In my last post, I made passing reference to Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine. The following video, from Rachel Maddow's show on MSNBC, has to be seen to be believed, as she makes a very compelling case that the doctrine is now being applied in Michigan, thanks to Governor Rick Snyder. It makes what has happened in Wisconsin look like merely the warmup act. I suspect Canadian neocons are watching with bated breath.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
More on Harperland - Intolerance of Dissenting Opinion and Misuse of the RCMP
While I am a reasonably fast reader, especially when it comes to fiction, I sometimes have to slow down and digest small chunks of non-fiction that deal with the political arena, lest I do grievous harm to my blood pressure or mental state. Such was the case as I made my way through Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine, dealing as it did with how the right wing exploits natural or human-made disasters to advance the cause of free-market economics, despite the damage that system can do to those upon whom it is imposed.
I am exercising similar caution with Lawrence Martin's fine political analysis, Harperland, which, as I mentioned in an earlier post, confirms our worst fears and suspicions about the Harper regime. This morning I read a couple of parts that reflect both Harper's contempt for opposing viewpoints and his authoritarian bent:
Michael Biels, a history professor at the University of Ottawa, wrote a newspaper piece opposing Harper's decision to confer nation status on Quebec. Senator Marjory Lebreton, a former Mulroney loyalist who was named Senate leader for switching her fealty to Harper, contacted the university and demanded that Biels be disciplined and forced to issue an apology. Fortunately the university resisted her demands, saying that freedom of speech is a mainstay of academic institutions. Since the implications of this incident are obvious, no further comment from me is needed.
Many will recall the next example, which occurred when the Conservatives had a caucus meeting in Charlottetown in 2007. As was the tradition P.H. (Pre-Harper), journalists gathered in the lobby of the hotel to talk to caucus members as they passed by. The Prime Minister's Office, with its Harper-directed mandate to keep media contact to a minimum, ordered the RCMP to remove the reporters from the hotel. Besides this wholly inappropriate and probably illegal use of our federal police force for political purposes, this incident made me wonder anew exactly what role Harper played in another political misuse of police authority, the widespread violation of Charter Rights that occurred during the G20 Summit in Toronto last June.
While I strongly encourage everyone to read this fine book by Lawrence Martin, I do have to post this warning: CONSUMPTION OF ITS CONTENTS MAY POSE RISKS TO YOUR PHYSICAL OR EMOTIONAL HEALTH
I am exercising similar caution with Lawrence Martin's fine political analysis, Harperland, which, as I mentioned in an earlier post, confirms our worst fears and suspicions about the Harper regime. This morning I read a couple of parts that reflect both Harper's contempt for opposing viewpoints and his authoritarian bent:
Michael Biels, a history professor at the University of Ottawa, wrote a newspaper piece opposing Harper's decision to confer nation status on Quebec. Senator Marjory Lebreton, a former Mulroney loyalist who was named Senate leader for switching her fealty to Harper, contacted the university and demanded that Biels be disciplined and forced to issue an apology. Fortunately the university resisted her demands, saying that freedom of speech is a mainstay of academic institutions. Since the implications of this incident are obvious, no further comment from me is needed.
Many will recall the next example, which occurred when the Conservatives had a caucus meeting in Charlottetown in 2007. As was the tradition P.H. (Pre-Harper), journalists gathered in the lobby of the hotel to talk to caucus members as they passed by. The Prime Minister's Office, with its Harper-directed mandate to keep media contact to a minimum, ordered the RCMP to remove the reporters from the hotel. Besides this wholly inappropriate and probably illegal use of our federal police force for political purposes, this incident made me wonder anew exactly what role Harper played in another political misuse of police authority, the widespread violation of Charter Rights that occurred during the G20 Summit in Toronto last June.
While I strongly encourage everyone to read this fine book by Lawrence Martin, I do have to post this warning: CONSUMPTION OF ITS CONTENTS MAY POSE RISKS TO YOUR PHYSICAL OR EMOTIONAL HEALTH
Friday, March 11, 2011
Last Night's CBC At Issues Panel
As I do most Thursdays, I watched last night's At Issues Panel on the CBC's National News. As usual the panelists, Allan Gregg, Chantal Hebert, and Andrew Coyne had a lively but respectful discussion, this time on the many issues undermining the credibility of the Harper Government.
