to throw our hopes and principles into a crucible so we can focus on what matters most. We can’t retreat to the private life; we must be uplifted by the relationships in our private lives! Truly, why belong to a revolution that doesn’t include dancing? When the cynicism beats us down, we need to gather our people together, enrich our souls and our communities, go dancing and build each other up, because, though we might presume so, we are not alone.

We need to build more teddy bear catapults. We need to visit ArtThreat.net regularly to support and take part in artists’ efforts to engage in all things political. We need to write clever, insightful, clear 25-word letters to the editor. We need to follow the Yes Men. Community is the tonic for cynicism and shutting down, that’s for sure. It’s what’s keeping me going.

We really are all in this together – unless we embrace some kind of despairing, free-agent status. And when that happens, we have really lost. It is by restoring each other’s community spirit that we can win.

The above is a version of my commentary piece in the current issue of Our Times, Canada’s independent labour magazine. It was written before the G20 suspension of Canada’s constitution in Toronto.

• No Related Posts

I was going to write something quite venomous on Canada Day about the queen’s characterization of Canada, but decided to let it slide. But I can’t:

The Queen said she has witnessed more than half of Canada’s national history and praised what Canada stands for.

“This nation has dedicated itself to being a caring home for its own, a sanctuary for others and an example to the world,” she said.

via CBC News – Canada – Queen calls Canada ‘example to the world’.

It wouldn’t have been so annoying if Canada Day weren’t just days after our constitutions was suspended by the security on acid in Toronto last month.

I’m no monarchist, but this is just gratuitous. I won’t suggest the queen is deluded about the underbelly of Canada. Her job as the hands-off head of state means she has no place commenting on our controversial issues. She’s a cheerleader and a sanctioner of paradigms.

What’s hers?

Well, she’s the Queen of the British Empire, no friend to egalitarianism, social justice or political liberty. Not that she’s a shill for authoritarianism, she’s a symbol of it.

So when she says that we are a caring home for our own, our increasing socio-economic disparities disagree with that, as do the hundreds locked up in Toronto.

When she says we are a sanctuary for others, we need to see if the citizens who generally support providing refuge for American deserters from the Iraq invasion and occupation will insist the government actually permit them to stay.

When she says we are an example to the world, she is absolutely right. We are an example of G8 and G20 leadership. An example of the proper way of putting neoliberal corporate interests in the highest of places in a nation. An example of how the world ought to behave when the masters are in town.

In short, we are an example of a middle power bowing down to the new world order. Democracy, rights, freedom, social justice, economic policies that work for people not global corporate interests are the enemy of the great sucking sound of the rich getting richer and the rest of us seeing dissent and free speech criminalized.

So on our road to reclaiming Canada, let’s dump the monarchy. Because in the end, when the queen says she’s witnessed more than half our nation’s history, she knows what she’s talking about.

And I don’t want to hear from the likes of her anymore.

• No Related Posts

Sheesh. It’s about time.

China has finally walked the plank (or was prodded with sticks until they lept) and is now dog-paddling in the sea of flexible exchange rates. The word on the street?  China has decided it’s time to cease pegging the Yuan at artificially low rates against the US Dollar,  thereby allowing it to gradually rise over the course of time.

Well. That’s certainly special. What the heck does a free-styling Yuan potentially mean for Gord and Gordette McCanadiana?

The Financial Post has some thoughts. (You may wish to pack some hip waders to slog through the jargon.)

Ever the vaguely conservative optimist, I see this move as a potentially magical “unicorns & sparkles” scenario for Canada.

• We’re going to pay higher prices for our daily dose of imported, melamine spiked baby formula and sawdust enhanced dog food if it was made in a Chinese factory –> This should discourage some of the mindless purchasing of cheaply made import products that seem to saturate our market on every level, and encourage us to purchase domestic-made products.
• Levels the export playing field, allowing us to send Canadian made products/materials off more competitively than they have been for years *The flagging BC forest sector does a happy dance *
• Increase in export goods/materials = spin off jobs = spin off investments.
• Canadian GDP continues its upswing trend as the rock star economy of ye olde G20.

Alternatively, everything goes to shit really quickly, and we’ll be watching interviews with the Four Horsemen of the Apocolypse on CNN by early 2012.

I’m going to roll my dice and put my marker on the first scenario. Blow on ‘em for me, will ya?

• June 27, 2010 -- The BC NDP Channels Brian Mulroney (5)

Jean-Jacques Rousseau once remarked that “the English people believe itself to be free; it is gravely mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament; as soon as the members are elected, the people is enslaved; it is nothing. In the brief moment of its freedom, the English people makes such a use of that freedom that it deserves to lose it.” The same can be said of the modern Canadian populace except that even when we are “in-between” governments we are still largely a people living in self-deception. Something has been rotting in the State of Canada for a long, long time.

Toronto Burning?

The events in Toronto over the past weekend have illustrated a number of startling facts. To begin with, the Toronto Police arrested over 900 people. The vast majority of those have been and will be let go, without any charges. It has already become clear that what the Police were doing is “fishing.” They rounded up hundreds of innocent people in an effort to find possibly a handful of guilty individuals. This is a clear violation of rights, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has already suggested that court challenges will be imminent.

Remember that controversial “five meter rule,” passed in secret in the Ontario Legislature, that allowed Police to search anyone within a five meter radius of the G20 security fence, ask for identification, and arrest anyone who resisted? Well, funny story…no such rule existed. The Police lied. As of this writing, they have just admitted that they lied. But it’s okay; they lied to protect us. Without a shred of exaggeration this is the argument that just about every military junta and dictatorship in history has made when “momentarily suspending democracy.” We are suspending your rights to protect you. Protect you from the insidious dangerous “other.”

In Toronto the “other” was the notorious Black Bloc. The Chief of Police, Bill Blair, has said of the Black Bloc that “they came to destroy our city.” You will notice that in much of the media the argument has been advanced that the Black Bloc are foreigners of some sort or another. Either they are Europeans, professional terrorists or worse still…Quebecois (who were specifically targeted by the Police). No God-fearing, lawful, English-speaking Canadian could possibly engage in the sort of actions we saw in Toronto. We represent God and Country, Law and Order, the Crown and Parliament. They represent chaos, “anarchy” and violence.

Ironically enough, the entire idea behind Black Bloc is not exclusion but inclusion. The masks are worn to say, “we are you.” You need only don the black to join a mass that will protect you, will free you, will fight for you and all of us. Nobody complains about the heavily armed, masked Police. A body that in two days has committed far, far more crimes and more egregious crimes than the humble Black Bloc could ever hope to. Remember friends, when the people resist and put their lives and bodies on the line like they did in Toronto they have no mechanism to rely on other than themselves, their friends, their families, and the bonds of solidarity that exist between these groups. When people go into the streets like they did in Toronto, to confront a cabal of men and women who are actively destroying the lives of billions of people around the world, including our own—we do so with love. Love for our sisters and brothers in Toronto as much as in Mali and Nigeria and Thailand and Burma and Columbia and Argentina.

But Jasmin, you say, this one incident. One, unfortunate, weekend where things got out hand for everyone. No, it is not one weekend; it is a pattern of behaviour.

During the Olympics, the same massive security apparatus that was deployed in Toronto was used in Vancouver. Hundreds of cameras, miles and miles of fencing and a billion dollars worth of Police, military and private security guarding a two-week party for the rich and super-rich. The same violations, the same instances of police brutality were reported once again. Much as they were in Vancouver in 1997 at APAC Summit and in 2001 at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City. Again and again and again the Police and state, protecting the forces of capital, act with impunity, with violence, brutalizing ordinary citizens, outraged at the fate of their democracies.

Days before the G20, CSIS came out and without any sort of evidence whatsoever (that they were able to produce, at least) accused potentially thousands of ordinary citizens of being spies for foreign governments. When the expected storm of controversy erupted over this claim, CSIS furiously attempted backtrack on this claim. So, to what end would they do this? As in Toronto, as in Vancouver, as in Quebec it is to rule by fear, to rule by decree.

