Occupons Montréal: Don’t Listen to the Media

He was working at the base of the statue of Queen Victoria when I photographed him. The tools of his trade were a simple black marker & a small sheet of plywood. What he was drawing was a beautiful, if a little terrifying, piece of artwork. This was the moment that my scepticism about Occupons Montréal faded & was replaced with hope – cautious hope, cautious optimism – but hope nonetheless.

The reason I had felt sceptical, the reason I had felt that Occupons Montréal might fade into irrelevance until I saw it for myself, is rooted in my understanding of other occupations worldwide – most notably, Occupy Wall Street, where the message is much clearer than the media is portraying it to be & the protestors’ organizing prowess & sense of community repeatedly seems to win out against the established powers & authorities. Globally, we are seeing a sort of 1968 all over again – a mass protest movement, simultaneously local & international in scope, with issues ranging from ending war, economic justice, student debt, unemployment, animal rights, etc. The momentum of this movement seems implacable & the energy of the people participating in it is contagious when you are around it.

So when I saw, over the weekend, a headline on the Le Devoir website saying that Occupons Montréal was associating itself with a march for Québec independence (the headline has since been removed), I felt my heart sink. The rest of the world was challenging an unfair, unscrupulous & predatory economic system that is pushing governments to austerity & here I was seeing my city’s Occupation rehashing old battles & using old, still-divisive politics to undermine its own message & popular support with nearly half of Québec’s population.

Except it wasn’t, and it isn’t. The Occupation General Assembly’s Minutes don’t mention a word about sovereignty or independence. The Occupation seems to be about changing the system to make it fairer for the people in our society who aren’t at the top of the wealth & power pyramid; the old battles are being brought up in the media, but not in the discussions I heard people having down in Square-Victoria-cum-La-Place-du-Peuple. Some of the ideas being discussed are frivolous, unachievable, blue-sky pushes for revolutionary, total world-system reform, but mostly what’s talked about seems to be about making the movement work, making the occupation durable &, beyond those goals, it seems to be about making the world better for people who need it. Allowing people not just to exist, but to live.

 

So yes, my scepticism faded. It faded because of the message of the Occupation, which is simply “Here are the problems foisted on our society by the wealthy & the powerful at our expense & in our name. Fix them. Now.”; it faded because of the people at the protest, who are living together with a sense of community I have simply never seen in Montreal; it faded because artists are sitting next to enthusiastic political activists, drawing pictures & sculpting stones while someone lectures about inequality and social justice, just because this place has given them the opportunity to express themselves in a way they could not before; it faded because in a city where people will riot because a band can’t play a gig for being held up at the border, there is a village of tents cooperating in an astonishing display of direct, deliberative democracy to change things for the better & not only has it not descended into chaos, but it has grown larger, more organized & more beautiful.

The artist with his plywood canvas sat on the plinth of a statue in a true, 21st Century Agora. If nothing else is accomplished by this movement, the community & the sense of being at the bustling, creative heart of a true democracy will nevertheless stay with me always.

On the Chaplaincy

Most people would agree that a modern democracy owes it to itself and its citizens to maintain a secular approach to affairs of state; the separation between the church and the people's sovereign institutions of governance is imperative to those same institutions' impartiality before all citizens and their proper service of state interests.

So why is it that our armed forces are still maintaining an active chaplaincy - either at home or in missions abroad - on the public dime? Is it so strange that our enemies think we're fighting religious wars against them? Our own government is paying to ship priests overseas to preach the Christian message.

I understand that our soldiers are doing a tough job and some of them need a bit of spiritual guidance or what have you to be able to go out and face those realities every day for however long their tours of duty end up being. But the abovementioned proper service of state interests requires that we consider the ramifications of state-sponsored religious figures in our state-sponsored war-machine (not that the Canadian war-machine is particularly terrifying, but I wouldn't wanna piss 'em off, anyway). The trick, I believe, lies in the "state-sponsored" bit.

