Every Sunday from Victoria Day to Labour Day, the National Capital Commission closes 65km of parkways in both Ottawa and Gatineau to traffic. This practice, called Bikeday Sundays, has been around since 1970. Every Sunday about ten thousand people get out between 6am and 1pm, exploring the region by biking, walking, skating, running, and longboarding.
I rode my first Bikeday Sunday last June, and I rode every Sunday that I was in Ottawa last year. I have the ambition to do the same in 2012. I think that it's important to support a movement like this because it breathes so many valuable positives into a community.
There are very crucial physical benefits to Bikeday Sundays. They promote being physically active - an important lifestlye requirement for everyone. Given that less and less Canadians are getting enough exercise, the importance of a free and local activity is significant. Also, the event makes cycling accessible and safe. I've always maintained that "if cycling infrastructure is built, people will use it". However, another critical piece in the puzzle is getting people to feel safe and comfortable when on a bike. When people feel security on their bikes, they are likely to have a great time. In fact, they may start to bike more and make cycling a more central part of their lives.
There are also important social benefits to Bikeday Sundays. The part that strikes me most is the shared use of space, something which is dwindling in our society. Bikedays is, effectively, people taking back the roads and using them in a democratic and co-operative way. Moreover, the fact that so many people are participating on a weekly basis means that cycling has become, for many people in the National Capital Region, part of the culture. This is something I remark on frequently - whenever I am riding in Ottawa-Gatineau I am surprised at the number of cyclists I encounter. Cycling is a growing trend in Ottawa, and despite the rather lethargic action of the local government, Ottawa tends to appear in lists of best places to cycle. This is more and more becoming part of what it means to live in Ottawa. The fact that Bikeday Sundays is so well supported by the police and by local volunteers also speaks to the fact that the state, business, and community all value a programme like this for its social capital.
With all the political talk around cycling today, such as the removal of bike lanes in Toronto, Ontario potentially introducing legislation to make wearing a helmet mandatory, and municipalities like Kingston creating a more comprehensive cycling infrastructure network, it is heartening to see a non-issue in cycling - something that everyone can get behind with the acknowledgement that a programme is good for individuals, the community, the environment, and the economy.
Is This Progress? This Is Progress.
Sunday, 24 June 2012
Friday, 15 June 2012
A Tale of Two Leadership Conventions
2012 has been an interesting year for politics in North America - and the year has just begun. In both Canada and the United States the opposition parties will select new leaders in 2012. While both contests have been exciting and well-covered by the media, they could hardly be more dissimilar. In this post I am going to explore the differences between the NDP Leadership Convention in Canada and the race for the Republican Nomination in the United States.
In the past year a lot has happened politically in Canada at the federal level. In the 2011 General Election, Stephen Harper's Conservatives won their first majority government. They accomplished their rather unpredictable feat largely through none of their own work. The collapse of large parties in the House of Commons, the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois, led to a greater splitting of the vote than ever. This had the duel effect of propelling the Conservatives to a majority and netting the NDP over one hundred seats in the legislature, their best ever result. The euphoria was short-lived, however, with the passing of NDP leader Jack Layton in August of 2011. In the seven months since the party has recovered from this blow and selected a new leader.
In the United States, the primaries have been going on for what seems like an eternity. In the wake of the poor performance of the Republicans (or GOP) in the 2008 election, the party has undertaken a long process of selecting someone to run this November. In the elections for Congress in 2010 the Republicans made a comeback both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, mostly because many "Independents" felt that Obama was not moving forward with "repairing the economy". The leadership race in the United States is far from over. At this point, nearly half of US states have yet to vote, and the convention where a leader will be chosen, will not take place until the late summer.
But what exactly are the differences between these two political competitions? As best as I can tell right now, there are at least four significant differences between the NDP and GOP leadership races. Here they are below:
The most obvious difference is in terms of duration. The NDP race has been cited as taking seven months; however, the competition did not even start until November, meaning that four months would be a more appropriate characterisation of length. In the United States, meanwhile, the race for the Republican nomination has already lasted nearly a year, and the competition charges on.
The main purpose that Americans take so long to choose a candidate is generally because they want to thoroughly vet the candidates. The process of the primaries will examine if the leader has the physical and mental stamina on the one hand, and if they are electable on the other. That said, the NDP leadership candidates were well-known by the media and by delegates within the span of about four months, and the field of candidates was nearly twice as large.