Our Local Lords

In BC an incredibly unpopular tax is being advanced despite the protests of the vast majority of British Columbians. The fact that we, as ordinary people, oppose the HST is irrelevant. Who supports it? The governing BC Liberals, the right-wing Fraser Institute and the corporate establishment they both serve. They rule through decree and the brute force of legislative power. The recall campaign that has been launched against members of this government, while popular amongst ordinary people, will have a difficult time toppling any actual MLAs. The rules for launching a successful recall campaign are so steep as to be functionally impossible. As unpopular as the Liberals have become, our system is as such that they are likely to remain in office until 2013, at least.

And if they do, the odds of them losing an actual election are just as shaky a prospect. Because, we must recall, Canada is one of only a handful of “democracies” in the world which continues to use a First-Past-the-Post (FPP) electoral system, instead of some variation of Proportional Representation (PR). Thus, as it happens regularly in this Province in particular, we allow parties to win perhaps 50% of the popular vote and then translate this into 98% of the actual seats in the Legislature and Parliament. And even when an opposition party wins more than 2% of the seats, like the current incarnation of the NDP, they exercise exactly 0% of the actual power in Victoria.

It doesn’t help that when we had a referendum to attempt to change this atrocious system, the party that had historically made electoral reform part of its platform suddenly said nothing. In fact, in practice, they opposed electoral reform. Why? Because the NDP would rather be the perpetual opposition than allow for challenger to emerge on its Left that might actually force this party to stand on principle and ideology rather than an oft quoted rumour that they are not, in fact, the BC Liberals. They have become party to this same system, merely a Janus face of it.

At least in Ottawa there a multiple parties, you say. Often times, agreements are struck between the parties and this represents a consensus of the governed, yes? To answer this we should merely recall the most common refrain that was heard in the media and amongst many citizens when the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals attempted to form a coalition government. It was unconstitutional and illegal, they told us. We do not even understand our own system of government. We do not understand just how warped our “democracy” has become. We see little danger in a government repeatedly suspending parliament when they are in danger of losing power. Perhaps, understandably given our history, we see this merely as the latest in a long series of authoritarian practices which have sullied our “democratic” record.

A History of Violence

Say what you will about our imperialist cousins to the South but at least they had the “common sense” to revolt against the monarchy. Canada began as little more than a corporate holding of the Hudson’s Bay Company and the personal domain of the British crown. Little has changed in nearly a 150 years of history. We are now the personal holding of a number of transnational corporations and Parliament still governs, essentially, by decree. We have symbolic votes every few years and in the meantime we sit with our collective thumbs up our collective anal sphincters.

Yet we somehow have this popular conception of Canada as a benevolent, utopian, northern wonderland. This is a country steeped in blood and violence, against both its own citizens and the peoples of far flung nations.

To begin with, there is the obvious extermination and ongoing persecution of the Native Peoples of “Canada.” Many, quite literally, live in Third World conditions on reserves where there is little or no running water, electricity or most any other basic amenities. Meanwhile, the bourgeoisie Canadian establishment is busily attempting to turn their ancestral lands into Golf Courses. And where extermination and exploitation have failed, cooption has been the watchword. Hence, the token Native “themes” during the Olympics, “power-sharing” agreements with certain Nations and the “marketization” of traditional cultures. The veneer of culture is preserved in the form of totem poles and postcards, while every significant feature of their culture is eradicated or banned.

It is no accident of history that the Canadian state attempted to ban the traditional potlatch, in part, because this bizarre habit of sharing things was a clear affront to the capitalist market system which was tightening its grip on the land. Nor is it an accident that the last Residential Schools, an experiment in cultural genocide, remained opened until the late 1980s.

While the Americans openly waged war and genocide against their Native Peoples, Canada did so only marginally more covertly. The effects were largely the same, however.  A similar fate awaited both Chinese and Indo-Canadians, who had been brought over in the thousands to work on the railroads as slave-like labour. The Canadian government actively recruited these people for exploitation and in turn targeted them for discrimination with all manner of racist legislation and policing.

After 9/11 there was a great deal of controversy surrounding Canada’s new anti-terrorism legislation. The controversy was misguided as critics seemed to be under the impression that these impositions on our civil liberties were somehow new. Even a cursory glance at the Canadian approach to civil liberties will demonstrate a history of violations.

The Boer War is generally regarded as Canada’s first “foreign war.” It is also, however, regarded as the first time that an entire nation of peoples, the Boers in this case, had been targeted for internment (i.e. placement in concentration camps). The British Army set up an extensive network of concentration camps, originally “refugee camps,” which resulted in the deaths of thousands of Boer civilians. Predominantly Anglo Canadian soldiers actively participated in these pogroms.

During both World War I and II, the Canadian government set up dozens of internment camps on Canadian soil. Thousands of Austro-Hungarian, German and later Japanese Canadians were interred in these camps, their rights denied, their property confiscated. After the war(s), they were released into a hostile climate, destitute and violated. Apologies and restitutions would not be forthcoming for decades and many are still waiting.

In October of 1970, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act to tackle the so-called “October Crisis” in response to the kidnapping of a British trade minister and Quebec cabinet minister by a Quebec sovereignist group calling themselves the “Front de libération du Québec” (FLQ).  During the period in which the Act was invoked, Justice Minister John Turner claimed that 497 people had been arrested, 435 of whom had been released by February of  1971 with no charges, 62 were charged, and 32 had been charged with offenses of a more serious nature. With tanks in the streets of Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec, the Canadian state once again went fishing. Hundreds arrested, thousands harassed to capture a handful of suspected terrorists.

Since then, the modern Canadian approach to anti-terrorism has been marked by the outsourcing of torture, the illegal deportation of citizens to foreign prisons and a generally racist and two-tiered approach Canadian citizenship. Gods help you if you are a Canadian of colour stranded abroad. In the meantime, Canada has actively participated in the toppling of democratic regimes (Haiti) and in numerous imperial occupations (primarily Afghanistan, “merely” a supporting role in Iraq).

Canadian Democracy?

This has been a lengthy piece. Much has been skimmed over, still other topics ignored all together. All of this, however, is to make one very simple point: we do not actually live in a functioning, democratic state. We live in an oligarchic state which engages in a ritualized, symbolic process of electioneering once every few years, giving its citizens the illusions of democratic norms and actual citizen power. In practice, as the current government has shown, we have a very tenuous grip on anything remotely “democratic” in this country.

There is little to be said, I believe, for Canadian democracy. When speaking of Canadian politics it is more proper to speak of a Canadian regime, one that has for over a hundred years been involved in a war against its own citizens, and the citizens of foreign nations, often as a hand-maiden to still more powerful empires.

Events like the ones which took place in Toronto over the past weekend are a far more accurate representation of what people power looks like: necessarily in conflict with the state in capital. We are free only when we oppose, confront and eradicate these institutions and systems. The state and capitalism do not represent us, they do no protect us: they enslave us. And the institution of slavery, as French activist and author Yves Fremion has written, is perhaps unique in history in that it seemingly exists for no other reason than to be abolished.

• July 1, 2010 -- A Better World is Needed: The oh-so ‘Canadian’ style of dissent (8)
• June 26, 2010 -- Protecting the people elected to do the peoples’ work from the people who want them to do their work (3)

Unions began by people focussing their political will. Our future lies in reinvigorating this social will to action. We have the capacity to engage our communities, help people see their interconnectedness, and motivate responsible planning for a sustainable future.

The State of the Unions

Unfortunately, however, despite the existence of refreshing exceptions, the union movement is under profound stress due to the following reasons:

* Union density has been declining for over a generation;

* Governments and corporations have declared unions a critical enemy to their neo-liberal agenda, which aims to minimize the role of the state – our public institutions and elected governments – and maximize the role of private business;

* Demographic shifts indicate that many of our core activist members will retire from their jobs and our unions, taking with them core activist wisdom;

* New members replacing retiring workers are open to the superficial charms of neo-liberal messages since they have been raised in an era where cuts to social programs are the norm and the social legitimacy of unions has been under assault;

* Because the fabric of society is no longer so infused with unionism, union members do not necessarily fully know what unions are for or how they need to accomplish their goals, and;

* We too often contract out our political activism, letting organizations (political parties, unions and other NGOs) do the political work for us after we contribute donations or dues to the cause. This reduces our willingness and capacity to actually practice democracy.