Soldiers who want spiritual guidance should be given the same choice as people all over Canada and the United States: pay the Tithe. The military could cut funding to the chaplaincy entirely, paying only for their transportation, while the soldiers themselves pay the tithe from their salaries to keep their regiments stocked with all that's required to satisfy their spiritual needs. This hands-off approach may not be immediately appreciated by our enemies on the ground, but the intellectuals (and yes, our enemies do have a class of intellectuals interpretting world events for them) may well understand the intention behind the change.

Additionally, the stories of soldiers forced to attend services by social pressures might change if the culture of religious kow-towing espoused by the people at the top is, in this way, forced to change. I doubt it, but one can hope. The real pay-off will be in the long run; every other facet of our society has benefitted from the democratization and accessibility that secularization has brought with it, the military will prove to be no exception.

Damage Done

It's been a hell of a week. There's been a lot of damage - the most important instance being, of course, Her Excellency the Governor-General's choice to prorogue parliament effective immediately, rather than awaiting Monday's (now cancelled) confidence vote. This is an absolutely terrifying precedent; Stephen Harper and Michaëlle-Jean have essentially established that any Prime Minister faced with a sure-loss confidence vote can go ahead and ask for a prorogation and avoid the hammer of the House's voice - at least for a time.

Harper will face the same problems he left the parliament with when it reconvenes on January 26th. The coalition may not survive until that date, but Harper has lost the confidence of our elected officials. They will not forgive him and he needs to resign. Canadians will not forgive him - or, at the very least, if they do, Québecois will not. The Conservatives will deliver a budget more quickly than the coalition could and for that I support their mandate to govern. However, it is my sincere belief that Stephen Harper must resign.

Not just because he's lost the confidence of the house, but because his treatment of the bloc during this crisis was shameful. I've stated before that attacking the bloc's legitimacy attacks the legitimacy of the whole French-Canadian franchise, it accuses Québecois who want their own country of being anti-Canadian in a way that is patently false and stirs up a unity crisis in the middle of a constitutional crisis and an economic crisis. It is a third crisis we simply do not need!

Bloc MPs are elected just as legitimately as their conservative, liberal and NDP counterparts - in many cases, they're more legitimately elected than their counterparts, as they often garner real majorities in their ridings, rather than mere pluralities. For some reason, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper is unable to accept them as fellow Members of Parliament with the same democratic authority as his own duly elected and Right Honourable Albertan ass. Such discrimination in parliament is just as dangerous as his prorogation precedent.

That dangerous precedent was accompanied by a litany of lies from his Right Honourableness; his claim that the Bloc Québécois' interests lie in the destruction of Canada are patently false! In fact, for a separate and prosperous Québec to exist, a strong, economically independent Canada would have to exist and continue to exist. It is intrinsic to any sovereignist option to prop up and improve Canada in every possible way. In that sense, there is nobody in parliament I would trust more to ensure the stability of either a coalition government or a revitalized conservative one.

And these facts were not lost on the Bloc, the PC, Québec Solidaire or any of the Sovereignist parties - the work done by the Liberals and Conservatives over the last thirteen years, placating Québec and solidifying a United Canada may aswell be flushed down the toilet. Stephen Harper threw it away to save his political career.

Mr. Harper, please step down.

Stability & The Economy

The Government's rhetoric, over the last two days, has stressed the unstable element that a coalition propped up by the Bloc Québécois would bring to the country and its economy; at a glance, this would appear accurate. The Toronto Stock Exchange has seen its value fall steadily since the announcement of a coalition agreement on Monday, and its volatility has been higher than usual since rumours of a coalition began flying after the economic update on Thursday. This, however, is more appearance than reality.

