I spent the past five days in Halifax taking in what is quite possibly one of the most beautiful cities in North America. While I was enjoying myself on vacation, my mind repeatedly came back to a familiar theme - the question of public space. Much like when I first explored Ottawa in the spring of 2010, my trip to the East Coast was one that made me really reflect on the importance socially and politically of the public space in the modern city.
The idea of having spaces open to the public, often referred to as "the commons", is central to the conceptualisation of the urban centre. In fact, it has been a massive part of civic life historically across all cultures. The spaces can take numerous forms that range from parks, to squares, to boardwalks, to libraries, to municipal government buildings. What makes a space public is that in theory (and hopefully in practice) it is owned by the citizens, subsidised by tax dollars, and democratically operated.
These spaces have always been important for societies, and they are equally crucial at present. Public spaces are open for everyone, providing space for them to gather and interact. By virtue of being common areas, the state, which is the guardian and caretaker for the space, is to keep them clean, safe, and accessible. Moreover, neither religious nor corporate interest has authority on the land, allowing users of the space freedom from persecution.
Access to public space has dwindled over the past decade or so as it is deemed expensive to maintain. As the state has pulled out of responsibilities which are deemed unaffordable, public spaces have very quietly become private ones. The most shocking example of this is the famous Zuccotti Park in New York City. Part of Lower Manhattan, this park is what is called a privately-owned-public-space. These arrangements are truly scary. Masquerading as a place that is free for use by the people, the park is actually open to New Yorkers on special terms determined by the parks wealthy private owners. Ordinarily, this would be of little or no consequence; however, the Occupy Movement, which started in Zuccotti Park, was not legally able to be on this property as it is not a public space. However you feel about "radical" movements, consider for a second the parameters of a privately-owned-public-space. Activities that take place here are sanctioned by those heavily invested in the status quo. If they are afraid of what feminists, steel workers, or Muslims might do on their property, they have license to intervene.
Public place is supposed to be designed for the use of the people, but unfortunately a trend over the last few years in Canada is producing some devastating results. It's not only corporations that are taking away our free spaces; it's the part of the neoliberal state. In Canada, Harper has gradually introduced legislation that criminalises people who are excercising their rights to strike, demonstrate, and even assemble. Alternate viewpoints, such as anti-gloablisation, anti-capitalism, and anti-oppression, displayed at demonstrations such as the G-20 summit in Toronto, Occupy across North America, and most recently the Québec Student Movement, have been attacked in a brutal fashion. Politicians like Stephen Harper and Jean Charest have introduced new measures that are truly dangerous. Limiting the rights of people to assemble, demonstrate, or conceal their identity is somewhere between undemocratic and totalitarian. Regardless, it's absolutely frightening. What's worse: the average Canadian does not feel threatened by these moves and sits idly by as fellow citizens are stripped of fundamental rights.
Blaming the state is a relatively partial response. Pressures on government from capital are substantial and help to give a sense of what is acceptable assembly and what is not. It's evidently okay to mass for a soccer game or to pitch a tent in front of Best Buy before a new release. However, it is inappropriate to rally in the streets or to camp out in a public park. This image here does justice to this issue.
Of course the idea of the divide between private and public space is interesting when we are looking at the urban environment, but what about the digital context? I could not help thinking about this as a link to my last blog was removed from Facebook, and not out of my own volition. At first I was angry, but then I realised that I have no right to post whatever I want on a website. Facebook, or any other private enterprise, gets to decide what is posted on their pages - and their say is ultimately final. The reality as I see it, and that a shocking few understand, is that there is no public space on the internet. A web site, however well intentioned, is never owned by anything that even comes close to representing "the public". There is no appeal process through legal systems, there is no representation, and people hide behind anonymity in scathing personal attacks. The internet is not a democracy.
To conclude, the defense of the commons is a real battle at present. It will continue to be a struggle - one that is not helped by apathy on the part of the general public. I sincerely hope that those of you who read this take some time to reflect on what public space means to you.
Is This Progress? This Is Progress.
Monday, 28 May 2012
Thursday, 17 May 2012
The Majority: One Year Later
This
month marks one year since Stephen Harper was elected with a majority mandate.
On 2 May, the Conservatives won a majority government with less than 40 per
cent of the popular vote. The 2011 election was certainly an exciting one, and
it has been viciously debated in the year since. The collapse of the Liberal
Party and the Bloc Québecois prompted much talk, particularly since neither
party leader managed to retain his seat in Parliament. The Conservatives won a
strong mandate despite the margin increasing by a mere 2 percentage points.
There has been a significant amount of discussion in the time since regarding
how our electoral system works, and certainly much attention toward the alleged
fraudulent behaviour of the Conservatives in the so-called Robocall scandal.
Iblogged about the spectacular events of 2 May last year, and that is not the
focus of this post. I intend, here, to provide a summary of the malicious and
misinformed policies of the Conservatives now that they have a majority
government.
