Tag Archives: g20

A Better World is Needed, Activism, Anarchism, Art, British Columbia, COPE, NPA, Politics, Soft Fascism, Vision Vancouver

Charging $1,200 to democratically assemble, Vision Vancouver looks to China for advice on (anti) free speech laws.

4 Comments

Vancouver - a free speech zone? Not unless you cough up the cash.

I wish that this was a satirical piece.

In sort of a break from the ever-so-boring federal election coverage that we’ve been bringing you lately, the City of Vancouver and its maybe-progressive governing party Vision Vancouver and former NDP MLA and now VanCity mayor (and Gordon Campbell endorser) Gregor Robertson have (almost) decided that any protests that have a literature table, tent, or even sign at them might well be charged $1,200 – a fee charged to citizens in order to exercise their (supposedly) constitutionally guaranteed right to assembly.

Sadly, it looks like the progressive Mayor Gregor Robertson is showing us what a Harper majority government would probably do to our “democratic rights.”

Even better, they’re apparently taking advice from the government of China on the bylaw.

Yes, China.

The country that safeguarded free speech in Tian’anmen Square.

See, for example, The Tank Man.

The country that has disappeared Ai Weiwei (艾未未) simply because he did try to exercise his (not guaranteed) free speech.

Ai Weiwei, currently 'disappeared' for having an opinion.

First, a bit of history. Those of you familiar with the city on the edge of Lotus Land may well remember the constant presence of Falun Gong protestors and their signs depicting the horrendous atrocities the Chinese government visits upon practitioners outside the Chinese consulate in Vancouver, which itself is situated in a residential zone. No one, as far as I am aware, is suggesting that the Falun Gong protest was violent or unruly. In fact, most Falun Gong practitioners I’ve known are calm, and quiet, and they almost, well, flow with the qi.

Well, one day the city decided to ban these protestors. They used a bylaw to prohibit any “structure” (the Falun Gong signs) on public property (the edge of the sidewalk) and evict the entirely peaceful protesters. Sue Zhang, one of the organizers, rightfully challenged the bylaw in court, and after a series of cases, the BC Court of Appeal struck down the bylaw, saying that blanket prohibitions were unconstitutionally restrictive on free speech rights and rights of assembly.

That being said, there’s a court order in place at the moment, preventing the Falun Gong protest from re-establishing itself, to allow the City to bring its bylaw to shape in order to pass constitutional muster.  Effective April 19, the court would strike down the current law which bans any structure.

The court did also say that some regulation could make sense – owing to a clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms allows “reasonable” restrictions “as may be justified in a free and democratic society.” Following direction from the courts, I suppose, the city directed staff to prepare a report with suggestions on what could be done.  In an amazing tour de force, the report has come back, recommending that the city charge $1,200 for a permit to erect ‘structures’ on public property – ie, signs, tents, tables.  You know, structures.

Let’s put this in plain and simple terms: charging $1,200 to have a table, or a sign, or a tent at a protest limits free speech. It restricts freedom of assembly to those who can afford it.  There should not be a fee on democracy.

This is a ridiculous concept.  One, a lot of protests and rallies involve a table for literature or refreshments. $1,200 permit charge.  Two, a lot of protests and rallies involve a tent to keep rain off of speakers and sound system equipment. $1,200 permit charge.  And it rains a lot in Vancouver.  If you happen to stick a sign into the ground, $1,200 charge.  Imagine that you put up an installation art piece. $1,200 permit charge.

The Falun Gong protestors set up a series of signs and a rain shelter on city property directly outside the Chinese Consulate.  They couldn’t put the signs on the consulate property – that would be trespassing.  They used public property for their signs. The same public property we use every day to walk on, to protest on, to rally on.  However, they put up signs.  Here, the city is trying to ban protests that occur on public property unless you can afford to pay a $1,200 fee for a permit to actually hold a protest this way.

Aside from the fact that this bylaw would restrict protests to those who could afford it, it is absolutely insane that the City of Vancouver consulted the Chinese government about the bylaw, while it merely “advised” the Falun Gong protesters that this would be happening. What did the City ask the Chinese government? If this went far enough? Seriously, guys, asking the Chinese government about free speech is like asking the Tea Party on how we can ensure a woman’s right to choose.

The City won’t tell anyone what they discussed with China, bastion of free speech, because they signed a “confidential agreement” about the consultations.

The city says that this wouldn’t restrict sandwich boards for stores. That’s covered under other bylaws.  In fact, according to the city, this proposed bylaw only impacts “non-commercial installations.”  So, not only do I need to pay one thousand two hundred dollars to put up a table and show off my “PROTECT FREE SPEECH” signs – the store down the way can put up its signs and/or kiosks hawking whatever it wants for free?