The current instability of the government is causing trouble with the stock market; investors unable to know whether a divided parliament will continue past Christmas, whether government will be dissolved until spring while the country runs another election that may yield another dysfunctional House or whether the Governor-General will ask the coalition to step in and govern. I believe that the most likely desired result on the part of investors lies in either a Harper-less conservative government, or in the implementation of the Liberal-NDP coalition. The Bloc's commitment to the coalition would ensure rather than oppose the stability Harper claims he fears for so much from the Opposition's agreement.

In promising, within the context of a legally binding document, not to defeat a coalition government for 18 months, the Bloc has ensured that no one short of one of the governing parties could join the Conservatives in bringing them down - stability, thy name is coalition.

That they are promising, in addition to the measures implemented by the conservative government, to invest massively in Canada's manufacturing and agricultural sectors in order to protect them from the forecast economic downturn is yet another reason for investors to remain optimistic about a coalition being invited to form Canada's government. In fact, the most damaging thing the Governor-General could do for the economy at this point in time would be to okay another election.

A Marxist Perspective

While I do not agree with their position, I'd like to present columns by my friends over at Fight Back. They've presented their opinions on the current goings-on in Parliament and I think it's an interesting take on what is obviously becoming a crisis worthy of the name.

The first article discusses the causes of the current crisis in the framework of a move towards socialization:

http://www.marxist.ca/content/view/399/1/

While this second article addresses the concessions made by the NDP in order to form the potential coalition (interestingly, it ignores the Québec factor when trying to explain why Gilles Duceppe is so damned happy):

http://www.marxist.ca/content/view/402/1/

Pay them a visit, give them a read - they're interesting enough, and provide a lot of good insight, even if (like me), you don't agree with their motives or their direction.

The Animosity in Canadian Parliament - A Letter to Stephen Harper - Video

A Letter to Stephen HarperI sent this email to the Prime Minister a moment ago

Powered by seesmic.

The Animosity in Canadian Parliament - A Letter to Stephen Harper

Mr. Harper,

The events of the last week have me concerned, I'm afraid, for the future of my country. I have stated, in public and on my blog (http://moopthas.blogspot.com), that the Canadian electoral process is inherently undemocratic and that the minority forum of parliament is the only way of approaching, through that process and in a representative fashion, the true desires of Canadians. So understand that I do not believe that the mandate to govern falls necessarily on the winning party of an election (in your case, the Conservative Party), but rather on the House of Parliament, whose makeup is reasonably close to the will of the Canadian people.

So it is with consternation that I witnessed your move to consolidate your party's power and capitalize on your Opposition's divided nature. It is with consternation that I witnessed your shock as your Opposition banded together to decry your heavy-handedness. It is with consternation that I witnessed you accuse the opposition, who together hold a majority of both the popular vote and the House, of acting undemocratically and it is with consternation that I witnessed your Sun King approach to party politics, reining in the dissent of those members of your party, such as the Honourable Mr. Day, who disagreed with your approach to the situation.

The absolutist approach you've employed, Mr. Harper, has given you one advantage. It is an advantage you can use to save your party's government from being toppled by the coalition; it has drawn responsibility away from your party and onto yourself and so, by your resignation and by your party's nomination of a new leader, you can save the Governor-General from setting a new, dangerous and potentially costly precedent in Canadian political history.

Please understand that I send this letter as a concerned citizen, looking to protect my country. I want the last year's economic growth (because while our neighbours to the south suffered a recession, our economy grew 1.7%) to continue and I want our country to survive what is a very uncertain economic period. I want the government to remain stable and I want you to resign, Mr. Harper, in order to accomplish that.

My name is Steven Alleyn, I thank you for your time and I hope this letter finds you well.

P.S. I do not support them, but the Bloc Québécois is a legitimate political party seeking to protect the interests of the Province of Québec. While their charter establishes them as a separatist party, history shows that they have acted in the interest of Quebec and Canada and have not directly acted against Canadian unity. Attacking their credibility and their legitimacy can be construed as an attempt to discredit the opinions and legitimacy of the entire French Canadian franchise; it is not in keeping with the political shrewdness you have demonstrated over the last eight years.