The State of the World

Having watched the failure of the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in December 2009, I am now asking: How are we going to re-frame our local, national and international economies to put human beings first, ahead of corporate profiteering – all to avert climate breakdown?

A destabilizing global economy, peak oil, and the ecological consequences of tar sands exploitation threaten to change the economic playing field. Pushers of privatization, deregulation, regressive taxes, and de-funding government services essentially assert individual values over community values and action. This challenges our solidarity.

Unions embrace individualism as well when they raid each other for relative power gains in a zero-sum context, instead of organizing the unorganized and mobilizing members for political action. Conservatives attack our solidarity from the outside while we undermine it and our bargaining power from the inside.

So, in this context, the union movement can no longer take for granted an established, respected place in society from which to act. It must re-engage with its current and new members on a core philosophical level to help build a foundation of social, economic and political values.

But how do we do that in a rapidly changing world? We embrace the new world.

Systems of organizing and activism are changing rapidly. After the prime minister literally phoned in his second parliamentary proroguement in December, a grad student in Edmonton started the “Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament” Facebook group. It collected 225,000 members within weeks, and it led to nation-wide rallies in late January this year. This surprised party politicians. Left far behind the crest of that organizing wave, many of them merely showed up at rallies as citizens. After Parliament resumed, the group transformed itself into Canadians Advocating Political Participation. While using Facebook, Twitter and text message mobilization (a new feature of U2 concerts, even) is no panacea, the use so far of this social media has demonstrated that there are new ways of directly mobilizing political sentiment. Unions need to recognize that the ground is fertile for facilitating political action among their members, their families and communities. Mobilization is still happening, just not inside traditional organizations. We need to join that movement.

At the same time, money works differently now, and we should take advantage of that. Now that corporate and union donations are no longer allowed in federal politics, unions can devote resources to educating and politicizing their members so they can directly engage in politics – with their money and their time. In the end, this will also enrich members’ relationships with their unions, creating stronger organizations.

Unions can also help frame climate dialogue. Activists young and older are increasingly alarmed at the lack of meaningful political action being taken to avert climate breakdown. They don’t necessarily see political parties as organizations that are progressive enough, or powerful enough, to make a difference. Unions have a valuable opportunity to sponsor a dialogue on ecological and climate issues. Some have already taken up this challenge. More than just defining and debating the scope of green jobs, unions can re-establish their historical place as community mobilizing organizations leading a new vision for how we will design our communities, in this case to avoid climate crisis.

Our past really is our future. The labour movement’s origins in the coalescing of political will into a movement – the union movement – is the very kind of union mobilization and activism we need in the 21st century. We must re-establish our place in socially progressive communities. We have been missed and we need to take part again.

The above is from my commentary piece in the current issue of Our Times, Canada’s independent labour magazine.

• No Related Posts

Working from the reasonably solid premise that majority governments are inherently tyrannical, I prefer as merely a marginal improvement: minority governments. They’re no ProRep, but at the very least, they force more cooperation, though I use the term loosely. We’re seeing an evolution of expectations in and about Ottawa and now I think we’re going to see it in BC in 2013.

Let’s start with BC Conservative MP James Moore who tweeted this out last week: “All Conservative/Bloc/NDP MPs (& leaders) here for final budget votes. Only half of Lib MPs here, Ignatieff missing. Seems fitting.4:37 PM Jun 17th via UberTwitter”

I found this quite interesting for him to remark on this. His government exists because of the strategic absence of dozens of Liberals on key votes. The Liberals are in a de facto coalition with the Conservatives. Didn’t he get the memo/text/tweet/VM?

The Liberals show up to vote against the budget and other noxious legislation and they feel good about it. But they only send enough so that with the Bloc and NDP votes, they won’t have enough to defeat the government. And since some of those votes are confidence motions where failure means an election, the Liberals ensure enough MPs are at the spa to miss the vote because they’re afraid of an election now.

Now’s an odd time for the Liberals to be afraid of an election since the Conservatives are in a sucking place relative to other times since the last election. Except for the fact that the Liberal leader is not universally tolerated, loved, or followed in caucus. And the party on the ground still calls itself Canada’s natural governing party.

But federal MPs can be forgiven for this lame kind of strategy. All they are thinking about is jockeying for position until the polling shows they are in majority government territory. Not going to happen. Minority governments best reflect the split opinions in regions in the country.

I’m hoping that the crazy dynamics of minority parliaments will help citizens focus on what kind of cooperation it ought to take to get good things done. It will also show us some things we won’t see in majority governments: politicians who only jockey for power and how the Liberals and the Conservatives have the same anti-human, pro-corporate neoliberal economic agenda. Why? Liberal MP Scott Brison attacked opponents to the Colombia Free Trade Agreement even more than the government did and both parties voted for it.

Now everyone gets to see that the Liberals are just like Conservatives on fiscal issues. That’s important to know.

And now we have this United Party of Canada meme/thing/movement/Frankenstein forming, with lots of vague, feel-good, meaningless, substance-free, policy-void babble on the website: “We believe in you!”. Who knows now, but if they get any traction, dig an even deeper hole for majority parliaments.

And in BC we have new dynamics brewing for the 2013 election, just under 3 years away. Some context:

1. Last year, someone went rogue and floated the idea of Vision Vancouver going provincial, a mythical third party [try this and this]. That was killed immediately. Effective trial balloon, though.
2. Last week we heard more about a http://VisionBC.ca domain name. No smoking gun, just more talk, and one crazy reference to the party being centre-left. Isn’t the BC NDP supposed to be centre-left? Sure.
3. Two weeks ago a Liberal cabinet member quits not because believes the HST to be actually bad, but because he fears the recall campaign that will destroy him starting in November. Then the BC Conservative party first calls him a rat, then says that spokesperson went rogue also, then they suggest a place for him.
4. The Greens have and will continue to poll in the mid to high single digits, as will the BC Conservatives; more for them if they can get their messaging clear and pull some “real” federal Conservatives lurking in the BC Liberal party.
5. The right wing coalition in BC for the last thousand years made up of federal Liberals and Conservatives seems increasingly shaky. Some centrist/leftist federal Liberals may not be all that onside with the latest social contract-assassinating government policies.
6. There are federal Liberals in the BC NDP caucus and orbit.

If Vision BC formed, it could peel some NDP MLAs, operatives and wonks. It could pull Blair Lekstrom and Vicki Huntington in. It could pull George Abbott and Carole Taylor and a handful of current BC Liberal MLAs. It could make a run for government by playing to the centre [or centre-"left"] by featuring some kinder, gentler characters from the Campbell decade.

And if it shoots for government in 2013 it would have to start about now. If it misses government, not inconceivable for a new party [except for Vision Vancouver though], we could end up with a minority legislature: one step towards proportional representation.

With a minority legislature, we’d have up to 4 years for the minor parties to assert themselves, build their bases and impede any further majority governments. We’d also see a redefining of posture for the BC NDP and BC Liberals based on who’s left. That will bloody. There are already a number of MLAs who would not surprise me if they were right now sharpening knives.

And I reiterate this one thing about trust. Politicians who only seek power are easier to spot in an era of minority parliaments. How? They don’t do anything of substance while waiting for a chance to get more power. Demand that they act on principle and they go on vacation, hit the spa, tour the region on a kissing babies tour, anything to keep up the persona of manufactured leadership.

We cannot continue to tolerate that kind of nonsense. 308 MPs in Ottawa watching CBC Newsworld on their iPads to see if they’re tweeted about or more hopefully, trying to guide the Commons committee they sit on to do something of substance? 85 BC MLAs laying low in caucus wondering how they can maneuver themselves into something with a bigger office or hopefully something that makes a difference for people?