Whose free speech is being protected there?

The message box emerging from Vancouver council appears to be as such: currently, the city bylaw bans all structures on public property.  No tables, tents, or structures used in a political protest are allowed under the current Vancouver bylaw.  According to the city, the proposed bylaw would actually enable people to do things that have been illegal all along.  Gracious move by the city to save us?

No.  The BC Court of Appeal said that the prohibition was illegal and it will strike down the prohibition as of April 19.  This talking point will be moot in exactly 11 days.  It’s also incredibly disingenuous.  Yes, the current (as it exists) bylaw bans ALL structures on city property.  But yes – the BC Court of Appeal has said that’s illegal.  So, Council, you’re not rescuing people from the vagaries of an unfair law – the BC Court of Appeal has already done that.

A quote that contextualizes this: “None of these changes will make anything more illegal than they already are.” (See the City video stream of the meeting in question.)

Could the same be said on April 2oth? Effective April 19, the bylaw that currently prohibits all structures is struck down, it ceases to exist.  All structures would be legal.  The Vision Vancouver councillors can get away with saying that this is a proposed bylaw that would enable people to protest, that would legalize protest, until April 19th.  After that, they’re making a lot of protest illegal.  Of course, any time you add opportunities when no opportunities legally exist, you’re adding.  But when everything’s legal? Then you’re restricting.

Instead, the City of Vancouver is proposing that the following restrictions will apply to any protest that need a table, or a tent, or a free-standing sign:

  • Structures would only be permitted from 8:00AM to 8:00PM
  • There must be people attending the structure
  • Structures would not be permitted in areas of the city that are zoned residential or that have residential units on the ground floor
  • There could only be one permit per individual at a time.
  • There could only be one permit per ‘face’ (side) of a block.
  • You wouldn’t be able to get a permit for a kiosk and a sign and a tent.
  • Your permit would only be valid for 30 days, but you could only get a permit for an area for 30 out of 60 days. So, only one month out of every two. And once a protest has been permitted the same area couldn’t see a protest for another 30 days.
  • The size could not be larger than 2.1 meters high, 2 meters wide, and 1 meter deep.
  • It must be at least 5 meters from a building entry or exit, 5 meters from a bus stop, 5 meters from street corners, and 0.5 meters from a curb.  A structure could not also cover more than 25% of the front of a building.

Interestingly, the area in which the Chinese consulate is located is in a residential area, so, of course, no protests with structures would be permitted there.  Anywhere else where you can meet these proposed restrictions (that the City of Vancouver would likely prefer us to read as “enabling conditions”) you can:

  • Put down a $1,000 deposit
  • Pay a $200 license fee
  • Pay $25 for any renewals

And then you can put your sign in the ground.

The staff person presenting the report at the council committee meeting was very specific in saying that this wouldn’t prohibit protests where everyone held their own signs and banners, of course. This is because the city only bans structures at the moment, and this is what the court case centres on – Vancouver can’t constitutionally put a blanket ban on structures used for political expression.  I also think that this restriction is in danger of being ableist – I’ve seen people with disabilities bringing signs and banners that are free-standing to protests.  Do they need permits?

But what exactly is a structure? There was an interesting back and forth between Councillor Woodsworth and the city staff person presenting the report.

Q: Is it a structure if I stick a sign in the ground?
A: Yes.
Q: What if I put a table on the side of the road and set up a tent around it?
A: Yes.

In Vancouver, it rains.  And most protests in Vancouver I’ve been to have a tent in case of that, to keep the sound system dry. $1,200 fee, only in certain areas.  Plus, no bigger than 2m by 1m.  You also won’t be able to set up a petition table at the back of the protest, without that fee and that permit. And only in certain areas.

Yesterday, when news of this first emerged, I tweeted my outrage.  Pretty much instantaneously, the @VisionVancouver twitter account ‘followed’ (subscribed) to my twitter account.  Seeing that, I immediately asked them if they had a statement. No reply. I asked COPE, another party at Vancouver council, if they had a statement. They responded pretty much instantly with a link to their statement.

Today, after about 24 hours of badgering, the @VisionVancouver twitter account sent me a tweet with a link to their statement: “Vancouver is a free speech zone, help us keep it that way.”

One, that’s a pretty close interpretation of the COPE campaign during the Olympics that had t-shirts that read “I am a free speech zone.”  Nice move, Vision Vancouver.

Two, Vision’s statement is kind of sad.  It states that Vancouver is a free speech zone.  Right, it is, under the constitution anywhere in Canada is.  The statement says that the City is working to protect free speech, and that the party “will not accept changes to the law that restrict these critical social expressions.”