And We Have a Winner!

There is only one winner of the coalition agreement reached today by the Grits, NDP and Bloc, and that's the Bloc. The Liberals and NDP between them do not have the clout required to form a functional coalition government; they have 114 seats between them, not enough to even pretend to oppose the Conservatives; the coalition is entirely dependent on the Bloc's willingness to support it.

That kind of leverage will not be overlooked by an idealist - an intelligent idealist - like Gilles Duceppe. The Bloc can ask for whatever they want, within reason of course, and get it! This wasn't lost on Stéphane Dion, Jack Layton or their respective caucusses, and there's an agreement - an official, legally binding agreement - for the Bloc not to defeat the coalition government for 18 months.

That leaves the Bloc with a lot of leeway. They hold the balance of legislative power and can block legislation, they can allow the Conseratives to run their legislation through anyway and oppose anything the government tries to pass unless their demands are met.

If I was Gilles Duceppe, I would be giggling maniacally.

Democracy's End

Here's how Harper pissed off the opposition to the point where he can now declare his political career officially dead:

He presented preliminary financial measures, leading into the budget to be released next month, which undermined the already tenuous democracy of Canada's electoral process. His measure rescinded the right of political parties to receive public financing for every vote garnered at the polls, which would have effectively rendered every vote not cast for a winning candidate utterly worthless.

The opposition exploded; an attack on democracy and, more importantly for the self-interested politicians, an attack on their bottom line! It was unacceptable - it is unacceptable. The public financing measure was the only thing standing between Canadian Democracy and its transformation into a complete farce.

For those of you who find the coalition proposition undemocratic, I've got news for you; the opposition, between them, control a majority of the seats in parliament. The coalition is essentially more democratically legitimate than the minority conservatives, in that it has the support of 163 MPs, versus the 143 seats held by the Conservatives.

Democracy in this country is a joke.

The Coalition of the Willing - Video

The Coalition of the Willing - Canadas Political Woes

Powered by Seesmic

The Coalition of the Willing

Today, the Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québecois Parties came to an agreement, in principle, to form a coalition government and replace the duly elected Conservatives under the guidance of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper.

Harper played chicken with the opposition, as he is wont to do, only this time they didn’t flinch. Now, if I may be allowed to complete the metaphor, the paramedics – in the person of Michaëlle-Jean – must pry a functional government out of the wreckage.

If she allows Harper to kill the current parliamentary session and pick up in January, we’ll be no better off; he’s lost the confidence of the opposition parties and he’s not getting it back. If she allows him to dissolve parliament and call an election, the Canadian people will elect another Conservative Minority and we’ll be right back where we started. There are only two ways out of this mess:

The Governor-General can allow the opposition to go through with their plan to form a coalition government, or she can allow the Conservatives to keep power on the condition that they replace Stephen Harper.

No matter what happens, Harper’s down for the count.

I Was Wrong

Okay, so my prediction could have been a little bit better; the final results can be found here if you haven't gotten a glimpse of them, yet. It's my fault, really, for calling it based on the polls running up to the election; I should have called it based on the fact that the prairies are, by in large, polarized rather than scattered across the political spectrum.

As I drove home, last night, from an evening spent watching the election results come in at my friend's house, I heard commentators on CJAD (a local AM news station located at 800 kilohertz) declare that "the only wasted vote is a vote not used!" Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the function of the Canadian Electoral System knows that such a declaration is naïve in the extreme, the most glaring example of the fallacy of his statement being the polling results for the NDP and the Bloc Québecois versus those same two parties' seat results. With nearly ten percent more votes than the nationalist Bloc, the NDP somehow managed to gather 13 fewer seats.

The fact is that the First-Past-the-Post electoral system is broken, it yields shoddy results at best, and gives a party with less than a majority of the popular vote a carte blanche to do as it pleases at its worst. The fact is that anyone not voting with the majority in their particular riding is wasting their vote, because short of a small stipend paid to their party, the people they voted for can do exactly nothing with that vote.