All I know is that in minority situations, there isn’t as much space under the radar anymore. And that’s good for all of us.

• No Related Posts

As Toronto prepares to host the G20 Summit in a few days time, the media has been abuzz once more with the salacious prospect of street clashes between black-clad anarchists and riot police. The notorious “Black Bloc” has been presented as some sort of international, traveling cabal of professional provocateurs who have migrated, en masse, from the streets of Athens to the streets of Vancouver and now Toronto. As the mainstream media cannot even present a semblance of balanced coverage of the ongoing apartheid regime in occupied Palestine, or the occupation of Afghanistan or Iraq, it seems pointless to hold our breath for anything akin to a rational analysis of the growing anarchist movement across the globe; what they stand for, what they want. As such, this task falls to one such as I.

To that end, some brief remarks:

On Understanding

A frequent refrain from the uninformed, upon hearing of an anarchist gathering or a rally is twofold: who are these lunatics who want to bring in a dog-eat-dog world of chaos and violence? And secondly, I thought anarchists were against organization? How could they possibly organize anything? These aren’t real anarchists; real anarchists are long bearded savages who speak in tongues. This statement is usually followed by a smug cacophony of bellicose laughter.

While these are all very much nuanced observations they all suffer from one, significant, collective flaw: they’re absolutely moronic. One can certainly forgive ignorance of a given political phenomenon, but to use one’s ignorance as a truncheon and to, in turn, assert this ignorance as fact (i.e. “real anarchists don’t organize anything, real anarchists eat children and raw chicken livers!”) is inexcusable. Then again, this is the general “style” of modern media culture as a whole so one need hardly be surprised. Nor is this the first time that anarchists have been the victims of drummed up media hysterias—the 1890s, 1920s and 1930s were noted for their “Red Scares” which included, of course, the spectre of the (usually European/foreign) anarchist in North America in particular.

Over a hundred years have passed since that original hysterical onslaught, and yet few in the media have sought fit to do much research beyond the crass stereotypes that were established during that Gilded Age. As anarchist ideas and ideals are finding an ever wider audience, these “analysts” and “reporters” continue to rely on hackneyed caricatures and straw-men arguments to buttress their various accounts. Lost in this repetitive drone, however, is the simple truth that one must understand before they can judge, one way or another.

Whether one agrees, for instance, with the policy of the current BC government on, say, public education or on the proposed Harmonized Sales Tax (HST), one must understand their arguments on their own terms. What do the Liberals think they are accomplishing? What do they view as their own objectives and their own principles? Only then can we begin to debate whether or not these are sound or unsound public policies. The same method, however, applies to any political phenomenon—from establishment political parties to Islamic fundamentalist militias to, yes, even the anarchist movement.

Understanding Anarchism

So, what do anarchists believe themselves?

At this juncture I could quote any number of rather eloquent anarchist theorists to explain the anarchist creed to the uninitiated but for the sake of brevity let me use merely the words of the anthropologist David Graeber, who describes the anarchist philosophy as being one which simply insists on “autonomy, voluntary association, self-organization, mutual aid, [and] direct democracy.” The term anarchism itself comes from the Greek anarchos, meaning “without rulers.” Thus, when anarchists speak of anarchy they do not speak of chaos or anomie as is popularly understood but rather of a social order based on true freedom and mutual respect, not authority and hierarchy. The famous circle-A symbol often associated with the movement signifies precisely this: “anarchy is order” as Proudhon put it.

In short, anarchists emphasize independent, voluntary decision making, organized directly by individuals and communities themselves for the common benefit of all therein, with power being devolved to the lowest possible atom of these societies so that each may have a say in directing their own life, and the direction of their broader community. In light of all this, anarchists are avowed anti-capitalists and anti-statists—viewing both systems as fundamentally authoritarian and exploitative.

As such, anarchists have historically been concerned far more with practice than they have been with any supposed ideological orthodoxy. Anarchist methods of organization can be seen in everything from the indigenous band council of the Americas to the reclaimed factories movement in Argentina. Most of the contemporary anti-globalization movement has been profoundly influenced by anarchist ideas and tactics even if only a fraction of the membership might overtly identify as “anarchist” as such. We’re not the jealous type: what we care about is results, not labels. Hence the motto: “anarchists make better lovers!”

Prominent historical and contemporary anarchists have included the likes of Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, Emiliano Zapata, Lucy Parsons, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, William Godwin, Oscar Wilde, George Woodcock and many others. Individuals such as Helen Keller and Mahatma Gandhi, amongst other notable figures, never expressed themselves as anarchists, per se, but their actions and own ideas closely followed the shape of the anarchist philosophical and practical framework, leading many anarchists to embrace them as their own. Aside from these figures, however, anarchists come from all walks of life and in every shape, size, colour and temperament: we are organizers and activists, workers and students, retired and unemployed, artists and academics, lovers and fighters.

Anarchist Terrorism?

It is usually at this point that someone will scoff and proceed to inform us all how, “no, no, what anarchism is really about is terrorism—blowing stuff up! Also possibly mohawks and listening to the Sex Pistols. But mostly terrorism!”

To begin with, there are many anarchists who are, in fact, pacifists and the current has a long-standing tradition within the movement: Leo Tolstoy comes to mind as a prominent example. Nonetheless, there have been many anarchists who have refused to disavow themselves from violence. So, a few points need to be made on this subject.

First, the idea that anarchism is a violent ideology or the most violent ideology out there is a bare faced lie. If we were to take all the people who have ever been, even accidentally, killed by anarchists as compared to the number of people killed every year by nominally democratic states such Canada (to say nothing of the US or Israel!) there would be no comparison whatsoever. This is, furthermore, to say nothing of the violence committed every day by corporations and capitalists around the world. The BP disaster alone has done more damage to the Earth and all its inhabitants over the past month than any anarchist has, could ever have or have wanted to. In short, the capitalist and statist system that dominates our world currently is violent and coercive by its very nature. The same simply cannot be said of anarchism.

It is true that anarchists have, however, participated in violent revolutions and insurrections and it is further true that anarchists have also committed acts of terrorism (usually assassinations of monarchs, Presidents and the sort) in which, unfortunately, innocents have also been hurt and killed. The debate about the use of violence to attain ones ends has been a divisive issue within the movement (and outside of it!). Nonetheless, almost without exception, the major theorists and proponents of anarchism have agreed that individual acts of terrorism, the so called “propaganda of the deed,” accomplishes little. What is necessary is social revolution, mass movement mobilization—not vanguards of enlightened, sacrificial martyrs who will “inspire” the masses through bold acts of heroism and/or stupidity.

As many revolutionaries recognized even during the 19^th century, killing a single monarch or a single capitalist meant little when the issue was not the individuals but the system as a whole. It is why when one looks beyond the bold headlines of young Greeks smashing windows and battling police, we see a movement that has spent decades building an infrastructure of social change: social centers that teach people valuable life skills, including language classes for migrants, libraries, cafes, restaurants, free schools, free medical clinics and most every other resource a functioning community needs. These are the means by which we build “the new society within the shell of the old.”

It is not to say, as many tepid liberal commentators would have us believe, that violence is inherently evil. No, violence is a tool and the critical question is the manner in which it is marshalled. As a local Vancouver activist said during her speech in the post-Olympic “riot” navel gazing, how many of the people who cursed The Bay window smashers also spent their nights toasting and celebrating the Zapatistas? Why is a militant indigenous movement, famous for their identity-concealing masks, celebrated for their resistance to the Mexican state but Canadian or American or Greek anarchists, employing very similar tactics (in fact, far more “peaceful”), shunned? Why is Marcos a romantic icon, but the Black Bloc a spectre of evil? Like the Zapatista mask the Black Bloc is merely a tactic, above all, to protect fellow demonstrators and grows out of a legacy and history of police and state repression. Recent events have done little to dispel the idea that the state, even one as supposedly benevolent as the Canadian one, actively plots against its citizenry. The mask is as much a self-defense mechanism as it is, as with the Zapatistas, a sign of solidarity.