Here’s a key point, Vision Vancouver: no changes to the bylaw could restrict free speech any more than they already do. This is part of your message box – the bylaw right now simply prohibits structures as part of a protest, full stop.  That’s why the Court of Appeal said it was unconstitutional.  Very technically speaking, any changes you make – even if it were to only permit structures on the south east corner of the Art Gallery lot with a $1 million permit fee – would have the effect of “enabling” free speech MORE than is already the case.

With the logic that they won’t restrict free speech any more than it is already restricted, Vision could do a lot, seeing as how free speech with any structures are completely banned at the moment – until April 19.

Would the same logic hold up after that, when the law is struck down by the courts? Hard to say.

But again – charging $1,200 for any protest that would need a table isn’t democracy. Democracy doesn’t require an admissions charge.

Councillor Andrea Reimer, the chair of the committee that this report came to, tweeted me telling me that protest has never cost anything, and that putting up structures has been 100% illegal.

Councillor Reimer and I had quite a civilized twitter chat, though she suggests that there’s a lot of misinformation and creative editing going on.  I’ve given you sources for every claim I’ve made in this piece, and while all opinion pieces contain flair, I don’t think I’m going overboard.  Ms Reimer even graciously acknowledged that her electioneering tent was on the street and 100% illegal.

I’ve offered Ms Reimer the opportunity to add comments, corrections, and even her own viewpoint on this article, which I will post directly at the bottom of this piece , without any editing.  I’d invite any other Vancouver councillor to do the same, so that everyone in Vancouver can see what their elected representatives are thinking.

Now, Vision Vancouver is asking for public input on the proposed bylaw.  I suggest that we all take the moment to send them an email with our thoughts, or send them a twitter message.  According to their statement, you can email them at info@votevision.ca.

When you do so, remember:

  • The official message is that any changes to the bylaws would be an improvement, because the current bylaw (which is unconstitutional) prohibits all structures.  However, the quasi-emancipatory changes proposed by the City include a $1,200 fee for permission to have a structure – anything from a sign in the ground to a table to a tent – at a protest.  Democracy doesn’t have an admissions fee.
  • All structures for political protests would be perfectly legal after April 19th – after April 19th, these proposed bylaw changes would be restricting speech that had been made free by the courts.
  • These restrictions only apply to non-commercial messages, because other bylaws already permit commercial (ie advertising, etc.) signs under specific conditions.
  • No function of democracy should have a price tag attached to it or restrictions as to when or where democracy can be practiced.

Sadly, these kind of restrictions are nowhere near new.  The sardonic ‘twist’ on “free speech zones” comes from the protest pens that proliferated in the United States, which restrict protests at important events to small areas, often caged-in.  In Vancouver during the Olympics, there were a number of free speech zones. In Toronto, during the G20, the free speech zone was the Queen’s Park lawn, which the police charged and arrested dozens, sometimes rather violently, like in the case of Adam Nobody.  These large events have had crackdowns supported by provincial and federal governments – BC Liberals and federal Conservatives.  Why would Vision Vancouver – a supposedly progressive party – be parroting the Conservatives?  And why should the Chinese government – not exactly noted for its defense of free speech or democratic rights – have a confidential input session with the city, while residents only get 11 days as the Council rushes to approve the bylaw before April 19th?

This isn’t just a municipal issue. It’s our right to free speech, with a table for our signs and petitions, or a tent for the rain.

Democracy doesn’t have a price tag.  Certainly not one that is $1,200.

Here’s where I’ll add any corrections, clarifications, or comments from any Vancouver City Councillor who wants to clear up any ‘misinformation’ or ‘creative editing,’ and I’ll post them without any editing on my part.  Post your comments in the comments below, or email me directly at kbh@yorku.ca.

A Better World is Needed, Activism, Canada, Class War, Conservative Party of Canada, Democracy, Executive Overdrive, First Nations, Identity, International Relations, Justice, Neo-Conservatism, Psychology, Society, Soft Fascism

Harper + Aung San Suu Kyi + G20 Protesters = Hypocrisy

2 Comments

On Saturday, Stephen Harper issued a fantastic statement explaining why Canada is happy that the Burmese totalitarian regime released Aung San Suu Kyi.

The amazing thing is how many of his criticisms of the despotic regime apply to him and his treatment of G20 protesters. The DFAIT/PMO bureaucrats must have had an awesome time crafting this statement. Let’s track the similarities:

Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada on the release of Aung San Suu Kyi

13 November 2010

Yokohama, Japan

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today issued the following statement on the release of Nobel peace laureate and pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi:

“I am pleased that Aung San Suu Kyi has finally been released from house arrest in Burma. She is an unwavering champion of peace, democracy and respect for human rights in Burma, despite being held in detention for 15 of the past 21 years.

via Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada on the release of Aung San Suu Kyi – Prime Minister of Canada.