Just
to set up the context properly, I will provide a basic explanation of how the
system works. Our parliamentary system fuses the power of the executive and the
legislative in the leader of the largest party in Parliament. Unlike in the
United States, where there are incessant checks and balances, preventing either
Congress or the President from getting anything done. The Canadian system gives
the Prime Minister free reign over the executive branch, regardless of whether
or not the largest party has more or less than half the seats in Parliament.
This means the since 2006, when the Conservatives were first elected, Harper
has been able to control government departments, such as the Ministry of
Defense, the Canadian International Development Agency, the Bank of Canada, and
Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Again, regardless of whether or not the
Prime Minister has a majority, the executive is always run solely by the
largest party.
What
has changed in the past year is that now the Conservatives are virtually
unchallenged in the legislative branch, Parliament. This not only strengthens
their ability to defend the policies they choose to implement in the executive
capacity, it also allows them full control over the creation of legislation.
Parliament can pass a law about essentially anything that falls under the
mandate of the federal government, so long as it is not deemed
unconstitutional.
All
this to say – the game has changed in the past year. It shows. Harper, who now
faces no real opposition, now has control over both the executive and the
legislative. He has the power to create laws and to change the policies of
government bureaux that affect the day-to-day lives of people across Canada and
the world. In the past year I have been keeping an eye out for examples of
Harper’s long train of abuses. There are many examples and I intend to outline
them below and give you some links to check out for more information.
First
and foremost, items surrounding the budget have been heated. While budget
season has passed, there is still much public attention concerning several
important initiatives of the Conservatives. The two that strike me (and most
Canadians) as most outrageous are the decision to buy F35 fighter jets and the
cancellation of the CDI. The issue of the fighter jets is more comical than
anything else. We are spending money that we don’t have on items that don’t
work and that we don’t need, Considering Harper’s viewpoint of fiscal
restraint, it seems very out of place that the party is supporting a multibillion
dollar deal that serves to hardly have any measurable benefit for Canadians.
Make no mistake – Harper’s rhetoric of “we only spend what we take in” is just
that, rhetoric. Case in point: a significantly less expensive programme, the
Co-operative Development Initiative, which helps to set up and sustain
co-operatives across Canada, was cut just months ago. You are probably
remarking that you haven’t heard anything about this. Well, that is because
Harper has failed to announce this – in fact, he quietly informed the sector (I
work for a co-op federation) and essentially made us the messengers. Again I
say, the Conservatives’ line of reasoning on so-called austerity is
doublespeak. Programmes which benefit large corporations, particularly in the energy
and technology sectors, tend to be supported, while smaller operations, green
industry, and social enterprise are attacked savagely.
Harper
is also attacking our civil liberties. The Internet Bill, which invades the
privacy of ordinary Canadians by both corporations and the state, is a
misguided policy trying to protect intellectual property rights on the web. In
reality, it provides sweeping powers to the powerful in society, much to the
detriment of ordinary citizens. In addition to attacking internet users (which
is a rather substantial proportion of the Canadian public), the Conservatives
have highlighted a few other groups that they are actively targeting. The Crime
Bill, which has thankfully been very controversial, is a misinformed solution to
fighting crime in our society. Rather than focusing on factors like inequality
or lack of access to resources, the government is seeking to fight crime by
labelling more Canadians as criminals, providing harsher sentences, and putting
them in privatised jails. Moreover, the Conservatives are seeking to make it
more challenging for offenders to reintegrate into society with such measures
as making it virtually impossible to get a pardon. The criminal justice system
will become a series of vast holding chambers, rather than cooperating
institutions that have a mandate to try to rehabilitate those who have offended
against society. But Harper doesn’t stop there - his attacks on Muslims have
been quite staggering. Last fall Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason
Kenny introduced new policies stipulating that all people (read: Muslim women)
must have their faces clearly visible during the oath. The justification for
this was, essentially, that the identity of the person swearing the oath must
be confirmed, but the ceremonies as they are conducted are entirely ceremonial
anyway.