Allan Gregg made a disturbing suggestion; even though the issue of Harper's contempt for Parliamentary democracy has been especially manifest this week through House Speaker Miliken's two rulings, plus the fact that the Conservatives tabled demonstrably false cost estimates for the purchase of the F-35 fighter jets, he doubted that such will resonate with the public. He opined that the concept of Parliamentary democracy, so regularly violated by the Harper Government these past few years, may not mean much to the public, since nothing the Government does seems to be reflected in public opinion poll results.
That, plus the George Carlin video posted yesterday, got me thinking about the vital role that critical thinking plays in an informed and vital democracy. In the past I wrote fairly extensively on the topic, and if anyone is interested in either my thoughts or links on the subject, they can be found on my other blog, Education and Its Discontents.
Allan Gregg made a disturbing suggestion; even though the issue of Harper's contempt for Parliamentary democracy has been especially manifest this week through House Speaker Miliken's two rulings, plus the fact that the Conservatives tabled demonstrably false cost estimates for the purchase of the F-35 fighter jets, he doubted that such will resonate with the public. He opined that the concept of Parliamentary democracy, so regularly violated by the Harper Government these past few years, may not mean much to the public, since nothing the Government does seems to be reflected in public opinion poll results.
That, plus the George Carlin video posted yesterday, got me thinking about the vital role that critical thinking plays in an informed and vital democracy. In the past I wrote fairly extensively on the topic, and if anyone is interested in either my thoughts or links on the subject, they can be found on my other blog, Education and Its Discontents.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
A Followup On Diana Swain's Report
My last post dealt with a disturbing investigative report done by the CBC's Diana Swain.
I am convinced that the only way to move the Ministry of Health to ensure that similar tragedies don't happen in Ontario is to spread the word of the report to as many people as possible and to subject the Ministry to a barrage of letters demanding fast action. Here is the letter that I am sending off to Deb Matthews, the Ontario Minister of Health, with copies to Premier McGuinty and my local MPP:
Dear Ms Matthews:
Having viewed Diana Swain's disturbing investigative report on the CBC about Rose McKenzie, the Ontario nurse whose negligence in California resulted in a patient's brain damage and quadriplegia, I am writing to request that the Ministry of Health take immediate action.
According to the report, Nurse McKenzie, despite having been stripped of her nursing license in California, had no trouble finding another nursing job in Ontario; she simply omitted any reference to what had happened on the self-reporting form used by the Ontario College of Nurses.
I am sure you will agree with me that, for the sake of patient safety, changes need to made with all urgency, lest a similar tragedy occur here. In this age of technology, measures to ensure the full and free exchange of pertinent personnel information internationally are undoubtedly both feasible and relatively easy to initiate.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience as to how your Ministry plans to ensure the safety of all patients in Ontario.
I am convinced that the only way to move the Ministry of Health to ensure that similar tragedies don't happen in Ontario is to spread the word of the report to as many people as possible and to subject the Ministry to a barrage of letters demanding fast action. Here is the letter that I am sending off to Deb Matthews, the Ontario Minister of Health, with copies to Premier McGuinty and my local MPP:
Dear Ms Matthews:
Having viewed Diana Swain's disturbing investigative report on the CBC about Rose McKenzie, the Ontario nurse whose negligence in California resulted in a patient's brain damage and quadriplegia, I am writing to request that the Ministry of Health take immediate action.
According to the report, Nurse McKenzie, despite having been stripped of her nursing license in California, had no trouble finding another nursing job in Ontario; she simply omitted any reference to what had happened on the self-reporting form used by the Ontario College of Nurses.
I am sure you will agree with me that, for the sake of patient safety, changes need to made with all urgency, lest a similar tragedy occur here. In this age of technology, measures to ensure the full and free exchange of pertinent personnel information internationally are undoubtedly both feasible and relatively easy to initiate.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience as to how your Ministry plans to ensure the safety of all patients in Ontario.
Diana Swain's Disturbing Nursing Report
Last night on the CBC's National, there was a profoundly disturbing report by investigative reporter Diana Swain outlining how a nurse from Ontario, Rose Mckenzie, while working in California, was grossly negligent in her care of Spencer Sullivan, who had undergone a routine surgery for neck pain. As a result of McKenzie's negligence, Sullivan was left a quadriplegic with brain damage.