Peace: the G20 featured thousands of peaceful protesters who consistently argue that the neoliberal capitalist agenda of the G20 undermines peace around the world by exacerbating material disparities and preventable poverty and despair. Hundreds of peaceful protesters were rounded up in terrifying fashion, then detained and charged with either NOTHING or non-existent breaches of the criminal code.

Democracy: the G20 is a patently anti-democratic body that sets the global economic agenda from the perspective of…take a breath here…the 20 richest nations in the world. Protesters oppose this kind of wealth totalitarianism.

Respect for Human Rights: the beatings and Charter violations of G20 protesters in Toronto are widely documented and a stain on Canada’s reputation as a nation that respects human rights. Mind you, this is not surprising when the Harper government “endorses” the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but with this disclaimer: “in a manner fully consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws” which means the government will nod happily at what it likes and ignore the rest if it contravenes our current despotic relationship with indigenous peoples of Canada…much like Bush’s signing statements.

“Neither her trial nor appeal process were conducted in line with international standards. She was not granted due process and should never have been detained.

Due process: I laughed out loud when I read this when I considered the absolute lack of due process afforded to hundreds of detainees at the G20 in Toronto. The Canadian regime that enforced the draconian response to peaceful protest in Toronto failed to meet Canadian standards, let alone international standards.

“Canada has long supported Ms. Suu Kyi in her efforts to bring genuine democracy to Burma. In recognition of her struggle to promote fundamental freedoms and democratic principles, she was granted honourary Canadian citizenship by the Parliament of Canada in 2007.

Genuine democracy: we have no democracy when people have legitimate fears of being rounded up and detained for dozens of hours, perhaps beaten and intimidated, certainly abused for peacefully protesting, partaking of a “free speech zone” or merely walking in public near a protest. The chill factor created by the G20 abuses is designed to discourage future protests/demonstrations. The Orwellian bail conditions foisted upon Alex Hundert and many others undermine fundamental freedoms, the rule of law and democratic principles.

“Canada stands resolutely with Burma’s democratic forces and like-minded members of the international community in the quest to restore civilian government to the Burmese people. We continue to call on the Burmese authorities to release all political prisoners and allow the meaningful political participation of all Burma’s opposition and ethnic groups.

Restoring civilian government: I would like to see a return to civil government that respects the Charter pro-actively, rather than gambles that it can violate the Charter and our rule of law, then hope it avoids/delays sufficient scrutiny until the psychological trauma has been fully embedded in the population.

Release all political prisoners: I call on Stephen Harper to release the G20 protesters still held, initiate a non-partisan public inquiry into G20 security abuses, and initiate judicial review of all charges and bail conditions.

Meaningful political participation: I call on the prime minister to apologize for G20 security excesses and abuses and enact restorative measures towards the protesters and the public at large to affirm for Canadians that his regime is not designed to undermine meaningful political participation in Canada.

“In December 2007, Canada imposed the toughest sanctions in the world against the Burmese regime to indicate its condemnation of the regime’s complete disregard for human rights and its repression of the country’s democratic movement. Those sanctions will remain in place.”

Toughest sanctions in the world: I call on the global community to condemn the behaviour of the Harper government’s G20 security abuses. Harper likes to spin “tough on crime” rhetoric, in this case championing our sanctions on Burma, but he clearly refuses to permit democratic expression at home. His “complete disregard for human rights and…repression of the country’s democratic movement” stemming from the G20 abuses demand that the world community act in whatever way they deem suitable to pressure the Harper regime to acknowledge and actually champion the rule of law, for the sake of democracy in Canada.

The delusion/arrogance that Stephen Harper must now be carrying to have the gall to release this statement condemning the Burmese totalitarian regime and its treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi that also apply to his treatment of G20 protesters is unfathomable.

As long as Canadians permit this kind of abuse of our democracy, Harper will continue to beat us, in full irony, with the text of our Charter.

Please, feel free to forward this post to our irony-loving prime minister at pm@pm.gc.ca so you can let him know that he needs to live up the standard he demands of…of all places…Burma!

A Better World is Needed, Activism, British Columbia, Canada, Democracy, Executive Overdrive, Identity, Neo-Conservatism, Neoliberal Economics, Postmodernism, Psychology, Security and Prosperity Partnership, Society, Technology, Vancouver

One Million BC Activists Can’t Be Wrong, Aren’t Wrong

5 Comments

The most exciting statistic I have ever seen in BC politics, particularly in regard to the health of our democracy, is that 25% of us self-identify as activists. Anyone who cares about social change at all absolutely must read Evi Mustel’s piece in The Province from Wednesday. This statistic means the entire structure of political, economic and social systems in BC is undergoing a paradigm shift. Here’s why.