Secondly, the participation in selecting the leaderships is quite different. In the United States, the vast majority of the population is participating in selecting the next leader of the GOP. While this is widely seen as more democratic, it doesn't allow the party membership, or even the party supporters, to select a leader of their choosing. Democrats in the United States are allowed to vote, and they are affecting the leadership choice significantly. In Canada, however, only the card-carrying members of the NDP participated in the selection of the leader. This process, though mired in other logistical and ideological problems, allows the party organisation and its membership more control over its future.
The third difference I see is in the degree to which the races are competitive. In the NDP, the debate was largely friendly, with the primary goal of selecting a leader who can unite progressives under the banner of the NDP. Naturally, this is rhetoric, but it is an important component. NDP supporters are not monolithic on their views on a wide variety of topics, and it is not surprising that the top three candidates happened to be a labour, a green, and a centrist. It is entirely unsurprising that Brian Topp and Thomas Mulcair ended up in the top two spaces given that they were effectively othered against one another (principled socialist versus a centrist reformer).
In the United States, however, the differences in beliefs and policies was perhaps much wider. Moreover, the way in which this often manifested itself was in personal attacks. Beyond criticising one another's platforms and performance in professional and public spheres, members of the GOP openly attacked each other on personal grounds, such as their sexual lives and their familial arrangements (neither of which, in my opinion, have anything to do with politics). This is not, in my opinion, the fault of the GOP, as this is widely part of the political discourse in the United States, and something that the general public finds interesting when it comes to politics. Republicans want to maintain media attention and Democrats want to make sure that attention is negative. The bipartisan atmosphere in the United States is certainly toxic. Regardless of where you decide to lay blame, however, the race for the nomination is hyper-competitive, to the point where the unity of the party may be seriously damaged.
Finally, there is a distinct difference in the diversity of candidate. The field in the United States was relatively narrow to start with, and it has grown narrower since Christmas. There were no serious candidates who represent any minority group: no women, no young people, no indigenous people, no non-Christians. Admittedly, there is a reasonable amount of diversity in terms of policy, from libertarian to Christian conservative.
This stands in stark contrast to the NDP's leadership race. Serious contenders for the title of leader included a Greek immigrant, a Cree, and a Sikh, not to mention to the presence of women, people of all socio-economic classes, and francophones and anglophones. Perhaps even more interestingly, candidates represented urban, rural, indigenous, and northern communities from all across the country. In Canada, where there is a entrenched regionalism, this was an imperative part of the selection process. Although the field was certainly deep, the top three candidates were all middle-aged, white, secular, heterosexual, and male.
Ultimately, both races have been interesting and set the stage for the larger political contests of the future: the 2012 elections in the United States and the 2015 General Election in Canada. With one leadership race out of the way, the other is charging on, hoping for a dramatic climax in August. Whether you love these proceedings or you have entirely checked out, this is democracy at work!
In the past year a lot has happened politically in Canada at the federal level. In the 2011 General Election, Stephen Harper's Conservatives won their first majority government. They accomplished their rather unpredictable feat largely through none of their own work. The collapse of large parties in the House of Commons, the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois, led to a greater splitting of the vote than ever. This had the duel effect of propelling the Conservatives to a majority and netting the NDP over one hundred seats in the legislature, their best ever result. The euphoria was short-lived, however, with the passing of NDP leader Jack Layton in August of 2011. In the seven months since the party has recovered from this blow and selected a new leader.
In the United States, the primaries have been going on for what seems like an eternity. In the wake of the poor performance of the Republicans (or GOP) in the 2008 election, the party has undertaken a long process of selecting someone to run this November. In the elections for Congress in 2010 the Republicans made a comeback both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, mostly because many "Independents" felt that Obama was not moving forward with "repairing the economy". The leadership race in the United States is far from over. At this point, nearly half of US states have yet to vote, and the convention where a leader will be chosen, will not take place until the late summer.
But what exactly are the differences between these two political competitions? As best as I can tell right now, there are at least four significant differences between the NDP and GOP leadership races. Here they are below:
The most obvious difference is in terms of duration. The NDP race has been cited as taking seven months; however, the competition did not even start until November, meaning that four months would be a more appropriate characterisation of length. In the United States, meanwhile, the race for the Republican nomination has already lasted nearly a year, and the competition charges on.
The main purpose that Americans take so long to choose a candidate is generally because they want to thoroughly vet the candidates. The process of the primaries will examine if the leader has the physical and mental stamina on the one hand, and if they are electable on the other. That said, the NDP leadership candidates were well-known by the media and by delegates within the span of about four months, and the field of candidates was nearly twice as large.