The most disturbing part of the report is the fact that although she was stripped of her nursing licence in the U.S., she is now working as a nurse in Oakville, the problem being that self-disclosure of any past problems is the only way the Ontario College of Nurses could have become aware of the loss of her licence. Obviously, McKenzie did not self-disclose.
Click here to read the whole report and see the CBC news video.
P.S. Despite the Harper Regime's hatred of the CBC, such reports amply demonstrate its value.
The most disturbing part of the report is the fact that although she was stripped of her nursing licence in the U.S., she is now working as a nurse in Oakville, the problem being that self-disclosure of any past problems is the only way the Ontario College of Nurses could have become aware of the loss of her licence. Obviously, McKenzie did not self-disclose.
Click here to read the whole report and see the CBC news video.
P.S. Despite the Harper Regime's hatred of the CBC, such reports amply demonstrate its value.
George Carlin's Screed
Many thanks to Orwell's Bastard for posting this video in which George Carlin talks about the 'man behind the curtain.' Although directed at an American audience, his acerbic observations about who is really in control seem equally applicable to Canada, especially under the Harper regime.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
A Refresher Course in Harper's Disdain for Democracy
I am currently reading Lawrence Martin's book Harperland, which anecdotally confirms some of our worst fears and suspicions about Stephen Harper and the Harper Government (see, even I've taken to referring to our government that way), and even though I no longer subscribe to The Globe and Mail, I do check it regularly for columns by Martin.
Today's piece, entitled On the road to the Harper government's tipping point, is a reminder of the myriad abuses of democracy that the Prime Minister is responsible for. At a time when many of us despair of the possibility of any change in the next federal election, it is useful to remember that the fate of our democratic traditions and institutions ultimately does reside in our hands, no matter how much the government seeks to undermine those traditions and institutions.
Today's piece, entitled On the road to the Harper government's tipping point, is a reminder of the myriad abuses of democracy that the Prime Minister is responsible for. At a time when many of us despair of the possibility of any change in the next federal election, it is useful to remember that the fate of our democratic traditions and institutions ultimately does reside in our hands, no matter how much the government seeks to undermine those traditions and institutions.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Harper's Orwellian Use of Language
One of the greatest pleasures I derived as a teacher was doing a unit on language as part of the Grade 12 English course that I regularly taught. At the beginning of that unit, we read George Orwell's seminal essay, Politics and the English Language, which offered a trenchant, if at times challenging analysis of how language can be used to curb freedom and undermine free and critical thought. It was a theme that later formed the basis of his most popular novel, 1984.
After further study which included exploring fallacies of logic, I would give students an assignment requiring them to analyze the misuse of language and logic in our society today, which invariably led them to look at the pronouncements our politicians make. I was reminded of those times yesterday morning as I read Heather Mallick's amusing yet perceptive column in The Toronto Star on the Harper Government's manipulation of language. I would encourage everyone to read it.
After further study which included exploring fallacies of logic, I would give students an assignment requiring them to analyze the misuse of language and logic in our society today, which invariably led them to look at the pronouncements our politicians make. I was reminded of those times yesterday morning as I read Heather Mallick's amusing yet perceptive column in The Toronto Star on the Harper Government's manipulation of language. I would encourage everyone to read it.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
G20 Summit - The Issue That Won't Go Away
Responding to a recent editorial in The Star calling for a G20 Summit inquiry, readers' letters amply demonstrate that this is an issue that won't go away. Click here to read them.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Do We Need A New Political Literacy? Part 1
I take much comfort in reading the political views expressed by many members of Progressive Bloggers, giving me as it does a sense of community, shared purpose and the knowledge that passion for politics and love of our country is alive and well.
Nonetheless, I cannot help but be discouraged by poll results showing strong ongoing support for the Harper Conservative Government, despite its regular and unapologetic attacks on what many of us see as the fundamentals of democracy and good governance.
While there is hardly a need to provide a comprehensive list of those attacks, a few of the more recent and egregious examples will serve to illustrate that my antipathy toward this government goes well beyond philosophical disagreements:
- The request by the opposition members for the Afghan detainee documents was met by deep resistance and cries of confidentiality. Even a ruling by the Speaker of the House ordering those documents be made available was met with an unsatisfactory compromise, foolishly accepted by The Liberal Party.