Well, it turns out that one in four of us in B.C. actually considers him or herself an “activist.” And activists can cause a lot of distress for politicians — and anyone else who tries to tell them what to do.

via Guest column: Internet has mobilized new wave of activism.

Mustel correctly concludes that opposition to the process of introducing the HST is strong. It actually rivals opposition to the tax itself and spans the political spectrum.

She also notes how the blowback about Vision Vancouver’s Hornby bike lane is linked to the party’s relatively miniscule consultation process compared to the Burrard bike lane project. Despite the opposition to process, the network of bike lanes is really the only great triumph of Vision Vancouver, and future usage statistics will bear that out, but Mustel’s point is still sound.

So what do we have now in BC:

  • a Liberal party that has such low membership numbers distributed around the province that they will need to amend their constitution to ensure democratic representation in their leadership vote; that’s what happens when you ignore member development.
  • an NDP with some party controversies that are very difficult to measure in traditional means by looking at party structures. It’s about a 3:1 count of riding associations supporting to opposing the leader, but that might not measure the nature of how activists and members are really positioned.
  • Voter turnout dropping below 50% for a provincial election for the first time in BC history, reflecting how more than half of eligible voters reject all choices available.

And what do we see across Canada:

  • In early January 2009 a quarter million Canadians joined a Facebook group to oppose Harper’s self-centred prorogation of parliament. Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament, which was initially a protest click to join a group, transformed into dozens of protests around the country in late January 2009, then transformed into a movement of movements and Canadians About Political Participation groups in dozens of cities.
  • The anti-constitutional G20 security regime in Toronto last summer reflects a government that is terrified of the tens of thousands of Canadians who have been mobilizing in the streets in the last decade against participation in the neo-conservatives’ Iraqi invasion and occupation and anti-democratic neoliberal economic meetings like the FTAA, WTO, G8/G20 and the SPP.
  • While the Reform Party embraced right-wing populist organizing models on the coattails of American right wing and libertarian organizing before the internet really took off, The Wild Rose Alliance and Rob Ford have inherited the momentum in this internet age, as well as Naheed Nenshi in Calgary with his relative mastery of social networking, thereby not surprisingly demonstrating how engaging with actual people can pay off politically.

All this spells populism.

Not pandering populism, though there is definitely an element of that, but an authentic populist movement of people caring about an issue and seeing avenues to express their policy choices.

Mustel addresses this in her piece by exploring the nature of representative democracy compared to direct democracy:

Concerns about the costs of public consultation has led some to ask: “What happened to the idea of electing leaders to make informed decisions on our behalf?”

Others will argue such consultation keeps public officials in check more than they’ve ever been, and so is worth paying for.

The notion that we elect leaders in a representative democracy to rule until we give them the next mandate is horribly obsolete, particularly when parties lie when leading into an election and opposition parties in majority parliaments have virtually no ability to affect policy. This is part of what is helping Canadians become more enamored with minority parliaments.

Moving out of a strict tradition of representative democracy, people are drifting towards direct democracy: an environment where people have more input and actual authority in between formal elections. This is why the initiative and recall functions are in play right now, with recall campaigns against BC MLAs beginning as early as this month.

People are more engaged politically. They identify themselves as activists. Political, economic and social organizational structures that do not acknowledge and respect that will suffer. Again, the low voter turnout in BC in May 2009 is a testament to that.

[Judy Kirk, a communications veteran who specializes in consultation with the public] correlates increased involvement with higher education rates. “People believe they have a right to be involved in decision making and expect that government will listen,” she says. “People have always had a desire to voice their opinions, but they are now more literate about the ways to be involved,” Kirk says. More than ever, it’s clear, politicians have to listen — or face losing their jobs

Gordon Campbell is now the poster child for what it takes to lose one’s job for not listening. Granted, it’s taken a decade of abusing British Columbians, but in the last month not a cabinet shuffle, TV address, nor a gratuitous tax cut could buy him out of a record-setting 91% disapproval rating.

I became a teacher 17 years ago because I wanted to inspire people to engage in society more effectively. I left to fight back politically when the Liberals’ neoliberal sledgehammer began destroying the education system. Years later, I am starting to see how various elements of society have led to more people declaring their activist identities.

Smart people will begin engaging more with the people right now. Very smart people have been doing so for some time now. But those who continue to ignore the will, power and intent of the people will pay the price because the people have the power and are starting to find more effective ways of wielding it.

In the end, I’m hoping that we can see a flowering of democracy, accountability, transparency and member engagement in political and social organizations. And I’m still working to see the BC NDP become the electoral wing of a progressive social movement in the province.

And with almost a million self-identified activists in BC, it is definitely time for us to organize for a better BC.