Canada is not a democracy - as long as we have minority governments, it is close to one, but do not, for even one moment, think that we live in a country which in any way democratic. If we did, the liberals would have two thirds of the seats of the conservatives (and not a small fraction up from half) and the NDP would be a close third, with the BQ trailing far behind and the Greens a little bit behind them.

Oh, and we might have a minority that represented us, for once.

Russian Roulette Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea

The argument that we aren't in colonial times anymore, that planting a flag somewhere is not proof of conquest anymore, is not really a valid one. This is because it is redundant; it isn't valid because it isn't valid and that's why it's not done anymore. There are other arguments, however, which invalidate the Russian bid to secure arctic control with a flag and a submarine. One of them stands out above the rest.

Occupation. Use. They are the sole determinants of whether or not a piece of land belongs to anyone - short of a land deed, proving ownership through acquisition. Unfortunately, this doesn't bode particularly well for Canada's land-claim, either, but the fact of the matter is that, unless either country can prove that it has the means, desire, opportunity & motivation to make use of the arctic and arctic waters - even if those motivations are martial & defensive in nature.

The deep water port & icebreakers proposed by Harper's government would prove that martial intent, but until they're actually built & deployed, it's still anyone's game. The arctic is no man's land and the Russian flag sitting on the bottom of the ocean under miles of ice won't change that. Not until they decide to use it.

Reciprocating Redundant Repetition

Why does this province's democratic process seem to be on an endless cyclical loop, rehashing the same subjects over and over with little-to-no apparent progress or Will to Progress (yes, I've been reading Nietzsche) since 1970? Is it simply agenda pushing idiots who've gotten us caught up in this political quagmire or is there some sort of greater cultural problem at work here?

This week, again, saw hue-and-cry over the Canadian Health Care system and a rash of people calling to privatize the system ASAP. I have already dealt with this, briefly at moopthas' old address and I'll expand on a few different themes here.

The main problem with establishing a private system is maintaining a parallel social system; regulations cannot be extended too far into the private sector because if they are, it simply won't establish itself, so with reduced restrictions a series of private hospitals and clinics would, as soon as they entered the market, begin competing not only with each other, but with the social system aswell. And here's the big, dirty secret about the private sector: competition isn't limited to consumer-side services. Supply-side services compete with each other, aswell.

Doctors want better wages, like anyone else, for that matter, and so do nurses and orderlies and everyone else involved in the health system. The private sector, unregulated, has no problem offering them. It pays based on individuals' merit and therefore soon draws the best of our professionals out of the public system. In order to preserve even a modicum of competent function in the public system, the wages within that system will have to be raised in order to match the private ones. The private system, in charge of its own pricing, will be able to compensate and maintain its hold on those doctors who represent our best and brightest.

The same is true of every kind of specialist and professional involved in medicine. Of course, the consumer will not tolerate an endlessly rising inflation and, based on his/her Will to Pay, the prices and wages would inevitably stabilize at one point; it would not happen before the public system had been ravaged - irrecoverably demolished.

The cost of professionals wouldn't be the only thing to suffer - the cost of procedures and insurance would soar, briefly, as they acclimatized themselves to a new market (as they surged to compete with and overthrow the social system). A look at the US system is the simplest way of confirming these suspicions; drug companies would follow suit as deregulation and increased insurance coverage would give them the leeway they need to gouge more and more out of their hapless customers.

They may have had some success with the system in Great Britain and Europe, but the facts of Québec's almost perverted mixture of right- and left-wing politics/government, along with this country's proximity to the USA and the bleed-over effect of their instant-gratification culture on our own make any proposal to privatize a segment of the Canadian Health System completely unviable. Unfortunately, our geo-political climate makes it an all-or-nothing situation and scrapping public health simply is not an option; it is unethical and contrary to the basic human rights we believe in - or claim to believe in - in this country.