- The unnecessary proguing of Parliament by Stephen Harper to avoid defeat of his Government in the House was a gross misuse of privilege, sadly abetted by former Governor-General Michelle Jean
- The contempt shown to Parliament by speaking lies about the need to reform the Census with the claim that many hundreds had complained about its intrusive nature when, in fact, there might have been no more than a dozen objections.
- The refusal by the Government to permit Ministers' aides to testify before Parliamentary Committees, despite the fact that the latter have the power to compel such testimony.
- The entire tissue of lies surrounding the cessation of funding to KAIROS by Bev Oda.
I have asked myself why, despite these serious offences, they are dismissed so readily by so many. Of course, there are several combinations of possible answers, ranging from people's inertia, indifference to, or alienation from the political process to being too busy working and maintaining a family life to have the time for such concerns. I wonder, though, if there might be an additional factor at work: an ignorance of and therefore an inability to understand the very principles that are the foundations of our government.
We hear many cries coming from government and business that it is time to teach financial literacy at a young age so that people can avoid falling into crippling debt in the future. While I don't disagree with that notion, in my mind of equal if not greater importance is the imparting of a kind of political literacy by our schools that will help to bring about a more knowledgeable and engaged citizenry.
In future posts, I will try to suggest what such a model might look like, and some of the changes that would be necessary to bring this about.
Nonetheless, I cannot help but be discouraged by poll results showing strong ongoing support for the Harper Conservative Government, despite its regular and unapologetic attacks on what many of us see as the fundamentals of democracy and good governance.
While there is hardly a need to provide a comprehensive list of those attacks, a few of the more recent and egregious examples will serve to illustrate that my antipathy toward this government goes well beyond philosophical disagreements:
- The request by the opposition members for the Afghan detainee documents was met by deep resistance and cries of confidentiality. Even a ruling by the Speaker of the House ordering those documents be made available was met with an unsatisfactory compromise, foolishly accepted by The Liberal Party.
- The unnecessary proguing of Parliament by Stephen Harper to avoid defeat of his Government in the House was a gross misuse of privilege, sadly abetted by former Governor-General Michelle Jean
- The contempt shown to Parliament by speaking lies about the need to reform the Census with the claim that many hundreds had complained about its intrusive nature when, in fact, there might have been no more than a dozen objections.
- The refusal by the Government to permit Ministers' aides to testify before Parliamentary Committees, despite the fact that the latter have the power to compel such testimony.
- The entire tissue of lies surrounding the cessation of funding to KAIROS by Bev Oda.
I have asked myself why, despite these serious offences, they are dismissed so readily by so many. Of course, there are several combinations of possible answers, ranging from people's inertia, indifference to, or alienation from the political process to being too busy working and maintaining a family life to have the time for such concerns. I wonder, though, if there might be an additional factor at work: an ignorance of and therefore an inability to understand the very principles that are the foundations of our government.
We hear many cries coming from government and business that it is time to teach financial literacy at a young age so that people can avoid falling into crippling debt in the future. While I don't disagree with that notion, in my mind of equal if not greater importance is the imparting of a kind of political literacy by our schools that will help to bring about a more knowledgeable and engaged citizenry.
In future posts, I will try to suggest what such a model might look like, and some of the changes that would be necessary to bring this about.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
G20 Inquiry Demands on Facebook
For those who might be unaware, late last June a Facebook group was created calling for an inquiry into the G20 abuses. Here is a Toronto Sun article from last July discussing it:
Call for G20 inquiry grows on Facebook
By TOM GODFREY, TORONTO SUN
Last Updated: July 9, 2010 4:45pm
Email StoryPrintSize A A AReport Typo Share:
+
Almost 60,000 people have taken to Facebook to demand a full public inquiry into Toronto police action at the G20 Summit last month.
A group called Canadians Demanding a Public Inquiry into Toronto G20 created the Facebook page June 27, on the last day of the Summit.
The group also created an online petition calling for Chief Bill Blair to “be removed from his post.”
Blair this week said he won’t be stepping down and ordered a review of his officers’ involvement in the G20. The review upset some people who wanted public input.