Afghanistan, Canada, Conservative Party of Canada, Identity, International Relations

What I’m Remembering Today

Leave a comment

  • People who are willing to die to protect others deserve respect.
  • Prime Minister Stephen Harper feels being at a G20 meeting in Korea is more important than personally showing respect in Ottawa to the living, suffering and dead members of the Canadian Forces.
  • Politicians, not troops, pick missions to join.
  • Neglecting and aggravating the needs and health of soldiers, veterans and their families is inexcusable.
  • A little humility goes a long way.

Afghanistan, Canada, Conservative Party of Canada, Imperialism, International Relations, Morality, Neo-Conservatism, Neoliberal Economics, Psychology

Harper: War Yes! Veterans No!

8 Comments

From the building rhetoric of Canadian troops staying in Afghanistan [but leaving Kandahar, according to the specific words of our commitment to “leave”], to news that Harper will not bother to attend Canadian Remembrance Day ceremonies because he’s away at a G20 meeting, it is clear that while Harper loves war, he has little respect for the people who fight in his wars, as the government undermines the financial stability of our veterans:

All Canadians owe a great debt to our veterans, one that cannot truly be fully repaid. We can, however, ensure veterans who have been injured or disabled while defending this country have a financially secure future when they return to civilian life.

via Letter from Paul Moist: reinstate full pensions for injured veterans < Health and safety, Pensions | CUPE.

I am ashamed to be part of a country whose leader chooses to delegate attendance at Remembrance Day ceremonies because the global neoliberal agenda needs tweaking. Clearly, though, I am not surprised at his priorities. They are unacceptable on so many levels.

A Better World is Needed, Activism, Canada, Class War, Corporations, Democracy, Environment, Executive Overdrive, Health, Justice, NDP, Neoliberal Economics, Privatization, Psychology, Society, Soft Fascism

Monbiot, Progressive Activism and What’s Wrong With Toronto

5 Comments

Toronto, ok greater Toronto, elected Rob Ford as mayor. Canada is a pariah of climate change activism and at the UN. We can’t stop Stephen Harper from being prime minister. Canada is no longer my Canada.

But why?

In my seemingly endless quest to figure out why progressive activists are fighting resignation and cynicism instead of global neoliberal capitalism and the tremendous threats to universalism, communitarianism and social progress, I finally got the courage to read one of George Monbiot’s recent pieces. I started it a few times, but I needed to be in the right kind of stable, emotional headspace to not get all depressed.

He addresses why people make self-destructive political decisions:

Instead of performing a rational cost-benefit analysis, we accept information which confirms our identity and values, and reject information that conflicts with them. We mould our thinking around our social identity, protecting it from serious challenge. Confronting people with inconvenient facts is likely only to harden their resistance to change.

This is why films like An Inconvenient Truth didn’t lead most of the OECD world to sell their cars over the last few years.

But more, Monbiot writes:

Politics alters our minds as much as our circumstances. Free, universal health provision, for example, tends to reinforce intrinsic values. Shutting the poor out of healthcare normalises inequality, reinforcing extrinsic values. The sharp rightward shift which began with Margaret Thatcher and persisted under Blair and Brown, all of whose governments emphasised the virtues of competition, the market and financial success, has changed our values.

What’s the Matter with Kansas? is part of Canada now with Mayor Ford. But then maybe Canada was never as progressive as I nostalgically recall?

I think it was, it’s just that after three decades of neoliberal individualism, the evil doers are eroding our culture of compassion and community.

Conservatives in the United States generally avoid debating facts and figures. Instead they frame issues in ways that both appeal to and reinforce extrinsic values. Every year, through mechanisms that are rarely visible and seldom discussed, the space in which progressive ideas can flourish shrinks a little more.

Like faith-based policy making among US conservatives, Harper’s blatant rejection of the long-form census, real data, and evidence-based policies reduces the space for compelling arguments that violate his beliefs.

The progressive response to this trend has been disastrous. Instead of confronting the shift in values, we have sought to adapt to it. Once-progressive political parties have tried to appease altered public attitudes.

This explains why so many progressives are disillusioned with the organizations that we have historically turned to for political expression. In Monbiot’s analysis, we must:

stop seeking to bury our values and instead explain and champion them. Progressive campaigners, it suggests, should help to foster an understanding of the psychology which informs political change and show how it has been manipulated. They should also come together to challenge forces – particularly the advertising industry – which make us insecure and selfish. Ed Miliband appears to understands this need. He told the Labour conference that he “wants to change our society so that it values community and family, not just work” and “wants to change our foreign policy so that it’s always based on values, not just alliances … We must shed old thinking and stand up for those who believe there is more to life than the bottom line.”

So if we find our progressive political parties refuse to commit to principles or policies that are rooted in our sense of a civilized culture with a progressive agenda, we become disillusioned. We are constantly searching for champions who will actually pursue our goals. But that might be a futile vestige of some nostalgia past.