Secondly, the participation in selecting the leaderships is quite different. In the United States, the vast majority of the population is participating in selecting the next leader of the GOP. While this is widely seen as more democratic, it doesn't allow the party membership, or even the party supporters, to select a leader of their choosing. Democrats in the United States are allowed to vote, and they are affecting the leadership choice significantly. In Canada, however, only the card-carrying members of the NDP participated in the selection of the leader. This process, though mired in other logistical and ideological problems, allows the party organisation and its membership more control over its future.
The third difference I see is in the degree to which the races are competitive. In the NDP, the debate was largely friendly, with the primary goal of selecting a leader who can unite progressives under the banner of the NDP. Naturally, this is rhetoric, but it is an important component. NDP supporters are not monolithic on their views on a wide variety of topics, and it is not surprising that the top three candidates happened to be a labour, a green, and a centrist. It is entirely unsurprising that Brian Topp and Thomas Mulcair ended up in the top two spaces given that they were effectively othered against one another (principled socialist versus a centrist reformer).
In the United States, however, the differences in beliefs and policies was perhaps much wider. Moreover, the way in which this often manifested itself was in personal attacks. Beyond criticising one another's platforms and performance in professional and public spheres, members of the GOP openly attacked each other on personal grounds, such as their sexual lives and their familial arrangements (neither of which, in my opinion, have anything to do with politics). This is not, in my opinion, the fault of the GOP, as this is widely part of the political discourse in the United States, and something that the general public finds interesting when it comes to politics. Republicans want to maintain media attention and Democrats want to make sure that attention is negative. The bipartisan atmosphere in the United States is certainly toxic. Regardless of where you decide to lay blame, however, the race for the nomination is hyper-competitive, to the point where the unity of the party may be seriously damaged.
Finally, there is a distinct difference in the diversity of candidate. The field in the United States was relatively narrow to start with, and it has grown narrower since Christmas. There were no serious candidates who represent any minority group: no women, no young people, no indigenous people, no non-Christians. Admittedly, there is a reasonable amount of diversity in terms of policy, from libertarian to Christian conservative.
This stands in stark contrast to the NDP's leadership race. Serious contenders for the title of leader included a Greek immigrant, a Cree, and a Sikh, not to mention to the presence of women, people of all socio-economic classes, and francophones and anglophones. Perhaps even more interestingly, candidates represented urban, rural, indigenous, and northern communities from all across the country. In Canada, where there is a entrenched regionalism, this was an imperative part of the selection process. Although the field was certainly deep, the top three candidates were all middle-aged, white, secular, heterosexual, and male.
Ultimately, both races have been interesting and set the stage for the larger political contests of the future: the 2012 elections in the United States and the 2015 General Election in Canada. With one leadership race out of the way, the other is charging on, hoping for a dramatic climax in August. Whether you love these proceedings or you have entirely checked out, this is democracy at work!
Tuesday, 5 June 2012
Canada's Economic Future
Although I have now lived in Ottawa for two years, I haven't taken the time to visit Parliament until recently. Since the spring I've now attended three sessions, and I must admit they have all been very interesting - and for rather different reasons. Last week I caught the end of question period and stayed around for a ninety minute debate that stood to change the course of formal public support for the co-operative sector in Canada.
I recently started a new position, working for an organisation called the Canadian Worker Co-op Federation. Not only am I new to the CWCF, I am also inexperienced with the world of co-operatives. In October 2011 I was fortunate enough to meet Mark Goldblatt of the Canadian Co-operative Association. I was active in the Occupy Ottawa movement, and Mark wanted to put on a workshop about the power of co-opeartives as an alternative to business corporations. I helped him get his word across, and a friendship was formed. Over successive lunches he gave me a deep appreciation for the values, the history, and current climate of co-operatives. I learned that co-operatives were special because they were a democratic way of providing goods and services. Moreover, these businesses can share profit fairly - a way that a investor-owned corporation would never even dream of.
I am now someone who proudly works in a vibrant sector, but I am leery of just how sustainable co-operatives will be able to remain given the position of the Canadian government. In April, a release from the Ministry of Agriculture announced that the Co-op Development Initiative (CDI) was going to be cut. This was devastating news. The thousands of struggling co-opearives across Canada will lose a valuable financial lifeline. Additionally, the federal Co-operatives Secretariat has been almost eliminated, meaning that valuable statistics-gathering, research, and partnering with the sector will no longer be a role seriously played by the federal government. Moreover, co-op owners and members will lose the sense of socio-political support from the government, a critical player that can keep co-ops competitive in a sloped playing field. To add insult to injury, this injustice was coming during the United Nations International Year of the Co-operative.