The
last theme I will address here is the ridiculous war on science that the
conservatives are conducting. There are, broadly, two lenses through which to
view this. The first is socially – the Conservative party has continually prevented a
sex-positive discourse, most recently with pressure put on an Ottawa museum for
having “inappropriate” content – sex ed. The response from a Conservative MP
was that children should not be learning this information from a museum, rather
they should be getting their information from pornography. Nowhere in the ranks
of the Conservative Party is there an understanding that this reinforces verynegative practices and ideas in society regarding sexuality. The second lens,
which has been far more prominent, is economic. Predominately, I’m referring to
a series of ridiculous policies and positions around the intersection between
the environment and capital. Harper has clearly sided with “economic growth”
over sustainability. The best evidence is the two large pipelines that are
being promoted: the XL Pipeline and the Gateway Pipeline. Both of these
originate in the Tar Sands and export our country’s unethical oil to foreign
countries. The pipelines are one thing, but the defense of the Tar Sands is
even worse. The environmental and social damage is exceptionally evident, but
Harper refuses to give credit to climate change or even to the fact that the
oil industry is destructive. Harper has attacked researches that work for the government, threatening them with job losses to keep them in line. Tony Clement recently commented that he hopes that
NDP leader Thomas Mulcair will stop “dissing” the oil sands when he goes to
visit them. Rather than trying to promote both economic growth and the
environment, Harper is forcing Canada to pick just one. And anyone who
disagrees, or even refers to Northern Alberta as the Tar Sands, is labelled a terrorist. So science is being attacked full-tilt, meanwhile, the
pseudo-science of economics is being promoted, more specifically the neoliberal
model, which advances privatisation, deregulation, and liberalisation. These
policies, unsurprisingly, benefit those in society who have access to capital,
to the detriment of those who are poor.
Ultimately,
Harper is pitting Canadians against each other in more ways than one. The only
remedy is awareness and it is up to all parts of society to become aware of
these realities and stand up together. As Lincoln once said: “you can fool all
of the people some of the time, or some of the people all the time, but you
can’t fool everyone all the time”.
Monday, 23 April 2012
Earth Day
This past weekend was Earth Day. For those of you out there that noticed, I'm curious as to what you did in order to commemorate this. But for the vast majority of North Americans, for me Earth Day came and went without any special attention. In this post, I will explore Earth Day, past a present, keeping focus on the significance of the event.
Established in the United States in 1970, Earth Day was a political reaction to a limited concern for the environment. Largely supported by scientists and fronted by activists, the first Earth Day expressed the style of frustrated yet peaceful sentiments associated with the antiwar movement.
Earth Day became dormant for two decades, but when it came back, the movement was largely resurrected as an international one, rather than a local or national one. Since 1990 the movement has grown. No longer is it a fringe movement with radical ideologies, it is now mainstream expression of solidarity with the planet.
The movement has become very popular in North America. Children study it in school, stories appear on the evening news, and people gather around the water cooler to talk about the fact that they considered riding their bike to work. While the movement has certainly brought a "greener" lexicon into the public sphere, not everyone believes that Earth Day is positive. There are four key criticisms of the movement that I have identified. Let's go through them briefly.
Firstly, there is the Bright Green Environmental Movement. Noted Bright Green Environmentalists suggest that we can "neither shop nor protest our way to sustainability". In an article for WorldChanging, Alex Steffen writes: "We need, through brilliant innovations, bold enterprise and political willpower, to make sustainability an obligatory and universal characteristic of our society, not an ethical choice. We need to remake the systems in which live. We need to redesign civilization". While this could theoretically be a good idea, it has two significant flaws. It both promotes capitalism as the saviour and it de-democratises the movement. Neither is, in the long-term, well-suited to handling the most serious crisis our the history of the planet.
Another criticism is that Earth Day has largely been "Greenwashed". As I'm sure many of you have noticed, it is hard to turn on the television, walk by a billboard, or open the newspaper without seeing something about Earth Day. That said, it's interesting that virtually all the mentions being made are coming from corporations. It is certainly not surprising though, given that it's something that people can relate to: an antecedent. As a point of reference, particularly one with a lot of social weight, it is easy for marketing firms to make commercials that are green. These advertisements generally appeal to the masses for two reasons: because we feel guilty for destroying the environment and because we want to be perceived as environmentally conscious.
Moreover, it seems to trivialise the environment as a legitimate concern worthy of time and resources. Much like International Women's Day or Black History Month, Earth Day attracts our attention for a short period of time (often in an unproductive or maligned way) without changing either our thoughts or our actions. Some environmentalists have gone so far as to say that the green movement paradoxically suffers as a result of Earth Day. This would be a tough position to prove, but I can see the merit in the statement. The green movement, for one, is not a movement: it's a collection of thousands of them. Something rather monolithic and corporate, like Earth Day, attempting to speak for all "greens" oversimplifies the movement.
As mentioned earlier, the revival of the movement in 1990 was significant for rebranding the movement as International. Many environmentalists, myself included, are opposed to Earth Day become one large movement. While all ecosystems are connected, it is important to attempt to solve each problem at the local level, using the democratic and populist mechanisms of the particular jurisdiction.
Together, these four interconnected factors make Earth Day potentially harmful propaganda. I think that the spirit of the first Earth Day (1970) has been lost over the past four decades. We would be much better off if we got back to the issues, back to paying sustained attention, and back to voting with our actions rather than our wallets.
Established in the United States in 1970, Earth Day was a political reaction to a limited concern for the environment. Largely supported by scientists and fronted by activists, the first Earth Day expressed the style of frustrated yet peaceful sentiments associated with the antiwar movement.
