Wondering Who to Support in the Ottawa Occupation

Well, if the answer is not totally obvious this might help.

The Voice of the Occupiers

The Voice of the Occupied

 

No more need be said.

 

Thoughts on the police

This post does not claim to have all the answers, or any answers, nor to be a comprehensive, or any kind of analysis, but is simply some thoughts on a subject that our society has finally been forced to deal with.

One's attitude to the police is clearly shaped by the reality one lives in. Unfortunately for too many people that reality is that the police are people who at worst kill them or their family members and at best treat them unfairly and discriminate against them. To others the police are people they depend on to protect them and in some cases to protect their privileged status in society.

Some will say this is an issue that we have imported from a racist United States. We know that to be untrue. Even those that say that know it to be untrue and the best they can argue is that it is relatively worse in the United States. Not being as bad as America is hardly a standard we should want to be judged by in Canada, particularly when strong arguments can be made that this is not true anyway, we just all wish it was.

Many will argue that abolishing or defunding the police are simply ideas that are too radical.

Indeed for untold decades suggestions for community building and crime prevention as an alternative to policing and incarceration have been met with support in principle without funding being provided, while police budgets have increased exponentially with little restraint. Indeed there seemed to have be an unspoken argument that we will find money for crime prevention when we no longer need it for the police because crime has disappeared.

We could of course reduce the need for the police by orders of magnitude if we stopped criminalizing what is a public health issue – drug use and abuse. We have done that for years with alcohol and tobacco use and cannabis just recently. There is no rational reason why all non-medical use of drugs should not been treated in the same way as a public health issue.

The funds are available to provide proper drug rehabilitation programs, sitting there in police budgets being wasted on treating a health matter as a criminal one. We could also use that money to provide mental health workers to deal with mental health crisis so the individuals receive treatment rather than being killed by police.

I dare say we have a huge amount of room to defund the police and put that money to better use.

We could put traffic enforcement in a separate organization with a greater emphasis on road safety rather than collecting fines,

What we have left within the police for traditional policing, crime investigation and law enforcement would still require major reforms. Reforms of the extent that could justifiably be argued would be best done by abolishing the police as they now exist and starting all over.

We Must Stop Stephen Harper and the 20% from Destroying Canada

There has been lots of discussion about how Stephen Harper's majority only represents 40% of voters because of the way our electoral system works. But, in reality, his agenda has much fewer supporters.

We must remember that the Conservative Party is a coalition. It is not a coalition in the sense that the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition (with an accord with the BQ) was. That proposed coalition was the product of compromise and an agreed to written common program.

This Conservative coalition is a coalition of perceived necessity where the old Progressive Conservative Party supporters have been convinced that the only way to keep the Liberals out of power is to support a Reform Party Canadian Alliance dominated Conservative Party. It is clear that Stephen Harper's agenda does not represent the values of the former Progressive Conservative Party, but it did get elected with the votes of it's supporters.

So now we have a ReformaTory government dominated by the 20% of Canadians who support the extreme right wing American-centric Reform Party Canadian Alliance ideology of Stephen Harper.

And they want to turn Canada into a mirror of our American neighbour, clearly a failed state if there ever was one. Have no doubt about it. Stephen Harper was not lying when he said we would not recognize our Canada when he was finished with it.

Stephen Harper's values are not Canadians values.

Canadians chose Tommy Douglas as the Greatest Canadian because he gave us Medicare, our public health care system, and we have consistently stated (as documented by public opinion polls) that public health care is the most important Canadian value and the most important thing that defines us as Canadians.

Stephen Harper wants to destroy our national health care system. He is on record as wanting to eliminate the Canada Health Act provisions that require provinces to meet national standards to receive federal funding. The next step will be to eliminate all federal funding, likely under the guise of trading tax points for direct federal funding. He has stated, using constitutional provisions as a justification, that the federal government should turn health care completely over to the provinces. We all know he wants to do that to promote more privatization and weakening of the public system and it's deterioration into a two-tier system, or worse.

Stephen Harper and the 20% do not represent Canadian values and what the vast majority of Canadians want when it comes to our cherished public health care system.

Stephen Harper believes that there are Canadians whose lives are less worthy of protection than other Canadians. He believes this because he believes in dividing Canadians into good people and bad people and those that are addicted to drugs are bad people that should be punished rather than provided with the treatment they need.

He opposes harm reduction measures (more properly called lifesaving measures) for addicts such as safe injection sites and needle exchange programs, even though they have been proven to save lives and even help rehabilitate addicts, because these programs may inconvenience or offend "good Canadians". He knows the "bad Canadians" these programs serve do not vote Conservative, because they do not vote.

But this is all part of the ReformaTory Conservatives war on drugs and tough on crime agenda that has been proven to be such a failure in the United States that even right wing governments and politicians in states like Texas are abandoning it. But Stephen Harper likes it because it fits in with his anti-science anti-fact ideology-based strategy that preys on peoples fears.

And even though crime is declining in Canada, the reporting of crime in the media is increasing, as is it's depiction on American television shows, and some Canadians do fear our country, and especially our cities, becoming the crime-ridden places they see portrayed in the media.