In any case, it is not to say that we cannot disagree on the need or efficacy of violence—quite the contrary, as my preceding comments on the history of this debate should have hopefully illustrated by now.  But let us be honest, as well. The great evils of the modern world (the state and capital) do not, have not and will not accept change. The necessary changes that are required, for instance, to resolve social inequality, to resolve global corporate exploitation, will not be acquiesced to by the ruling classes.

Ask the indigenous peoples of the Americans how their governments dealt with their calls for autonomy. Ask the Argentines or the Chileans how their military juntas dealt with attempts at peaceful change. Ask the Thais how their government dealt with calls for free and fair elections. Ask the Palestinians about Israel’s benevolence.  Ask the Nigerians how BP and Shell have dealt with their calls for a greater share of their country’s oil wealth. Ask the Bolivians how Bechtel dealt with their calls for a greater share of their country’s gas and mineral wealth. Ask any of the world’s peoples, really, how their “elected” state representatives, or unelected corporate and capitalist overlords have dealt with their calls for a better world.

None of this is to suggest that violence, itself, will usher in a better world. In fact, used improperly it will surely bring misery to all involved. What is needed is social mobilization, first and foremost. Only at the point at which such a movement exists (i.e. Bolivia, Thailand…Greece?) does the notion of violence become a legitimate means by which power can be transferred from the few to the many, and divided democratically and directly. Until then, it remains largely useless and dangerous. This conclusion has been one repeated through the ages by almost every serious anarchist theorist who has wrestled with the question of true, radical social change.

Few movements begin violently, and few grow by means of violence. In fact, violence at this juncture predictably stifles growth. But, inevitably, serious revolutionary movements must confront the reality that their opposition will not cede the reins of power quietly. As everyone from George Washington to Comandante Marcos has agreed it is just and reasonable, in the course of struggling for a more equitable order, wherein the “governors” have ceased to enjoyed the confidence and support of the “governed” for the latter to rebel against the former—by any means necessary.

Demanding the Impossible

There is one last objection generally raised against the social order which anarchists advocate. The refrain usually goes something like this: it’s a nice idea but it’ll never work. Human nature won’t allow it. It’s usually the sort of remark made by people who fancied themselves sometime “radicals” but are today little more than office pencil pushers. To justify the betrayal of their own ideals, they seek to implicate you in a broader culture of indifference and apathy.

Emma Goldman spoke to this sentiment in her famed essay What is Anarchy? when she remarked: “Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature.” I find no better or more apt words to counter this supposed objection.

We would do well to remember that women, for instance, were never meant to get the vote. Or that the American slaves were never meant to be freed. That apartheid in South Africa would never be abolished, or that the colonialism more broadly would never leave the continent. Education and healthcare were never meant to be free. And workers were never meant to have an eight hour day or the right organize unions. All this and much more were once said to be “impossible.” It was often times made seemingly impossible by the use of great violence on the part of Presidents, generals and tycoons alike. The list of excuses used to permit injustice to continue are long and varied. To paraphrase a famous dictum, however, we might well remark that history is the record of the impossible made real. So it is with us today, those still fighting, still resisting, still organizing.

Some might well argue that “autonomy, voluntary association, self-organization, mutual aid, [and] direct democracy” are an altogether bad idea and not worth pursuing in the first place. Those concerns, however, do not concern us. We no more acknowledge this as a valid argument than those who did and do suggest in many parts of the world today that some peoples are inherently inferior to others, or that some peoples should not be allowed the right to self-determination. These are the slavers and tin-pot dictators of the world and their perspectives are relevant only in so much as they need to be abolished from the face of the Earth and replaced with opportunity and ability for every woman, man and child to live according to their heart’s desires.

In short, we demand only the world.

Conclusion

When the billion dollar circus comes through Toronto, much as it came through Vancouver, there is going to be opposition to it. Had Francis Fukuyama been right, the events we have seen transpire in Athens, Geneva, Seattle, Quebec City, and to a far lesser extent Vancouver and soon Toronto would never have occurred. As he had promised us, the end of history had arrived. Capitalism and the liberal democratic state had triumphed and would shortly homogenize the entirety of the globe. Since then, the global capitalist economy has continued to fail the vast majority of the world’s population, beyond even just this most recent of crises, and yet has continued to be propped up by the coercive arm of the state.

Those black-clad folks in the streets, “kids” as some like to call them though their ages run the line from young to old, are our better selves reflected and resisting. They are what we ought to be. They are what we can be. They are a spectre of a much broader movement, a movement not afraid to defend itself, but above all committed to a better world and actively involved in creating as we speak. They do not make apologies for feeding the hungry any more than they do for confronting those who ensure that these same conditions of hunger, starvation and poverty continue unabated.

Anarchism is sometimes referred to as the “the beautiful idea.” I am of like mind. There is an unbridling beauty in the passion of those who have for hundreds of years continued a struggle against some of the most totalizing forces in history. Those willing can easily discover this beauty but doing so requires an open mind and an open heart—a dangerous proposition for those merchants of closed minds and numbed hearts. Hence the misinformation, hence the caricatures, hence the deception.

I invite you, however, to try to understand us on our own terms and ask yourself then we’re quite the terror we are made out to be. Ask yourself from whom you have more to fear: those inviting you to participate in creation of a world in which we abolish fear, hunger and inequality? Or those who in the name of “protecting” you turn your cities and homes into open-air prisons, who wine and dine while billions live in abject poverty because of their decisions, who murder innocents in the name of democracy but move at every turn to stifle and silence dissent?

See you in the streets, friends.       

• No Related Posts

Today I despin and respin aspects of the event.

1. I found out about the Libby Davies YouTube video the other night when someone called AnonymousProgressive emailed their link to me with a “wtf?”. The video was part of that person’s YouTube account. The video seems to be a re-edit of a video by katzd314, with a link to this blog piece. I emailed a second time to AnonymousProgressive [AnonymousProgressive@gmail.com] asking for their background in relation to the video and why they’re anonymous.
2. People often comment anonymously about Israel for many reasons including because they are afraid of vitriolic retribution and a myriad of other things, whether their fear is credible or not. This is the chill atmosphere that pervades dialogue about Israel, and many other highly controversial topics. Other times, people are anonymous because they’re up to no good. It’s hard to say for sure here, but so far it looks like entrapment/gotcha journalism, blogger style. There are lots of opinions about how legitimate/useful that is. Regarding the real intentions of the poster, I still haven’t received a reply to AnonymousProgressive’s anonymity. I’ll send them this piece to see if they wish to comment, anonymously or openly.
3. Let’s respin the video:
   1. The first question asked of Davies from the questioner is when did the “occupation in Israel” start, 1948 or 1967? Davies answers 1948. She stated that was an error here and apologized for any confusion that caused. Many actually wouldn’t see her 1948 answer as an error though.
   2. AnonymousProgressive then intersperses a defense that stating 1948 necessarily denies Israel’s right to exist. It might be a bit of a leap to say that stating that the occupation began in 1948 means a belief Israel should not exist. The UN Security Council is seen by many, like me, as far from a democratically legitimate body. The UN General Assembly’s votes are non-binding, while the 5 permanent members of the Security Council have vetoes on Security Council resolutions, which are binding. The creation of Israel has been under a cloud of illegitimacy since before 1948. Was there a forced expulsion of Palestinians, for instance? I think the same can be said for the settlement, creation and growth of Canada. At the same time, many people see no illegitimacy at all in the UN’s actions regarding Israel, or indeed Canada’s origins.
   3. Judy Rebick describes it far better here: “It is a matter of debate whether the occupation started in 1948 or 1967.  If you are of the view that the expulsion of the Palestinians from their homes when Israel was founded was unacceptable than [sic] the occupation began there.  If you agree with the foundation of state of Israel whatever the costs to the Palestinian people then you think the occupation started in 1967.  Believing that the foundation  of the state of Israel was unjust does not mean that you think the state of Israel should not continue to exist.   I believe that the foundation of Canada was unjust but I don’t call for the dissolution of Canada; although I am starting to consider it.” I happen to think that since about 96% of BC is on unceded First Nations land, we are in a similar place of occupation. Look up the Royal Proclamation of 1763 on that one.
   4. Davies then explained that in Gaza, people are suffering and that you can’t get basic necessities there. AnonymousProgressive inserted a statement from a Hamas official saying that because of bread, there is no starvation in Gaza. That may be true. But there are other necessities than bread and other ways to suffer. The International Red Cross released an unusually bold statement on Monday calling for an end to the illegal closure of Gaza. They explain suffering circumstances beyond just the presence/absence of bread.
   5. The next question in the video is whether she supports the Boycott, Divest, Sanction [BDS] campaign against Israel. The textual commentary explains she is wrong, which is logically absurd because the question was whether she supports the BDS campaign. Her opinion is her opinion. An example of an unhelpful merging of fact/opinion/vitriol that muddies clear discourse. The textual commentary explains that BDS targets all Israelis “to isolate and delegitimize the Jewish state.” That could be one goal of many who support BDS. I remember a Boycott Brand America campaign several years ago. Many who supported it wanted to delegitimize the USA, many simply wanted President Bush to get out of Iraq: a political policy choice. Do all who support BDS necessarily wish to delegitimize the Jewish state? No. To say they all do is unprovable and a bullying tactic because it puts a chill on discourse.