Earth Day became dormant for two decades, but when it came back, the movement was largely resurrected as an international one, rather than a local or national one. Since 1990 the movement has grown. No longer is it a fringe movement with radical ideologies, it is now mainstream expression of solidarity with the planet.
The movement has become very popular in North America. Children study it in school, stories appear on the evening news, and people gather around the water cooler to talk about the fact that they considered riding their bike to work. While the movement has certainly brought a "greener" lexicon into the public sphere, not everyone believes that Earth Day is positive. There are four key criticisms of the movement that I have identified. Let's go through them briefly.
Firstly, there is the Bright Green Environmental Movement. Noted Bright Green Environmentalists suggest that we can "neither shop nor protest our way to sustainability". In an article for WorldChanging, Alex Steffen writes: "We need, through brilliant innovations, bold enterprise and political willpower, to make sustainability an obligatory and universal characteristic of our society, not an ethical choice. We need to remake the systems in which live. We need to redesign civilization". While this could theoretically be a good idea, it has two significant flaws. It both promotes capitalism as the saviour and it de-democratises the movement. Neither is, in the long-term, well-suited to handling the most serious crisis our the history of the planet.
Another criticism is that Earth Day has largely been "Greenwashed". As I'm sure many of you have noticed, it is hard to turn on the television, walk by a billboard, or open the newspaper without seeing something about Earth Day. That said, it's interesting that virtually all the mentions being made are coming from corporations. It is certainly not surprising though, given that it's something that people can relate to: an antecedent. As a point of reference, particularly one with a lot of social weight, it is easy for marketing firms to make commercials that are green. These advertisements generally appeal to the masses for two reasons: because we feel guilty for destroying the environment and because we want to be perceived as environmentally conscious.
Moreover, it seems to trivialise the environment as a legitimate concern worthy of time and resources. Much like International Women's Day or Black History Month, Earth Day attracts our attention for a short period of time (often in an unproductive or maligned way) without changing either our thoughts or our actions. Some environmentalists have gone so far as to say that the green movement paradoxically suffers as a result of Earth Day. This would be a tough position to prove, but I can see the merit in the statement. The green movement, for one, is not a movement: it's a collection of thousands of them. Something rather monolithic and corporate, like Earth Day, attempting to speak for all "greens" oversimplifies the movement.
As mentioned earlier, the revival of the movement in 1990 was significant for rebranding the movement as International. Many environmentalists, myself included, are opposed to Earth Day become one large movement. While all ecosystems are connected, it is important to attempt to solve each problem at the local level, using the democratic and populist mechanisms of the particular jurisdiction.
Together, these four interconnected factors make Earth Day potentially harmful propaganda. I think that the spirit of the first Earth Day (1970) has been lost over the past four decades. We would be much better off if we got back to the issues, back to paying sustained attention, and back to voting with our actions rather than our wallets.
Sunday, 25 March 2012
On Mulcair
This weekend I had the great pleasure of attending the 2012 New Democratic Party Leadership Convention. Held in downtown Toronto, it was the culmination of about four months of deliberation regarding the leadership of the country's social-democratic party.
With the unfortunate passing of Jack Layton last August, the NDP was elected with a strong mandate. However, the party was thrust into new territory as official opposition and without Jack's leadership the party was almost rudderless for much of 2011, leaving the Liberals to be the de facto opposition in the House of Commons.
Although it was immediately obvious that the NDP needed to select a new leader, the process didn't really get started until about November, with the first debate taking place in Ottawa at the beginning of December. I was in attendance at the event, and I was pleased not only with the calibre of the candidates, but also with the atmosphere of respect and cooperation. Despite the fact that over the course of the four months it took to ultimately select a leader, there was a distinct lack of infighting. Candidates openly disagreed with one another regarding policy matters, but never in a venomous way.
As the convention approached, it became obvious that Thomas Mulcair was the frontrunner, and friendly opposition galvanised behind Brian Topp. Mulcair, a bilingual anglophone from Montréal, was previously a cabinet minister in the Québec Liberal Party, advocating for sustainable development in the province. Despite his agreeable environmental record, he drew significant criticism for his socio-economic perspectives, namely bringing the party closer to the "centre" in order to capture votes from Liberal supporters. Topp, who represented traditional leftist NDP principles, notably strong labour support, was not able to successfully unite those segments of the party against Mulcair.
With that background out of the way, I would like to talk briefly about the convention. I think that the NDP did an excellent job overall in setting up a great event. Despite some of the criticism from the media, the event was exciting, well-attended, quite effectively managed. That said, there were a few issues I'd like to briefly address.
The most controversial item is the failure of the voting servers during the second ballot. While there is no way to tell what exactly happened, there were reports of a Denial of Service problem, causing massive delays and much frustration in getting votes entered both live on the net and in person at the convention. Regardless of whatever happened (I doubt that the Conservatives were behind some malicious attack), the NDP probably could have contracted out the work to a group that was more capable of running such a project. The reality is that the failure to run the internal elections reflected very poorly on the NDP as an organisation. I heard someone beside me when we were voting saying "how is anyone going to let us run the country if we can't run an online election".