Monbiot’s warning reminds us why organizations that are not political parties are attracting so much activist talent lately:

We cannot rely on politicians to drive these changes. Those who succeed in politics are, by definition, people who prioritise extrinsic values. Their ambition must supplant peace of mind, family life, friendship – even brotherly love.

So we must lead this shift ourselves. People with strong intrinsic values must cease to be embarrassed by them. We should argue for the policies we want not on the grounds of expediency but on the grounds that they are empathetic and kind; and against others on the grounds that they are selfish and cruel. In asserting our values we become the change we want to see.

The citizen politician. The citizen leader. The citizen activist. Gandhi said it too: “we must be the change we want to see in the world.”

When the people lead, the leaders will follow. This is the threat that Alex Hundert and the other G20 harassed activists represent: the people rising up against a corrupt state that actively opposes the best interest of the populace and the planet.

So it makes sense that 30 years of neoliberal brainwashing leads us to a place where we can tolerate massive assaults on the rule of law we have seen at the G20, and a Glenn Beck for mayor in Toronto.

And while the political sociologists will have a good time trying to explain how Calgary and Toronto ended up with each other’s mayors, the rest of us have an uphill battle of redefining a progressive culture against the politicians, corporations and media all designed to individualize us.

Time to roll up our sleeves and start hosting more salons!

A Better World is Needed, Activism, Anarchism, Canada, Class War, Colonialism, Conservatism, Corporations, Democracy, Executive Overdrive, Justice, Neoliberal Economics, Soft Fascism

An Alex Hundert Primer, While the G20 Inquiry Begins Today

8 Comments

Community organizer Alex Hundert was arrested this morning at his surety’s home.

via Activist Alex Hundert Re-arrested | Toronto Media Co-op.

That was yesterday.

Ok, this is just becoming silly, if it weren’t such a tragic hint at the closing of Canadian society in its slide into Stephen Harper’s Soft Fascism.

Here is a primer of some core pieces to be aware of, in reverse chronological order:

  1. The House of Commons Public Safety Committee will begin today a 5-day inquiry into G20 abuses that will span the next several weeks.
  2. Alex Hundert’s continued state harassment continued with his re-arrest yesterday.
  3. While a justice of the peace foolishly agreed to draconian crown bail condition requests, a real judge has put a little judicial review on such abuses in the Leah Henderson bail conditions hearing. The rule of law may not yet be dead.
  4. “As can be “justified” in a “free” and “democratic” society?” is Kevin Harding’s take on the idiocy, and how it is Alex Hundert’s thoughts and opinions that the state fears.
  5. Why Alex Matters: Defending our Democracy from “our” Police & State is Jasmin Mujanovic’s perspective on the sphincter of the whole situation, with several key conclusions about the nature of principles being battled now.
  6. The Anti-Thanksgiving: Criminalizing Dissent in Canada is my analysis of trends leading to Canadian soft fascism.
  7. The Police State Infects An Apathetic Canada is how apathy is a companion to a closing society.

Many of these posts have key media links that carry many of the details of the surreal, Kafkaesque events that would fit in Gilliam’s Brazil.

It’s time to make time today to see what the House of Commons committee intends to do. If you get the sense from today that it will be a whitewashing, you need to get in touch with the MPs on the committee and light a fire under them. You can find out who they are here.

A Better World is Needed, Activism, Anarchism, Canada, Class War, Conservative Party of Canada, Executive Overdrive, Society, Soft Fascism

The Anti-Thanksgiving: Criminalizing Dissent in Canada

14 Comments

This is no day for thanks. It is neither glorious, nor free.

Canadian governments have criminalized dissent to the point where we have become a shell of a sensible democracy. And we, like the frogs [or beavers] in a slowly boiling pot, are too complacent to do anything about it.

I have already written about our governments’ political harassment of Alex Hundert and Betty Krawczyk. Below are some updates that should motivate you to realize that thanksgiving is not a passive holiday, but a call to action to protect what we are thankful for.

I don’t know Alex Hundert personally, but while his treatment encourages us to think he may be a criminal terrorist mastermind justifying his pre-emptive arrest at gunpoint before the G20 in Toronto, I seriously doubt it. $1.1 billion in security funding leads to surreal behaviour.

Last Wednesday was the beginning of his bail hearing to determine if the police were justified in re-arresting him last month for breaking his bail condition by appearing at public demonstrations. He was a member of a discussion panel at a public meeting at a public university. The police alleged that such an event constituted a demonstration. How absurd.

I know demonstrations. They involve signs, rallies, loud speakers, chants, marches, and the like. Public meetings at local universities or activist churches are meetings. Sure, dissent happens at both, but the first is an active assertion of attitudes designed to demonstrate to the public a certain political value. A meeting is a meeting.