Resistance to the cuts, however, has been minimal. The general public, for one, has not been aware of the cuts. Traditional news outlets have failed to make this a news story - not even CBC Radio One. Alternative news sources have led the charge but this content is only online, where it competes for attention with myriad other important social, environmental, and political issues. The response from the co-op sector has been interesting. While some organisations (the CWCF included) have written letters and lobbied the government, many co-ops have been silent. Broadly, this can be explained two ways. Firstly, it seems that there is a general sense that this one can't be fought. The fact that the general public is essentially unaware of this issue lends credence to the prevailing idea that it may be best to wait until 2015. Secondly, the co-op sector is replete with individuals who are pushing their limits with their involvement. There are physical and monetary obstacles that are preventing many from trying to organise an effective campaign to fight the decision.
Despite the general unawareness of the public and the inability/unwillingness of the sector to reply, the Liberals appointed Mauril Bélanger as "Advocate for Co-operatives". Though no such formal title has existed in federal politics before, this shows the commitment the federal Liberal Party is taking on an important socio-economic issue. Though he has only recently taken on this position, he immediately started working on bringing a motion to the House of Commons to address the severe cuts that the Conservatives have made.
This motion, presented last Wednesday, set to establish a special committee on co-operatives. Bélanger's vision was to create a standing committee that would report to the House of Commons on the state of the co-operative sector in Canada. Formed of twelve parliamentarians, the committee would conduct analysis, bringing forth witnesses and experts from within the sector to determine whether of not continued economic support would be necessary. Moreover, it would address specifically how the state would provided assistance to co-ops (such as reinstating the CDI or creating a comparable programme).
Thankfully, it passed a vote in Parliament. However, despite the cheery attitude of agreement, there is some serious work that needs to be done to ensure that the establishment of this committee will result in meaningful social, economic, and political support in the long-term. Overwhelmingly, it appears that the NDP, the Liberals, the Bloc Québecois, and the Greens showed real support for the co-operative sector in a rather non-partisan way. The four parties demanded that the government reevaluate its position. However, the Conservatives, who were represented by Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Industry Mike Lake, spoke in platitudes about the co-op sector while simultaneously failing to explicitly state that they would continue formal support. In fact, Lake wanted to make an amendment to the committee so that its scope would be far wider than simply co-operatives, eclipsing the need that the special committee is designed to meet.
This was recognised by Malcolm Allen, NDP member for Welland and Critic for Agriculture Canada (and thus co-operatives), who stated that there is a significant difference between rhetoric and action. Moreover, he told an anecdote about how co-ops serve all Canadians - including his parents when they were new immigrants. He remarked that Canadians should "trust the credit union and be leery of the bank".
Overall, it is good news that the co-op motion passed. However, I am concerned about what the establishment of the committee will mean. Firstly, there are seven members of the committee chosen from the Conservative bench, against five from the opposition parties. This means that, should the government not wish to do anything, they can prevent a solution that would have positive benefits for the sector. Secondly, it was rather evident from the proceedings in the House of Commons that the Conservatives were only interested in paying lip service to the idea of supporting co-ops - presumably because it would have made for bad press if they refused to even talk about the possibility of helping co-operatives. Thirdly, before the committee even starts to function, each party must appoint the requisite number of members, by Friday 8 June - and it's not entirely clear that will happen. Finally, my concerns are with the fact that the government does not seem to recognise that co-ops aren't a fringe movement - they are an integral part of economies, rural and urban areas alike. Taking co-ops seriously means not only supporting the sector, but also examining the existing relationship between the neoliberal state and corporate interest. All told, I am cautiously optimistic about last Wednesday, and I look forward to seeing what happens in the next six months.
I recently started a new position, working for an organisation called the Canadian Worker Co-op Federation. Not only am I new to the CWCF, I am also inexperienced with the world of co-operatives. In October 2011 I was fortunate enough to meet Mark Goldblatt of the Canadian Co-operative Association. I was active in the Occupy Ottawa movement, and Mark wanted to put on a workshop about the power of co-opeartives as an alternative to business corporations. I helped him get his word across, and a friendship was formed. Over successive lunches he gave me a deep appreciation for the values, the history, and current climate of co-operatives. I learned that co-operatives were special because they were a democratic way of providing goods and services. Moreover, these businesses can share profit fairly - a way that a investor-owned corporation would never even dream of.