Secondly, there were many media reports around low attendance on the convention floor. While much of the time the room was packed with supporters and the media, there were plenty of times when there was literally nothing going on. By virtue of setting up large gaps in the timetable, there were many instances where the media were filling dead air. In my opinion, the party could have better organised the schedule so that there would not be long periods of inactivity. That said, some of these were unforeseen, such as the voting problems. At any rate, it a again negatively impacted the NDP in the media, leading the average Canadian to get an impression that the party was not very exciting. My uncle pointed out to me, quite rightly, that the NDP missed a great marketing chance by failing to deliver exciting television.
Perhaps the most disappointing element was the voting structure. In an attempt to be inclusive, the NDP used a preferential ballot system for those voting before the event. While the idea behind the preferential ballot is quite simple, many watching the event from the outside were very confused by it. What's even more troubling, however, is that such a high proportion of those voting used the preferential ballot that the ones cast live (in person or on the internet) only accounted for a minority of the votes overall. That has two devastating effects: firstly, it meant that none of the candidates ever moved up or down in the standings as the race went on; secondly, no candidate was able to throw his or her support behind someone else as there was no way to ensure that these votes would actually move anywhere. The product of this was, predictably, a lack of excitement in the event, and a perceived lack of control over events by the leadership candidates.
All that said, the NDP ran a very successful and fun event. I am exceptionally lucky to have attended and I will go again in a heartbeat. I sincerely hope that the NDP takes a hard look at some of the problems they experienced in the convention so that they can learn from them for next time. However, for now, this items are water under the bridge and the party now has to move on to re-establishing itself in the House of Commons.
With the unfortunate passing of Jack Layton last August, the NDP was elected with a strong mandate. However, the party was thrust into new territory as official opposition and without Jack's leadership the party was almost rudderless for much of 2011, leaving the Liberals to be the de facto opposition in the House of Commons.
Although it was immediately obvious that the NDP needed to select a new leader, the process didn't really get started until about November, with the first debate taking place in Ottawa at the beginning of December. I was in attendance at the event, and I was pleased not only with the calibre of the candidates, but also with the atmosphere of respect and cooperation. Despite the fact that over the course of the four months it took to ultimately select a leader, there was a distinct lack of infighting. Candidates openly disagreed with one another regarding policy matters, but never in a venomous way.
As the convention approached, it became obvious that Thomas Mulcair was the frontrunner, and friendly opposition galvanised behind Brian Topp. Mulcair, a bilingual anglophone from Montréal, was previously a cabinet minister in the Québec Liberal Party, advocating for sustainable development in the province. Despite his agreeable environmental record, he drew significant criticism for his socio-economic perspectives, namely bringing the party closer to the "centre" in order to capture votes from Liberal supporters. Topp, who represented traditional leftist NDP principles, notably strong labour support, was not able to successfully unite those segments of the party against Mulcair.
With that background out of the way, I would like to talk briefly about the convention. I think that the NDP did an excellent job overall in setting up a great event. Despite some of the criticism from the media, the event was exciting, well-attended, quite effectively managed. That said, there were a few issues I'd like to briefly address.
The most controversial item is the failure of the voting servers during the second ballot. While there is no way to tell what exactly happened, there were reports of a Denial of Service problem, causing massive delays and much frustration in getting votes entered both live on the net and in person at the convention. Regardless of whatever happened (I doubt that the Conservatives were behind some malicious attack), the NDP probably could have contracted out the work to a group that was more capable of running such a project. The reality is that the failure to run the internal elections reflected very poorly on the NDP as an organisation. I heard someone beside me when we were voting saying "how is anyone going to let us run the country if we can't run an online election".
Secondly, there were many media reports around low attendance on the convention floor. While much of the time the room was packed with supporters and the media, there were plenty of times when there was literally nothing going on. By virtue of setting up large gaps in the timetable, there were many instances where the media were filling dead air. In my opinion, the party could have better organised the schedule so that there would not be long periods of inactivity. That said, some of these were unforeseen, such as the voting problems. At any rate, it a again negatively impacted the NDP in the media, leading the average Canadian to get an impression that the party was not very exciting. My uncle pointed out to me, quite rightly, that the NDP missed a great marketing chance by failing to deliver exciting television.
Perhaps the most disappointing element was the voting structure. In an attempt to be inclusive, the NDP used a preferential ballot system for those voting before the event. While the idea behind the preferential ballot is quite simple, many watching the event from the outside were very confused by it. What's even more troubling, however, is that such a high proportion of those voting used the preferential ballot that the ones cast live (in person or on the internet) only accounted for a minority of the votes overall. That has two devastating effects: firstly, it meant that none of the candidates ever moved up or down in the standings as the race went on; secondly, no candidate was able to throw his or her support behind someone else as there was no way to ensure that these votes would actually move anywhere. The product of this was, predictably, a lack of excitement in the event, and a perceived lack of control over events by the leadership candidates.