In the end, what comes from all this? Some discussion, some facts, some opinions, a mis-stated year, an apology, some analogies, and some unfounded logical leaps. This seems to be standard in my observation of dialogue about Israel over the last quarter century.

So then other Canadian federal politicians start condemning Libby Davies for her views. Again, Judy Rebick notes that the vast majority of Canadians do not have a positive view of Israel and just over half have a negative view. So who is offended by criticism of Israel?

I won’t put on my tin foil hat and try to list them all. But here’s the answer: those who have a stake in supporting the status quo. That includes Canada, Israel’s “best friend,” regardless of whether that’s a Conservative or Liberal government in Canada.

But we learn more when we see Murray Dobbins’ accounting of how Jack Layton reacted to Davies’ comments, apologizing to the Israeli ambassador and forcing her to make a public apology. This perpetuates the chill that there is something untouchable about talking about Israel…to the point of avoiding commentary on Israel’s killing of flotilla travelers in international waters; how is that not an international crime?

Virtually the same thing happened the week after BC NDP candidate Mable Elmore won her nomination in Vancouver-Kensington in March 2009. Using the word Zionist in an interview she gave years earlier came back into the public eye. BC NDP leader Carole James forced Elmore to apologize.

And if you’ve heard of the hitherto great journalist Helen Thomas, you can read two perspectives about the price she paid for carelessly weighing in on issues around Israel, along with a defense of her. Clearly, the stakes are high for engaging about Israel.

There is clearly a minefield around Israel discourse. There are inferences, presumed implications, assumed emotions, leaps to conclusions, fear of bad political spin, confusion around who exactly are politicians’ constituents, fear of perhaps offending a group regardless of how logical or reasonable it may be.

All these add up to a chill. A chill that I have felt victim to if you look at the very little I have written in 6 years about Israel, out of a reluctance to deal with the [at least chill-induced perceived] onslaught of opposition. That is, until recent weeks when the absence of political action in the world to address human rights violations motivated a flotilla of civilians with aid to attempt to break a blockade that violates “international humanitarian law“. Then the Rachel Corrie was kept from landing in Gaza.

Now there is a ship of German Jews readying to sail to Gaza. This should help cut the Gordian knot of simplistic manipulation and intellectual abuse that is the all-spin zone around Israeli issues and the machinery of the chill over so many who should feel free to speak their minds.

And here’s your test for today. Take a look at this classic editorial cartoon and see if you can engage with it on rational, emotional and political levels without sliding into a reactionary place. You are, of course, fee to like or dislike, respect or oppose it

And a final test, if you are still unsure of whether Zionism is a necessarily offensive word in North America, read its use and context here and try to separate the definition and use of “Zionism” and the writer’s opinions about Zionism. This should clear/muddle things up for various people. How about you?

Finally, I intentionally waited until I finished writing this before reading most of this piece by Paul Burrows to avoid restating everything that resonates with me.

So, I want to live in a community where we have open dialogue about controversial issues. When events are spun and a chill sets in, we all suffer fron this. I think our job is to not settle for simplistic answers and to be critical of the spin and “follow the money” to see who benefits from each position on the table.

The truth wants to be free. We all need to practice how to hear it and cut through the impediments.

• No Related Posts

By the way, while I’m not commenting on this news release, I would like to mention here that the International Committee of the Red Cross has just released a very important statement on ending the closure of Gaza. People will of course support or condemn this ICRC position for good, bad, non-rational or compelling reasons. But I’m not writing about that today.

Committed activists and ideologues on all sides of Israel issues contribute to this intense level of spin expertise. Within the discourse, there are, among other things: facts, disinformation, misinformation, irrational attacks, flagrantly hyperbolic analogies, opinions, rhetoric, invective, anger, racism, Polyannaism, political agendas, global conflict paradigms that in part revolve around middle eastern land, and the governments and lobby groups of dozens of countries. It’s a classic imbroglio flambe.

I will take but one example of a variety of things I have to say about Israel. Let’s start with an analogy, knowing full well that it can be creatively re-interpreted by anyone with an agenda to accuse me of pretty much anything. I can handle that.

[Note: just for fun, let me state clearly that I make no comments in this entire piece about whether "the state of Israel ought to exist or not"...just so that if anyone accuses me of being on either side of it, I'm just not talking about that issue in this piece. Later, though. Oh, and preemptive disclaimers are a feature of a society of discourse living under a chill.]

Here’s my question. Can anyone criticize policy decisions or actions of Israel’s government?

Can Canadians criticize the government of Canada for supporting tar sands development, or even spending tax money on child care subsidies? Typically, yes. And in doing so, few seem to be accused of being racist, anti-Canadian, or harbouring hatred for Canadians.

Can Canadians criticize the US government for its support of a free trade agenda with despotic regimes, or even spending tax money on food stamp programs? Typically, yes. And in doing so, few seem to be accused of being racist, or harbouring hatred for the American people, though to be honest, many are accused of being anti-American for criticizing or supporting something someone else either agrees with or disagrees with. That’s too bad. Chills suck.

If France begins above ground nuclear testing on a “French” island in the Pacific Ocean or embraces a Tobin Tax, do I necessarily hate/love the French people for decisions of the government, regardless of who voted for what and by how much? I wouldn’t think so. I think I’d still appreciate their cinema and fries.

So a while back I wrote [in a poem] about the difference between a people and a government’s policies [see below]. Are there any differences? What should be the significance of the differences? And if you are interested in testing your attitudes toward this issue, take this test: read this article and see if you can de/re-spin everyone’s perspective. It’s pretty complicated, but a worthwhile exercise. Maybe I’ll get around to doing that in here one day.

via 22 Impolite Questions: a Response to Rhetoric Crimes « Politics, Re-Spun.

are Noam Chomsky and Phyllis Bennis anti-American if they criticize their imperial government?

and what about Israel?

am i anti-Semitic if i disagree with the domestic or foreign policy decisions of the de facto fundamentalist Jewish theocracy in Israel?

do i wish all Jews in the world dead because i don’t agree with any given decision of the Israeli government?

are Noam Chomsky and Phyllis Bennis self-hating Jews if they oppose any given decision or set of decisions of the Israeli government or decisions of the US government that support Israeli policy they disagree with?

• No Related Posts

Three Mohawks from Quebec travelled to Cochabamba for April’s climate summit. They left on the Haudenosaunee Passport since they accept neither Canadian nor American citizenship. They were easily allowed out of Canada with those credentials.

But then Canada wouldn’t let them in unless they signed a Canadian document. Their story is moving and inspiring. There are allies and enemies to their desire to travel internationally under their own flag. And it shames me to say that most of the enemies were Canadian officials and our policies.