Of course logic would say that if you were really concerned about crime your policies would emulate those countries where crime is lowest, not the country where crime is highest. But facts and logic are not part of Stephen Harper's ideology. Fear and the desire for revenge are better vote-getters, so Stephen Harper thinks.

Stephen Harper and his 20% of supporters are clearly out of touch with Canadian values. What we have seen so far is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. If he is elected to another majority, no matter how phony a majority it is, he will see it as a mandate to finish the job of destroying the Canada that we all know and love.

Stephen Harper and his 20% must be stopped. We must put our political differences aside to save our country.

We need a one time electoral coalition agreement for the next election that provides that Liberals and New Democrats do not run against each other in any constituencies that the Conservatives have any chance of winning.

This coalition agreement should be short term only to allow for the election of a government pledged to undo the worst of the Harper ReformaTory measures and bring in democratic and electoral reforms that will see the next election run under a form of proportional representation.

Because it will be short term, with an agreed to program, and will be followed by an election under proportional representation, neither the NDP nor Liberals need worry if the candidate selection process is not perfect. There is no need to let partisan protectionism come before the necessity of saving our Canada from Stephen Harper's desire to destroy it. That is what it is about and we must put all partisan differences aside to save our country.

The next election will then be run under proportional representation and will be the first to elect a truly representative House of Commons. I have my own ideas on how such a proportional representation system should be structured which I will write about in a future post.

This election will, in all likelihood, not produce a majority government because all Canadians do not think the same way, but most do share similar values and the elected representatives will reflect this.

This new way of electing governments will require parties and Members of Parliament to work together. It will eliminate one party, and more importantly one despotic leader, from having complete authoritarian control of the government. Indeed it will, no doubt, reduce the powers of all party leaders and increase the powers of individual Members of Parliament.

We have, not only a chance to not only save our country from Stephen Harper, but a chance to reform our electoral system so that 20% of the people that want to destroy our country will never be able to seize power again.

We must seize that opportunity or our children and grandchildren will never forgive us.

Dumping Shit in The Ottawa River

This blog post contains graphic language because there is no way to pretty up dumping shit in the city's drinking water source.

If I were to walk into the Ottawa River and take a crap I would probably be arrested, and not just for indecent exposure but for polluting the river with human excrement.

However the City Of Ottawa routinely dumps shit in the Ottawa River due to a an inadequate and outdated sewage system. Yes, the City has been fined for some of these occurrences, but the fines are not paid by the decision makers who set the city's spending priorities but by citizens and taxpayers. Indeed the people who drink the water and swim in the Ottawa River, the victims of this environmental crime, are the ones who are punished for it, not the decision makers responsible for it.

Should there not be a law, or at least a policy, that the City spend money on improving the system responsible for this environmental crime before giving it to developers to build a shopping mall, condominiums and professional sports facilities. Should there not be a law that requires the City to spend federal and provincial infrastructure funding on reducing the amount of shit they dump in the Ottawa River before they spend it on building a road that destroys the most bio-diverse and environmentally important area in the city just to serve the desires of developers.

Indeed, should it not be legislated public policy that the City's decision makers must put the interests of taxpayers and citizens before the wishes of developers.

Only in Celebrityland

Only in Celebrityland would there be any debate or controversy over whether a 44 year old who had sex with a thirteen year old after giving her alcohol and drugs should be held accountable for his crime, especially when he was in a position of authority over her.

It just amazes me that people are defending him, including the victim, who at the time certainly was in no position to consent, especially after being drugged, and who since has received a financial settlement from the rapist.

His crime was against society and society has a right and responsibility to hold him accountable in the name of all the other victims and potential victims of such crimes.

References:

CBC News: Polanski to fight extradition

Ottawa Citizen: Polanski held on decades-old charge

Alberta Finance Ministers Remarks, Mental Illness, Crime, and Bill 44

Lost in the uproar over Alberta Finance Minister Iris Evans remarks attacking Alberta working parents ability to raise children, were these remarks about education, as reported by the CBC:

She also said a lack of education is ruining the upbringing of some children and leading to mental illness and crime.

"The huge failure of Canadians is not to educate the children properly, and then why should we be surprised when they have mental illnesses or commit dreadful crimes?" she said.

Can we assume the minister would thus disapprove of giving parents the right to pull their children from school when they do not like what is being taught, or is it just more conservative doubletalk.

The Danger of “Stranger Danger”

Stranger Danger is rearing it’s ugly head again as A-Channel NEWS airs a three part series Oct. 24, 25, 26, 2007.


Once again we are focusing on a minuscule threat and avoiding the real issues.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children states:

Is "stranger danger"—that dangers to kids come from strangers—really a myth?

Yes. In the majority of cases, the perpetrator is someone the parents or child knows, and that person may be in a position of trust or responsibility to the child and family.

We have learned that children do not have the same understanding of who a stranger is as an adult might; therefore, it is a difficult concept for the child to grasp. It is much more beneficial to children to help them build the confidence and self-esteem they need to stay as safe as possible in any potentially dangerous situation they encounter rather than teaching them to be "on the look out" for a particular type of person.

