I think the readers of this blog will have no problem understanding why the second video naturally follows the first one:
I don't post on a daily basis anymore, partly because I have other things keeping me busy and partly because I do wonder if anything good can come from a frequent barrage of my deep-seated cynicism. I see little to inspire hope in the world, so why simply drive home the point again and again?
There are times, however, when what is being reported calls for denunciation, and my anger today emanates from the hypocrisy with which democracy is presented to us. On the one hand we are told that it is sacred, but on the other hand, when it results in things some don't like, they find their own ways of undermining and denouncing it, but in terms that are not so obvious.
Recent episodes come readily to mind.
In an effort to promote more moderate drinking, Ireland has passed legislation that will mandate cancer warnings be placed on all alcohol products sold in the Emerald Isle. While I have doubts about the efficacy of such labelling, I don't dispute the democratic right of a state to make and enforce health policy.
Not everyone agrees.
The United States and other countries have expressed concerns over Ireland’s plans for labels on alcoholic products that would warn of a link to cancer at a World Trade Organisation meeting on Wednesday, officials say.
The item was on the agenda of the Technical Barriers to Trade Committee of the WTO when it met in Geneva, a forum for the organisation’s 164 members to discuss and mediate potential disputes over regulations.
The US, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic raised concerns that Ireland’s new alcohol labelling requirements signed into law in May could present a barrier to trade at the meeting, according to a Geneva-based trade official.
Additional countries also spoke up in the meeting about the issue, some supporting the complaints made by others, including Japan, Colombia, Canada, Chile, Argentina, New Zealand, Cuba, Australia and Guatemala.
Now, on the surface this looks like a trade irritant. But if any thinking person peeks behinde the curtain, they may come to the conclusion that it is the affected corporations that are really calling the shots, and the state is essentially their 'beard'. In other words, the nation-state, as it often has, is doing the bidding of its corporate masters. This will not be a revelation to many, but that it is a fact should outrage all of us.
The Irish situation is reminiscent of something that occurred several years ago pertaining to the WHO's efforts to reduce global use of tobacco. The tobacco company Philip Morris lobbied intensively and extensively to weaken measures aimed at reducing the consumption of their very lucrative product. You can read all about their sordid tactics in the link, but this excerpt might provide a little flavour of what they were up to:
a goal of Philip Morris is to increase the number of delegates at the treaty conventions who are not from health ministries or involved in public health. That’s happening: A Reuters analysis of delegates to the FCTC’s biennial conference shows a rise since the first convention in 2006 in the number of officials from ministries like trade, finance and agriculture for whom tobacco revenues can be a higher priority than health concerns.
A WHO treaty to discourage smoking was successfully implemented, but, at the time of the report, while the U.S, signed the treaty, it did not ratify it. So much for the freedom to enact democratic and life-saving policies, eh?
We can look closer to home for further illustrations of whose interests are served in our democracy. The Rogers-Shaw merger, despite the protracted political theatre and government hand-wringing over competition in the wireless industry, was, as I knew it would be, endorsed. Who benefits? I think you know the answer. Who suffers? The citizens, of course.
Then there is the federal government's apparent inability to recover billions of dollars in evaded taxes. Despite the revelations of both the Paradise and Panama Papers, the CRA seems strangely reluctant to go after the titans who hold those accounts, Much easier it is to go after small businesses, as evidenced by the fishing expedition the tax agency is going on for Shopify records.
Even closer to home is the absolute contempt Doug Ford and John Tory evinced in the mayoral race which Olivia Chow just won. Both men had vowed to stay out of the election, but neither did, the most egregious violation by Ford, who pronounced absolute catastrophe for the City of Toronto should a "leftie" like Chow be elected. But what else can one expect from someone whose loins are set atingle whenever a privatization plan is mentioned?
So much for the voice of the people.
Since most of us no longer attend Sunday services, we do not benefit from wise, well-considered homilies. The following advice from the philosopher Bertrand Russell in 1959 resonates now more than ever, and would be a welcome message from most pulpits today, except, of course, from the hatemongering and crazed evangelicals so popular in Amerika these days.
In 1959 BERTRAND RUSSELL was asked what message he would most like to pass on to future generations.
H/t Michael Warburton
As originally envisaged, legislative fiat would
include prohibiting the use or distribution of tents or tarps in public parks or lands without a permit, banning food and grocery distribution in public spaces without permission and reducing timelines for park camping and the storage of goods in public spaces.
As well, bylaws were
to be changed to prohibit payments to panhandlers on city streets, intersections and highway ramps.
For now, likely as a result of unpleasant publicity, the city has backed off from the plan.
Councillors referred the controversial bylaws back to staff at a meeting Wednesday night.
Council’s plan was to have the legislation be enforced, under the Provincial Offences Act, by bylaw officers or members of the Barrie Police Service, with individual fines set to range from $500 to $100,000, [my emphasis] depending on the circumstance.
Before the council meeting, dozens of residents gathered outside city hall, many holding signs and speaking out in opposition to the proposed rules.
“Charitable acts of kindness are central to our community,” Coun. Jim Harris said. “We do not want to punish that; that’s not the intent. I look forward to having a better bylaw that reflect what people really want.”
Marie-Josée Houle, a federal housing advocate whose non-partisan office works under the umbrella of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, had also urged council to backtrack.
“These measures would severely restrict access to basic shelter and food for people living in local homeless encampments and, as such, are in direct contravention of international human rights standards,” she wrote in a letter to members of council, Ontario Premier Doug Ford and Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Steve Clark.
“I am concerned that the proposed approach of the city to deny basic shelter to people living without access to housing or other safe and adequate formal shelter options will lead to a worsening of the crisis that your residents are experiencing,” she wrote.
I have seen all manner of human debasement in my lifetime. Criminalizing compassion and charity is but another egregious example.
It is clearly the true evil here.
UPDATE: In my view, the following represents a pusillanimous 'walk-back' from Barrie's mayor regarding the bylaw proposal. Apparently, it is all a 'miscommunication' due to sloppy wording and not a war on compassion after all:
Canadians' eyes are on you and your council, Mr. Mayor.