“The Haudenosaunee Passport is a non-violent expression of our distinct identity as a sovereign people,” Deer concluded. “While both Canada and the United States claim us as their citizens, the Haudenosaunee Passport is a constant reminder that our people have never acquiesced our citizenship as Haudenosaunee people. It also provides our people an alternative to acquiring Canadian or U.S. documentation.”

via Prevents Mohawks from Returning from Bolivia with Haudenosaunee Passports

• No Related Posts

But when we look to Twitter to see patterns of political discourse in Canada, we find politicians are generally behind the curve in using this medium to do anything more than promote the busy-ness of their daily itinerary.

More analysis below these interesting excerpts:

Small had been hoping to learn something about how politicians use Twitter, but to her surprise, she found that it’s the media and political junkies who are taking the greatest advantage of the Twitterverse.

…

The main problem with politicians’ tweets, she says, is that they’re too self-directed—often updates about what the politician is doing or where he or she is travelling or visiting. Rarely do politicians use Twitter for conversations, she found.

…

Media accounted for about 10 per cent of the Twitter conversations with this tag, compared to politicians, who accounted for 1.4 per cent of conversations, Small found. The other big talkers with the #cdnpoli tag included bloggers and individuals, whether just partisans or political junkies.

via Politician ‘tweets’ the least interesting thing about Twitter, study finds – thestar.com.

I can understand that politicians don’t want to discuss political issues with other tweeps. They are rather busy. But they’re also whipped by parties to not go rogue by saying something in Twitter that will cause scandal or otherwise engage the public in political dialogue in a way that the party spin machine can’t run its message control.

That, I think, is why Tamara Small arrived at these conclusions about Twitter use: wonks and media outweigh politicians significantly.

Something, though, that Susan Delacourt doesn’t explore in this piece is how journalists in Twitter may be affected by discussion about news topics to the point that trending topics in Twitter may actually help determine what corporate media and the CBC decide to be newsworthy.

If you have any doubt about that, do some research on how the #BustyHookers hashtag developed a life of its own in a way that likely would have left that phrase only marginally newsworthy.

• No Related Posts

Now we have polling to show that once Canadians start thinking outside the box of majority government crutches, we can start imagining what preferable leadership could look like in Canada.

The poll also asked Canadians how they would vote if the Liberals and NDP went to the polls offering Canadians a coalition government, and here things get interesting.

…

If the coalition were to propose Jack Layton as prime minister, according to the Reid poll, it could defeat the Conservatives by 43-37 per cent.

via Prime Minister Layton? – The Globe and Mail.

• No Related Posts

I know it is irresponsible for any sensible person to adopt the radical left wing stance that big corporations always care about profits and that they’re the root of all evil, but after watching BP handle the oil spill this past month and you have to start wondering if a large corporation, when their main source of revenue is hazardous material like crude oil, had any intention of being responsible when it comes to handling their product or have any concern about how it affects ordinary people if an accident occurred.

via My Can Of Contemplation: Maybe Corporate Irresponsibility ISN’T Just a Leftist Fad….

BP clearly sucks. But we are all complicit because oil is the lubricant of our society. The oil disaster is a wake-up call for all of us. Corporations by definition and legal mandate “always care about profits” to the point that any charitable or socially responsible acts are goodwill, hence profit, generators. As legal persons corporations are defined with the goal of maximizing shareholder wealth.

BP saying they’ll pay for the cleanup is hilarious considering how Exxon has not paid for the Valdez spill.

1. CAN the leak even be plugged?

2. CAN the damage be cleaned up at all?

3. Does even BP have enough money to pay for it?

My guess is “no” to all three questions. Technology will not save us. The precautionary principle does, however, have a lot to offer here.

The reality is that we as a society are inclined to give BP a free ride on this one to avoid completely weaning our society off oil and leaving the oil in Canada’s tar sands.

• No Related Posts

Imtiaz Popat on “The Rational” and I, talking about the HST, the Vancouver Parks Board’s dance with class war and gentrification, and federal coalitions in the UK and Canada!

The video podcast of the conversation lives at Vista Video.

You can watch it in Miro, the best new open source multimedia viewing software: http://www.miroguide.com/feeds/8832

or…

You can watch it in iTunes: itpc://dgivista.org/pod/Vista_Podcasts.xml

or…

The podcast file is at http://dgivista.org/pod/COOP.Radio.5.31.10.mov

Enjoy!

• No Related Posts

I know the stakes are high as at least one group [or agent provocateur] has asserted its tone with the RBC firebombing.

I’m reading of rebel clowns, watching a video on the G8 and the Group of Seven, and remembering the teddy bear catapult in Quebec City’s FTAA protest in 2001. And I’ve reviewed Judy Rebick’s commentary on the context of the catapult as well as and example of how to effectively extend the media life of creative resistance!

Then I recalled protesters throwing teddy bears onto the floor of the House of Commons, and found the connections here: New Form of Protest in Canada: Teddy Bears – ABC News.

Two anti-free trade protesters were arrested Wednesday at Ottawa’s House of Commons after they unfurled a banner reading “Decriminalize Democracy” in the public gallery. The pair began throwing teddy bears onto government benches occupied by parliamentarians.

Security guards quickly subdued and charged them with causing a disturbance.

…

Government House leader Don Boudria refused to see the humor in the situation. “This is Parliament, not a recreation center, not a demonstration hall, or not a barricade, and any use of the building for anything other than parliamentary purposes is wrong,” he said.

I’m finished with this perspective. The House is the people’s House. I find it galling when MPs behave like petulant children because of some absurd notion that the theatre of parliament is entertaining or valuable to society somehow, yet enforce strict silence for citizens in the galleries.

When they have lost a sense of public servanthood, they are asking to be mocked. Teddy bear protests seem to fit. Creative resistance is a valid tactic.

Regarding the teddy bear catapult at the FTAA from the ABC article:

The group also issued a statement saying: “The catapult was a prop which was used in an absolutely non-violent manner to mock the absurdity of holding the secretive and undemocratic summit within a walled fortress.”

I also remember a photo in a paper of a protester with a hockey stick shooting either a tear gas canister or teddy bear back toward the police line. That was my inspiration for taping my protest signs for rallies to a hockey stick.

But McTeague warned the protesters about Wednesday’s teddy bear attack, saying, “All kidding aside … this kind of tactic should never be used in the House of Commons. If you have a statement to make, make it by the ballot or make it verbally, write us a letter or do what you have to do, but throwing stuff at us doesn’t accomplish anything,” he said.

Like Boudria above, McTeague has no standing to demand public decorum when MPs refuse to abide by the same or even a higher standard: after all, they run our country!

The electoral system is not a level playing field. Letters are hardly compelling when corporate interests control both parties that have ever run our country. Throwing stuff at them does, I think, accomplish a great deal.

With action heating up already with arrests in Vancouver on Friday, I hope to see more creative resistance next month in Ontario.

• No Related Posts

The entire editorial is below, but here are ten comments about how deluded the editorial department at the Globe and Mail is.