A police spokesman said Friday the service has no comment.
Creators of the page are hoping an inquiry will answer questions from the public.
“It’s time for the healing process to start,” said a page organizer. “Which is why we’re asking for an inquiry to provide complete transparency. Why did things unravel like they did.”
Facebook users were told an inquiry should be supported by Ottawa and establish the “facts and causes of an event or issue, and then to make recommendations to the government.”
One Facebook user, named “Green,” said he has been in fear of cops since the G20.
“I now live in fear that I am on some type of watch list,” Green wrote. “ I am scared that my house will be raided or that charges will still be laid, even though all I did was exercise my rights.”
He said his “view of Canada as a free state have been completely smashed. “
Facebook user Jeremy called for all cameras and phones taken from protestors by police be returned to their owners without film evidence being destroyed.
“The police can destroy any footage they like,” Jeremy said. “No matter how incriminating, so that if ever a public inquiry is made, there will be no hard evidence.”
Another user said he supports Toronto cops who do their jobs.
“I support the police force that acts in a true and just way,” the man said. “I do not support those who were in Toronto during the G8/G20 Summits.”
Claudia Calabro, of the Toronto Community Mobilization Network, said her group is pushing for a full and open inquiry.
“There has to be an independent inquiry to be funded by the government,” Calabro said. “It has to be ordered at the federal level.”
Call for G20 inquiry grows on Facebook
By TOM GODFREY, TORONTO SUN
Last Updated: July 9, 2010 4:45pm
Email StoryPrintSize A A AReport Typo Share:
+
Almost 60,000 people have taken to Facebook to demand a full public inquiry into Toronto police action at the G20 Summit last month.
A group called Canadians Demanding a Public Inquiry into Toronto G20 created the Facebook page June 27, on the last day of the Summit.
The group also created an online petition calling for Chief Bill Blair to “be removed from his post.”
Blair this week said he won’t be stepping down and ordered a review of his officers’ involvement in the G20. The review upset some people who wanted public input.
A police spokesman said Friday the service has no comment.
Creators of the page are hoping an inquiry will answer questions from the public.
“It’s time for the healing process to start,” said a page organizer. “Which is why we’re asking for an inquiry to provide complete transparency. Why did things unravel like they did.”
Facebook users were told an inquiry should be supported by Ottawa and establish the “facts and causes of an event or issue, and then to make recommendations to the government.”
One Facebook user, named “Green,” said he has been in fear of cops since the G20.
“I now live in fear that I am on some type of watch list,” Green wrote. “ I am scared that my house will be raided or that charges will still be laid, even though all I did was exercise my rights.”
He said his “view of Canada as a free state have been completely smashed. “
Facebook user Jeremy called for all cameras and phones taken from protestors by police be returned to their owners without film evidence being destroyed.
“The police can destroy any footage they like,” Jeremy said. “No matter how incriminating, so that if ever a public inquiry is made, there will be no hard evidence.”
Another user said he supports Toronto cops who do their jobs.
“I support the police force that acts in a true and just way,” the man said. “I do not support those who were in Toronto during the G8/G20 Summits.”
Claudia Calabro, of the Toronto Community Mobilization Network, said her group is pushing for a full and open inquiry.
“There has to be an independent inquiry to be funded by the government,” Calabro said. “It has to be ordered at the federal level.”
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Tim Hudak's Silence on the G20 Abuses
It is hardly surprising that Tim Hudak, leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, is keeping silent even when conservative elements of Canadian society are demanding that Dalton McGuinty call a full and independent inquiry into the G20 abuses of peaceful protesters. The usually voluble youngster who was mentored by Mike Harris knows better than to risk offending his core supporters who, of course, include the majority of police associations.
Nonetheless, it is perhaps worthwhile remembering where the sympathies of this self-proclaimed defender of 'Ontario's families and seniors' (have you ever heard him give a speech where he doesn't mention at least one of those two groups?) lie. As a guest columnist for the Toronto Sun on July 5, 2010, this would-be premier wrote the following. (I have put in bold some of the key parts.) Not once does he express anything but unwavering support for the police. Not once does he express the least bit of concern over the egregious violations of Charter Rights committed by the police. Apparently Mr. Hudak's sympathies for Ontario families and seniors have some very real limits:
The downtown core of Toronto was turned into a conflict zone by a group of lawless hooligans a little more than a week ago.