All that said, the NDP ran a very successful and fun event. I am exceptionally lucky to have attended and I will go again in a heartbeat. I sincerely hope that the NDP takes a hard look at some of the problems they experienced in the convention so that they can learn from them for next time. However, for now, this items are water under the bridge and the party now has to move on to re-establishing itself in the House of Commons.
Wednesday, 7 March 2012
Apple and Corporate Social Responsibility
During the past few weeks a lot of media attention has been devoted to Apple for its corporate record in the developing world. Allegations have been made about literally every possible basic human rights abuse. Since the story leaked about a month ago, reports have surfaced from repetitive strains, to exposure to toxic chemicals, to the deprivation of breaks from work.
In the age of Corporate Social Responsibility large companies such as Apple are expected to act not just in their own best interests, but in the best interests of a wider community. Money spent on marketing and public relations generally reinforces the benign role of the corporation in society. However, as this post will display, Apple, and many other corporations, are not acting in the best interest of anyone aside from their shareholders.
Apple is obviously not alone in these practices. The "Race to the Bottom" of the past two decades has made similar realities ubiquitous in the production of most consumer goods, whether textiles, technology, or trinkets. Practices are widespread across the globe (known as Maquiladoras in Central and South America, or sweatshops across most of Asia). Either way, local populations are exploited by large transnational corporations from the West.
The case has been made frequently that there is nothing wrong with this arrangement and the discourse is still present with the allegations against Apple. Many politicians and business leaders posit that the developing world needs employment, large corporations need cheap labour, and the general public of Western societies desire inexpensive goods. Googling "why outsourcing is good" will provide a better sense of what this argument is all about.
But the question remains: if literally everyone is participating in these practices, why is Apple getting so much attention? The general consensus is that Apple has surged in popularity over the past decade and that it has presented a very clean image through its intelligent branding process. However, I would suggest that an additional item is that Apple's competitors (who are many and difficult to identify for those who aren't familiar with the tech world) have never really had an opportunity to attack Apple successfully. Supporting media attention has been a successful way for Apple's competitors to coordinate. Their aspiration? To gain market share in tablets, smart phones, music, software, and computers (again facing different blocs of competition).
But some of Apple's largest competitors have also been publicly attacked (though only for a short time) for their malicious practices. Some of the best examples are Dell's labour practices in India, Microsoft's tax evasion, and Google's antitrust case. And these items don't even get into the questions of environmental externalities.
Finally, there has been a lot of deference and memorialising given to Apple around the passing of Steve Jobs. The grieving process was very public because of the degree to which Steve was a cultural icon. In the numerous biographies that were produced, the characterisation of Steve was very much centred on his audacious personality. He was renowned for his inventiveness, honesty, and passion . This, of course, despite the degree to which Apple was renowned for not only participating in the Race to the Bottom, but also for being neither philanthropic nor transparent.
What's ultimately, remarkable is that Steve passed away at roughly the same time as Jack Layton (read my post). Despite both being treated like heroes and cultural icons, only one was committed to making the world a better place.
In the age of Corporate Social Responsibility large companies such as Apple are expected to act not just in their own best interests, but in the best interests of a wider community. Money spent on marketing and public relations generally reinforces the benign role of the corporation in society. However, as this post will display, Apple, and many other corporations, are not acting in the best interest of anyone aside from their shareholders.
Apple is obviously not alone in these practices. The "Race to the Bottom" of the past two decades has made similar realities ubiquitous in the production of most consumer goods, whether textiles, technology, or trinkets. Practices are widespread across the globe (known as Maquiladoras in Central and South America, or sweatshops across most of Asia). Either way, local populations are exploited by large transnational corporations from the West.
The case has been made frequently that there is nothing wrong with this arrangement and the discourse is still present with the allegations against Apple. Many politicians and business leaders posit that the developing world needs employment, large corporations need cheap labour, and the general public of Western societies desire inexpensive goods. Googling "why outsourcing is good" will provide a better sense of what this argument is all about.
But the question remains: if literally everyone is participating in these practices, why is Apple getting so much attention? The general consensus is that Apple has surged in popularity over the past decade and that it has presented a very clean image through its intelligent branding process. However, I would suggest that an additional item is that Apple's competitors (who are many and difficult to identify for those who aren't familiar with the tech world) have never really had an opportunity to attack Apple successfully. Supporting media attention has been a successful way for Apple's competitors to coordinate. Their aspiration? To gain market share in tablets, smart phones, music, software, and computers (again facing different blocs of competition).
But some of Apple's largest competitors have also been publicly attacked (though only for a short time) for their malicious practices. Some of the best examples are Dell's labour practices in India, Microsoft's tax evasion, and Google's antitrust case. And these items don't even get into the questions of environmental externalities.