I fully, yet it turns out naively, expected the judge to throw out the arrest within five minutes of the bail hearing beginning. Not so. His bail hearing will continue this week.

So the police have asserted a new definition of a demonstration. This is designed to chill public dissent.

What happens if a faith group invites a social or political activist to speak at a service or weeknight prayer group? Is that a demonstration?

I fully knew that 6.5 years ago I was conducting a demonstration when I organized the Vancouver chapter of Poets Against the War to protest the Iraqi invasion and occupation.

Today, attending such a demonstration could be considered a violation of someone’s bail conditions.

But what if I have a meeting in my house with 6 friends to discuss post-party socio-political mobilization? Is this something I should now be worried about?

This is a chill on public dissent.

What do you call societies that outlaw public dissent?

What do you call societies that issue bail conditions that prevent people from:

The answer:

“It’s an attempt to silence our voice. I don’t believe they are scared of what Alex and I will do … they are concerned about our voice.”

Naomi Wolff’s spectacular book about the rise of soft fascism in Bush’s America is useful here. It warns that we need to watch for signs that our open society is closing. Elements of numbers 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 have been in Canada since before the G20 in Toronto:

  1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy.
  2. Create secret prisons where torture takes place.
  3. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens.
  4. Set up an internal surveillance system.
  5. Harass citizens’ groups.
  6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release.
  7. Target key individuals.
  8. Control the press.
  9. Treat all political dissidents as traitors.
  10. Suspend the rule of law.

We lost the rule of law when hundreds of people were arrested and abused, and released without charge or after being charged under non-existent laws.

Not all political dissidents are considered to be traitors right now, but the rhetoric is that they are anti-Canadian. How much more of this tone can we safely tolerate? None. We have already tolerated too much.

Key individuals, the protest “ring-leaders,” are suffering under conspiracy charges. Conspiracy has a connotation of doing something illegal or harmful. Protest is not illegal. But perhaps that’s naive too, now.

Arbitrary detention and release? Ask the hundreds of people rounded up in Toronto.

Harassing citizen groups is what happens when people who organize public meetings at public universities have one of their panelists arrested, or when a group of peaceful protesters met with a line of riot police in the street spontaneously sing the national anthem, only to find that the moment they finish singing, the riot police rush the crowd.

All I know now is that it is no longer as legal in Canada to hold a Poets Against the War reading at a restaurant as it was 6.5 years ago. I also know that organizing such an event with another person can lead to conspiracy charges.

Should I fear arrest if I book a lecture hall at a local university to discuss liberty and screen the film based on Naomi Wolff’s End of America along with some YouTube videos of protesters terrorized and snatched by riot police in Toronto during the G20?

Ultimately, the government is now asserting that this tone of terror created by the riot police, especially beginning at the 7:30 mark of this video [the most disturbing documentation of the G20 protests for me since I routinely bring my children in strollers to demonstrations], is a new benchmark for people to expect if we wish to express dissent.

So what can we do about these abuses and erosion of our social contract, democracy and free speech?

Firstly, the House of Commons Public Safety Committee has committed to an inquiry to explore the G20 abuses starting two weeks from today. They will “hear a maximum of 30 witnesses or groups on G8 and G20 issues on October 25 and 27, November 3 and December 1 and 6, 2010.” You can contact the updated list of MPs on this committee to express your commitment to democracy and the right to free speech and protest without government abuse.

You can follow the Committee meetings with live or archived audio webcasts, meeting minutes and witness testimony to hear which MPs and political parties support or obstruct an authentic inquiry into the abuses to democracy at the G20.

Secondly, challenge your favourite media outlet to cover this Committee inquiry when they inevitably don’t report on it, its potential for supporting democracy or implications if it is ineffective.

Thirdly, participate as a citizen. Research the Alex Hundert bail hearing this week to make sure you find out what happens. Talk with your people about what liberty and the right to protest means to you. Then be vigilant.

Democracy is a muscle. Not exercising it leads to atrophy.

We do not deserve a democracy we don’t fight for.

In an era where the stakes are insanely high [climate change, peak oil, peak water, crisis in capitalism, the simplistic and simple-minded lure of totalitarianism], we cannot afford to simply trust that our leaders are benign.

They’ve demonstrated that they are not the guardians of democracy countless times. For citizens to refuse to be the guardians is a moral crime unto each other.

We must expect more from ourselves and our peers.

Activism, Canada, Class War, Colonialism, Corporations, Democracy, Executive Overdrive, Identity, Imperialism, Neoliberal Economics, Soft Fascism

The Queen, G20 Abuses and Canada’s Future

6 Comments

It has been a couple weeks and I still can’t get this out of my head.

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.