For decades, parents, guardians, and teachers have told children to "stay away from strangers" in an effort to keep them safe. In response to the on-going debate about the effectiveness of such programs, NCMEC released the research-based Guidelines for Programs to Reduce Child Victimization: A Resource for Communities When Choosing a Program to Teach Personal Safety to Children to assist schools as they select curricula aimed at reducing crimes against children.

The Missing Children's Network Canada states:

The Stranger-Danger Myth

Did you know that the majority of abductions and aggressions against children are committed by someone the child knows and trusts?

The Missing Children's Network has removed the use of the term "stranger" from its safety literature for the following reasons:

# It just doesn't work! Children need a clear and concise description in order to be able to properly recognize a stranger in their neighbourhood.

# Adults often send contradictory messages when saying "Don't talk to strangers!" When we walk on the street, how often do we tell our children to say hello to people who are walking by?

# In case of emergency, children may need to ask help from someone they don't necessarily know or have never met. Children need to be reassured that most people are well-intentioned and sincerely care about them.

For these reasons, we strongly recommend that you constantly reinforce the following fundamental principle:

Your child always has the right to say NO! to anyone including family members, neighbors, close friends, teachers, coaches or in any situation that leaves him feeling afraid, uncomfortable or confused. If at any time he finds himself in these circumstances, he must say NO!, get away from the situation and immediately confide in an adult whom he trusts.

So why do the media continue to pound away at this myth. Probably for the same reason discrimination and racism exists - it is far easier to see people we do not know and understand as being dangerous than those we have been taught to trust, who are a much greater risk to our children.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that we actually live in very safe communities in a very safe country (where crime rates are declining but crime reporting by the media is increasing), we live in an age of fear. We do not let our children walk even a few blocks to school. In the past it was children that used to be afraid of the bogeyman. Now we live in a society that is afraid of the bogeyman.

We develop many of our attitudes in life at an early stage. If we teach our children to needlessly fear strangers what will that do their social development. What will that do to their ability to trust others and build communities together.

I prefer to think of a stranger as a friend I have not met yet.

Policing by Innuendo – New Ottawa Police Program

The Ottawa Citizen reports on a new program to deter customers of prostitutes. It seems there are times when the police do not have enough evidence to lay charges but believe men are soliciting prostitutes. In this new program the police will now send letters to the homes of these men. But, of course, because they have no evidence, they will not allege the men actually committed crimes but just tell them they should not be in areas “frequented by prostitutes”.

The police stated to the Citizen:

“Letters will be sent to men who are identified while picking up a prostitute or found in the company of a prostitute. They will also be sent to those who police identify as continually stopping and talking to prostitutes or continually driving around neighbourhoods prostitutes are known to frequent, said Supt. Larochelle.”

But since the police have no proof the men have broken any laws, the letters are worded very carefully. We would not want to actually accuse someone of something we have no evidence of, when innuendo will get the job done. As stated to the Citizen:

“Anyone caught trawling Ottawa's streets for prostitutes will soon have a letter sent to their home by police telling them to stay out of those neighbourhoods while also warning of the dangers of the sex trade. Starting next week, Ottawa police will start sending out "community safety" letters that include the time, date and location the recipient was observed by officers in areas known to be frequented by prostitutes. In addition to detailing the potential health hazards associated with street prostitution, such as HIV and hepatitis, the letter explains the harm it causes to the community and asks the recipient to "do your part" by "refraining from bringing your vehicle into this area unnecessarily."

And what about those cases where the police actually have evidence. As stated to the Citizen:

“Supt. Larochelle said the letters will not be sent to the homes of men who are criminally charged with solicitation or who are caught in a police sting and qualify for the pre-charge diversion program known as John school. "People are accountable for their actions. This letter will hold them accountable," he said.”

The police role is to enforce the law and charge people when they have evidence of wrongdoing. It is not their place to find creative ways to punish people they think are doing bad things, where there is no evidence any laws are being broken.

Street prostitution is clearly a problem in neighbourhoods. Of course the prostitutes face much greater risks, including death, in this situation than the residents. Everyone would be better off if prostitutes were not forced onto the streets and forced to work for pimps. But prostitution is not going to go away. It is rather ironic that in todays sex-obsessed society you can use sex to sell everything but you cannot sell sex.

The other irony, of course, is that it is only the financial transaction that is illegal, and actually only “communicating for the purpose of” the financial transaction that is illegal. If these women were “giving it away” there would be nothing illegal but the “problem” would probably be even worse from the neighbourhood perspective.

What is clear is that many women are in the sex trade unwillingly because of economic necessity or abusive relationships. These are the real victims. The solutions are not criminal or quasi-criminal sanctions but economic and social reforms. Women need to be economically independent. Charging abusive partners or pimps with crimes does little good if women feel the necessity to return to those relationships. Charging customers or prostitutes does little good if women feel the economic necessity to return to the sex trade.

The prostitution “problem” will only be solved when no woman turns to prostitution out of necessity.