Finally, there has been a lot of deference and memorialising given to Apple around the passing of Steve Jobs. The grieving process was very public because of the degree to which Steve was a cultural icon. In the numerous biographies that were produced, the characterisation of Steve was very much centred on his audacious personality. He was renowned for his inventiveness, honesty, and passion . This, of course, despite the degree to which Apple was renowned for not only participating in the Race to the Bottom, but also for being neither philanthropic nor transparent.
What's ultimately, remarkable is that Steve passed away at roughly the same time as Jack Layton (read my post). Despite both being treated like heroes and cultural icons, only one was committed to making the world a better place.
Thursday, 23 February 2012
The Drummond Report
The word "austerity" has been thrown around a lot in international politics over the past two years. Repeated attempts to curb the recession that started in 2007 proved unsuccessful in virtually every locale in the so-called "developed world", and their most recent attempts to control markets has been to drastically slash government expenditure.
Some traditional welfare states have been staggering along a rough road in the past few years. Italy's austerity measures (introduced in 2011) sparked significant outrage on part of youth, leftists, the unemployed, women, and many other groups. However, the media attention has been sharply focused on the happenings in Greece. Protests have been met with violence and often destruction of public spaces and private property ensues.
At the same time, there have been problems in Canada. While items at the federal level have been pushed to the side in favour of Harper's other ideological goals, the provinces are trying to figure out what to do. And that brings me to my topic for today: the Drummond Report. Commissioned by Ontario's Provincial Government in 2011, the Drummond Report is a document which outlines the ways in which the province can reduce its deficit in order to eventually balance its budget. Estimates from a variety of sources suggest that Ontario will not be able to have a balanced budget until some time near 2020. That's a ways away!
So first off, who is Drummond? Don Drummond is a Canadian economist who has a wide variety of work experience: the Federal Government, TD Bank, and Queen's University. Those three employers demonstrate his familiarity with the intersections of public and corporate interest. He was selected by Queen's Park in order to find a way to reduce the deficit, specifically without introducing new taxes.
When the report was yet to be released I attended an NDP grassroots meeting here in Ottawa. The meeting, which attracted a wide array of citizens, focused on the undemocratic processes of the Drummond Report. Arguing that the Ontario Liberals formed a minority government, the NDP have said that it is inappropriate not to include other parties in this process. While I agree with this particular criticism of the process, I would say that I am quite surprised at how progressive the report really is.
Instead of focusing on a basic idea of reducing cost by reducing services, cutting programmes, or casualising labour, the report is focused on smart initiatives such as striving to increase efficiency. The part I focused on most related to health care (given it's the part I know most about) and this was also the part discussed most on CBC's Ontario Today. I was pleased to see the government take a less scientific approach to health, opening up new conceptualisations of things such as health, skill, and care.
I think that the greatest failing of the report is that there is no room for new or altered taxes. Government revenues are dependent on taxation (or crown corporations). This is, of course, not the fault of Drummond as he was following the instructions laid out by the Liberals. Ontario's Liberal Party should carefully examine whether or not it is possible to maintain a progressive welfare state without reconsidering tax structures (whether corporate, capital gains, or otherwise).
One last consideration: there is a discourse of debt and deficit as bad. It's worthwhile noting that debt is neither good nor bad: it's a tool. If we were to have to pay up front for every service our society needed, we would not be able to and we would offer minimal services to minimal people. Spending more money than is made is an ability to build the future, not to "borrow against it".
Some traditional welfare states have been staggering along a rough road in the past few years. Italy's austerity measures (introduced in 2011) sparked significant outrage on part of youth, leftists, the unemployed, women, and many other groups. However, the media attention has been sharply focused on the happenings in Greece. Protests have been met with violence and often destruction of public spaces and private property ensues.
At the same time, there have been problems in Canada. While items at the federal level have been pushed to the side in favour of Harper's other ideological goals, the provinces are trying to figure out what to do. And that brings me to my topic for today: the Drummond Report. Commissioned by Ontario's Provincial Government in 2011, the Drummond Report is a document which outlines the ways in which the province can reduce its deficit in order to eventually balance its budget. Estimates from a variety of sources suggest that Ontario will not be able to have a balanced budget until some time near 2020. That's a ways away!
So first off, who is Drummond? Don Drummond is a Canadian economist who has a wide variety of work experience: the Federal Government, TD Bank, and Queen's University. Those three employers demonstrate his familiarity with the intersections of public and corporate interest. He was selected by Queen's Park in order to find a way to reduce the deficit, specifically without introducing new taxes.
When the report was yet to be released I attended an NDP grassroots meeting here in Ottawa. The meeting, which attracted a wide array of citizens, focused on the undemocratic processes of the Drummond Report. Arguing that the Ontario Liberals formed a minority government, the NDP have said that it is inappropriate not to include other parties in this process. While I agree with this particular criticism of the process, I would say that I am quite surprised at how progressive the report really is.