I am now someone who proudly works in a vibrant sector, but I am leery of just how sustainable co-operatives will be able to remain given the position of the Canadian government. In April, a release from the Ministry of Agriculture announced that the Co-op Development Initiative (CDI) was going to be cut. This was devastating news. The thousands of struggling co-opearives across Canada will lose a valuable financial lifeline. Additionally, the federal Co-operatives Secretariat has been almost eliminated, meaning that valuable statistics-gathering, research, and partnering with the sector will no longer be a role seriously played by the federal government. Moreover, co-op owners and members will lose the sense of socio-political support from the government, a critical player that can keep co-ops competitive in a sloped playing field. To add insult to injury, this injustice was coming during the United Nations International Year of the Co-operative.
Resistance to the cuts, however, has been minimal. The general public, for one, has not been aware of the cuts. Traditional news outlets have failed to make this a news story - not even CBC Radio One. Alternative news sources have led the charge but this content is only online, where it competes for attention with myriad other important social, environmental, and political issues. The response from the co-op sector has been interesting. While some organisations (the CWCF included) have written letters and lobbied the government, many co-ops have been silent. Broadly, this can be explained two ways. Firstly, it seems that there is a general sense that this one can't be fought. The fact that the general public is essentially unaware of this issue lends credence to the prevailing idea that it may be best to wait until 2015. Secondly, the co-op sector is replete with individuals who are pushing their limits with their involvement. There are physical and monetary obstacles that are preventing many from trying to organise an effective campaign to fight the decision.
Despite the general unawareness of the public and the inability/unwillingness of the sector to reply, the Liberals appointed Mauril Bélanger as "Advocate for Co-operatives". Though no such formal title has existed in federal politics before, this shows the commitment the federal Liberal Party is taking on an important socio-economic issue. Though he has only recently taken on this position, he immediately started working on bringing a motion to the House of Commons to address the severe cuts that the Conservatives have made.
This motion, presented last Wednesday, set to establish a special committee on co-operatives. Bélanger's vision was to create a standing committee that would report to the House of Commons on the state of the co-operative sector in Canada. Formed of twelve parliamentarians, the committee would conduct analysis, bringing forth witnesses and experts from within the sector to determine whether of not continued economic support would be necessary. Moreover, it would address specifically how the state would provided assistance to co-ops (such as reinstating the CDI or creating a comparable programme).
Thankfully, it passed a vote in Parliament. However, despite the cheery attitude of agreement, there is some serious work that needs to be done to ensure that the establishment of this committee will result in meaningful social, economic, and political support in the long-term. Overwhelmingly, it appears that the NDP, the Liberals, the Bloc Québecois, and the Greens showed real support for the co-operative sector in a rather non-partisan way. The four parties demanded that the government reevaluate its position. However, the Conservatives, who were represented by Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Industry Mike Lake, spoke in platitudes about the co-op sector while simultaneously failing to explicitly state that they would continue formal support. In fact, Lake wanted to make an amendment to the committee so that its scope would be far wider than simply co-operatives, eclipsing the need that the special committee is designed to meet.
This was recognised by Malcolm Allen, NDP member for Welland and Critic for Agriculture Canada (and thus co-operatives), who stated that there is a significant difference between rhetoric and action. Moreover, he told an anecdote about how co-ops serve all Canadians - including his parents when they were new immigrants. He remarked that Canadians should "trust the credit union and be leery of the bank".
Overall, it is good news that the co-op motion passed. However, I am concerned about what the establishment of the committee will mean. Firstly, there are seven members of the committee chosen from the Conservative bench, against five from the opposition parties. This means that, should the government not wish to do anything, they can prevent a solution that would have positive benefits for the sector. Secondly, it was rather evident from the proceedings in the House of Commons that the Conservatives were only interested in paying lip service to the idea of supporting co-ops - presumably because it would have made for bad press if they refused to even talk about the possibility of helping co-operatives. Thirdly, before the committee even starts to function, each party must appoint the requisite number of members, by Friday 8 June - and it's not entirely clear that will happen. Finally, my concerns are with the fact that the government does not seem to recognise that co-ops aren't a fringe movement - they are an integral part of economies, rural and urban areas alike. Taking co-ops seriously means not only supporting the sector, but also examining the existing relationship between the neoliberal state and corporate interest. All told, I am cautiously optimistic about last Wednesday, and I look forward to seeing what happens in the next six months.
Monday, 28 May 2012
The Importance of the Commons
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)