1. We live in a post-modern world, if not a post-post-modern world. Corporate media is modernist by design; its paradigm is authoritatively objective, one-way, profit-driven, broadcast and top-down. That sounds pretty jaded to me. The Yes Men can only be seen as jaded because they no longer recognize the primacy of modernist corporate media as being much of a useful force in society unless it is subverted and manipulated.
2. Since the medium is the message, increasing proportions of the population are rejecting the message of corporate media’s medium.
3. The Daily Show and Colbert Report are not anomalies today, but they do threaten corporate media’s monopoly over news/truth/opinion. In fact, just today someone’s again writing about how newspapers could even have a future!
4. The Globe and Mail got quite badly punked by the Yes Men in Copenhagen in December, as did all other corporate media. In fact, much corporate media in Canada showed themselves with their pants down when they recently reported the death of Gordon Lightfoot while he listened to it all on the radio while in his dentist’s chair. Fact-check much?
5. Suggesting the Yes Men are the actual threat to the believability of all forms of communication is laughable since corporate mainstream media are constantly guilty of suppressing critically important news while promoting their neoliberal politics and politicians while marketing sensationalism for maximizing their corporate profit.
6. Suggesting that all forms of communication are threatened by the Yes Men is itself sensationalist, reactionary and further proof that the editorial staff doesn’t really get post-modernism in media…but then how could they, they are the established paradigm.
7. The first half of the editorial describes the Yes Men antics, thereby demonstrating the potency of their brand of satire with free publicity.
8. While the Globe editors are correct in describing satire as a “legitimate form of comment,” their demand that there be “sufficient warning for the public” indicates a few things. The Globe editors didn’t get the joke in Copenhagen and feel embarrassed. They think the public is too stupid to get ironic messages. Again, see The Daily Show and Colbert Report. Those in the public who are duped need to learn the lesson that we should question information authorities and verify sources, then compare stated messages with confirmed messages. Then we need to evaluate in our own minds what policies ought to be. This is the point of satire, which the Globe editors are clearly missing.
9. Their example about no one ever showing up for real free concerts in Missoula is a small risk to society as a whole that is being constantly misinformed by corporate media neglecting its investigatory role.
10. I refuse to allow the Globe editorial staff to be the ones to inspire me to ask the question of whether anyone believes a message. Corporate media is so compromised when it comes to truth, they have very little standing to even pose that question. That they end their editorial with it, with presumably a straight face, is laughable.
11. A bonus comment: ultimately, I hope I am being duped by an editorial that is actually ironic in itself. That perhaps the Globe actually welcomes the antics of the Yes Men and their disciples and have written this editorial in an attempt to mock their own paradigm. If so, I will gladly tip my hat to them. But I’m not holding my breath.

Say no to the jaded world view of the Yes Men

Their ilk threatens the believability of all forms of communications.

Gresham’s Law holds that devalued money eventually drives out good money. The more inferior currency floating around, the harder it is for people to believe in the real thing. The same goes for the news.

Last week, a widely circulated news release claimed, “Shell halts Nigerian offshore drilling in visionary new remediation plan.” The document carried a Shell logo at the top and was distributed via a legitimate-looking website. At the bottom was a media-relations contact number (answered by a real person) and all the standard legal boilerplate. The message: After the Gulf of Mexico oil leak, Shell was halting all its drilling operations in the Niger River delta and embarking on an $8-billion environmental rehabilitation program.

It was, of course, entirely bogus.

A group calling itself the Nigerian Justice League later claimed credit for the ruse, saying they drew their inspiration from the Yes Men, a group of anti-corporate pranksters familiar to Canadians. In December, before the Copenhagen climate change summit, the Yes Men produced a realistic-looking press release purportedly from federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice, claiming Canada was adopting strict carbon-emissions targets and donating $13-billion to Africa. It was accompanied by a fake Wall Street Journal article, a fake endorsement from a Ugandan politician and, later, a fake retraction by Mr. Prentice. All this to draw attention to what the Yes Men considered Canada’s lack of commitment on climate change.

Both pranks got enough press coverage to be considered successes by the perpetrators. With the Yes Men now drawing eager imitators, we’ll likely be seeing much more of this sort of thing. And that’s bad news for everyone.

Satire is a legitimate form of comment. But it requires a deft hand; and sufficient warning for the public to get the joke. A recent prank in Missoula, Montana, falsely promoted a free thank-you concert being staged by Smurfit-Stone, a container company, and Macy’s department store, two firms that recently shut operations in the city. But to what greater purpose? It had no discernible impact on the corporations in question. And if Missoula ever hosts a free concert in the future, no one will show up.

The jaded world view of the Yes Men and copycat pranksters threatens the believability of all forms of communications. It could eventually undermine the very kinds of positive achievements the activists claim to demand.

Consider the historic truce last week between environmental groups and the Canadian forestry industry on logging practices. It seems such a surprising and radical departure from both sides’ normal behaviour, after years of animosity, that it might easily be considered a prank. In fact it is very good news. But will anyone believe it?

• No Related Posts

Canada and the U.S. will set common standards for regulating greenhouse gas emissions from heavy-duty vehicles, Environment Minister Jim Prentice announced today.

via Prentice: Canada, US will align regulations on truck emissions :: The Hook.

Some time ago Canada embraced worse pesticide standards so we could harmonize with our fellow deregulation addicts in the USA.

Neoliberals love to seek level playing fields, which usually means stripping away anything that fetters profit maximization. Environmental standards are pesky. They come from society enacting its will through government to limit the damage that profit-mad corporations can heap upon our world.

So when right wing governments get into power, they try to align their regulations with key trading partners, but not to enhance regulation by matching better standards, but by eroding the higher standards so we can remove barriers to competition with others.

This is a race. A race to the bottom.

So with these new truck emissions standards to come in, my default assumption is that they will dilute more effective standards. I’ll be looking for more expert analysis of this announcement.

My other concern is the principle that I don’t want my country aligning its policies with those of other countries, even if we trade so heavily with the USA, which may not be the wisest thing to do in the near future, but that’s another story.

Policy independence matters.

But a larger concern is the nonsense climate breakdown policy we have that this change pursues: “Reducing emissions in this sector will help us achieve our 2020 target of a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels.”

That’s just a crappy target. Forget about 1991 emissions levels, forget Kyoto, forget what kind of drastic reduction in GHGs we need to pursue as the industrialized world. This is a pathetic target designed by Alberta tar sands interests, climate change deniers and neoliberal Christian Armageddonists.

In the end, whenever your read about policy harmonization, you should immediately watch how we’re all going to get screwed.

• No Related Posts

Saddest for me is the lack of time and opportunity for children to play. This is why we have Clowns Without Borders.

Here is a brief, yet expansive report from the Canadian Red Cross. There are more details at the Canadian Red Cross Haiti page. Hurricane season is coming. We need to keep building relationships to restore and enhance stability compared to where they were before.

• No Related Posts

This came to me second hand already. Looks like it’s going viral. Common sense SHOULD go viral! Do your viral work, interwebs!

• No Related Posts

CNN showed Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech from August 1963 on the day that the United States inaugurated a black man to be president.

I remember a chat they had with King’s son and a question along the lines of whether it would have taken until 2008 to elect a black man to be president if his father weren’t assassinated so long ago. The answer was something like, yes a black man probably would have been elected president sooner, in fact his father could have been president.

I remember my life at 34, King’s age at the March on Washington. I also remember 39, the age King was killed. I think about all that progressive forces accomplished in the United States and elsewhere during his life and after it. I often wonder how much more could have been accomplished if he lived, even until today.

I think about the “fierce urgency of now” and how many nows we have passed up on, we as a society.

Who is to define the nows? Who is to determine when it’s time to act on climate change, or reform of global capitalism, or free public clean water for all, a global basic annual income, a Tobin Tax, leaving tar sands oil in the ground, you name it. Who is around to stand up and say they have a dream, that it’s not alright to wait any more and that we need to start walking down a new road?

King did and they killed him. Bobby Kennedy never made it out of the 60s either. Decades of Jane Elliott exercises demonstrate the necessary controversy and resistance to complacency, but also our culture’s inability to embrace a sea change. She “even” came to Saskatchewan to demonstrate the extent of prejudice, so there are no moral high grounds in some kind of enlightened Canada to perch on.

In the end, it comes down to change. The status quo is poisonous. It favours the anointed and abuses the weak. We are either fine with that, or someone steps up.

Tommy Douglas. Terry Fox. Crystal Lee Sutton, whose insurance company had the last laugh on her last September.

And while Barack Obama has proven to have had more profound rhetoric than policy in his first 1.5 years, we have to look past all the things he got us to say “Yes, We Can” to and think about all the things that still need doing that he, and others, are simply or profoundly not doing.

And I have to say, I’m looking around…constantly…looking for people to step up and show they can do more than be petty. I can tell you what I see, but really, the question is what do you see, and are you asking the question?

• No Related Posts