Instead of focusing on a basic idea of reducing cost by reducing services, cutting programmes, or casualising labour, the report is focused on smart initiatives such as striving to increase efficiency. The part I focused on most related to health care (given it's the part I know most about) and this was also the part discussed most on CBC's Ontario Today. I was pleased to see the government take a less scientific approach to health, opening up new conceptualisations of things such as health, skill, and care.
I think that the greatest failing of the report is that there is no room for new or altered taxes. Government revenues are dependent on taxation (or crown corporations). This is, of course, not the fault of Drummond as he was following the instructions laid out by the Liberals. Ontario's Liberal Party should carefully examine whether or not it is possible to maintain a progressive welfare state without reconsidering tax structures (whether corporate, capital gains, or otherwise).
One last consideration: there is a discourse of debt and deficit as bad. It's worthwhile noting that debt is neither good nor bad: it's a tool. If we were to have to pay up front for every service our society needed, we would not be able to and we would offer minimal services to minimal people. Spending more money than is made is an ability to build the future, not to "borrow against it".
Tuesday, 17 January 2012
The Darkest Hour
Tonight Wikipedia is scheduled to go down for 24 hours, prompting somewhat of a media frenzy. TIME has, in fact, released an article about "how to survive Wednesday's Wikipedia Blackout". As one of the most popular sites on the internet, Wikipedia is more that just a go-to for information on science, history, and popular culture: it acts as a portal for the international community to share knowledge.
It is no secret that totally love Wikipedia: it is perhaps one of the greatest things the internet has to offer. While there are many sites out there that garner a lot of traffic, like Twitter, Google, and YouTube, Wikipedia is free of advertising and there is no need to sift through junk. The internet revolution has brought democracy to our day-to-day lives in ways that we never could have imagined. This morning I watched a new video about Oscar-winning films that is going viral. After watching this, I thought of how media like this would have been produced and consumed a decade ago. While something like this would have been produced by a major television network and only could have been viewed at scheduled times on the air, it is now created by anyone with vision, ambition, and resources, and can be viewed by virtually anyone, anywhere.
One of the major ramifications of this democratisation movement has been trying to figure out copyright laws. That is, in fact, why Wikipedia is shutting itself down for 24 hours. In the United States (as well as many other jurisdictions), pressures from governments have led to various websites and forms of media to be closed and taken down. Wikipedia's management have termed these attempts to regulate the internet "censorship" and have decided that it is time to raise awareness.
What I find particularly interesting is that censorship legislation has always been framed as affecting filesharing sites (such as the Napster suit from over a decade ago). However, many industries, like publishers, are suffering lower sales as a consequence of sharing information on the internet (think of how Sparks Notes has been effectively replaced by Wikipedia). The influence of these industries on government through lobbying and through sponsorship is immense and not to be taken lightly.
The battle between the regulatory aims of state-corporate partnerships and the democratic people of the internet has been raging for as long as the internet has been a household item. It's truly a battle of capital versus the freedom to share. In the context of personal liberty, or in the interests of building communities of knowledge, the democracy of the internet is something that needs to be vehemently defended.
It is no secret that totally love Wikipedia: it is perhaps one of the greatest things the internet has to offer. While there are many sites out there that garner a lot of traffic, like Twitter, Google, and YouTube, Wikipedia is free of advertising and there is no need to sift through junk. The internet revolution has brought democracy to our day-to-day lives in ways that we never could have imagined. This morning I watched a new video about Oscar-winning films that is going viral. After watching this, I thought of how media like this would have been produced and consumed a decade ago. While something like this would have been produced by a major television network and only could have been viewed at scheduled times on the air, it is now created by anyone with vision, ambition, and resources, and can be viewed by virtually anyone, anywhere.
One of the major ramifications of this democratisation movement has been trying to figure out copyright laws. That is, in fact, why Wikipedia is shutting itself down for 24 hours. In the United States (as well as many other jurisdictions), pressures from governments have led to various websites and forms of media to be closed and taken down. Wikipedia's management have termed these attempts to regulate the internet "censorship" and have decided that it is time to raise awareness.
What I find particularly interesting is that censorship legislation has always been framed as affecting filesharing sites (such as the Napster suit from over a decade ago). However, many industries, like publishers, are suffering lower sales as a consequence of sharing information on the internet (think of how Sparks Notes has been effectively replaced by Wikipedia). The influence of these industries on government through lobbying and through sponsorship is immense and not to be taken lightly.
The battle between the regulatory aims of state-corporate partnerships and the democratic people of the internet has been raging for as long as the internet has been a household item. It's truly a battle of capital versus the freedom to share. In the context of personal liberty, or in the interests of building communities of knowledge, the democracy of the internet is something that needs to be vehemently defended.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)