These reckless thugs were not in Toronto to protest a legitimate political cause. Instead they are part of a circuit of criminals who travel to international summits with one goal in mind — to destroy property, incite mayhem and terrorize law-abiding citizens.
Sadly, in the wake of the violence, a number of usual-suspect special interest groups are attempting to pin blame, not on the hooligans, but instead on our police services or the federal government.
But it wasn’t frontline police officers who spent a weekend smashing in storefront windows, and it wasn’t federal government officials who torched police cars.
Instead these were the acts of violent anarchists, with a long history of using “peaceful” protest marches at international summits as cover for reckless acts of extreme violence.
That is why I oppose the orchestrated attempt by these activists to demonize our police services in the wake of the G20 violence. I proudly stand behind the men and women of our police services that were faced with a daunting and difficult task of protecting the public against these professional vandals and hooligans.
After a week of silence on the G20, I hope Dalton McGuinty will join me in clearly supporting our men and women in uniform.
McGuinty should also have the courage to finally explain why his government passed a secret law to expand police powers during the G20 summit. I believe the public would have understood the necessity of these new powers to contain the violent thugs, but that does not mean McGuinty had the right to hide these new powers from the public.
We all know Ontario’s police officers have two fundamental responsibilities:
First, they are expected to preserve order and protect law-abiding families and businesses from criminal activity.
Second, they are expected to bring those responsible for criminal acts to justice.
It is on this second responsibility that we should now focus our attention.
We must make sure the thugs and hooligans who trashed downtown Toronto are held accountable for their crimes. The right to speak must never be confused with the right to vandalize property that tarnishes the reputation of our city and province.
The McGuinty government must do everything in its power to ensure the criminals behind this violence are caught, tried to the fullest extent of the law and held personally financially responsible for the cost of the damage they have caused.
In addition, the authorities should co-operate with any resident or business that wishes to pursue a civil action against the individuals and groups responsible for this violence.
In the meantime, the senior levels of government should establish a fund to compensate small business owners for property damages and the interruption of business caused by repairing the damages.
The hooligans behind the G20 violence gave our city a black eye on the world stage. We must not let special interest sideshows distract our attention from holding these criminals accountable for the harm they caused.
Now is the time for us to reclaim the reputation of our city and make it clear to the world that in Toronto, law-abiding citizens get protected, criminals get punished, and justice always gets done.
It is hoped that the perceptive reader will see the irony of some of Hudak's comments, especially those talking about criminals getting punished and justice getting done.
Nonetheless, it is perhaps worthwhile remembering where the sympathies of this self-proclaimed defender of 'Ontario's families and seniors' (have you ever heard him give a speech where he doesn't mention at least one of those two groups?) lie. As a guest columnist for the Toronto Sun on July 5, 2010, this would-be premier wrote the following. (I have put in bold some of the key parts.) Not once does he express anything but unwavering support for the police. Not once does he express the least bit of concern over the egregious violations of Charter Rights committed by the police. Apparently Mr. Hudak's sympathies for Ontario families and seniors have some very real limits:
The downtown core of Toronto was turned into a conflict zone by a group of lawless hooligans a little more than a week ago.
These reckless thugs were not in Toronto to protest a legitimate political cause. Instead they are part of a circuit of criminals who travel to international summits with one goal in mind — to destroy property, incite mayhem and terrorize law-abiding citizens.
Sadly, in the wake of the violence, a number of usual-suspect special interest groups are attempting to pin blame, not on the hooligans, but instead on our police services or the federal government.
But it wasn’t frontline police officers who spent a weekend smashing in storefront windows, and it wasn’t federal government officials who torched police cars.
Instead these were the acts of violent anarchists, with a long history of using “peaceful” protest marches at international summits as cover for reckless acts of extreme violence.
That is why I oppose the orchestrated attempt by these activists to demonize our police services in the wake of the G20 violence. I proudly stand behind the men and women of our police services that were faced with a daunting and difficult task of protecting the public against these professional vandals and hooligans.
After a week of silence on the G20, I hope Dalton McGuinty will join me in clearly supporting our men and women in uniform.
McGuinty should also have the courage to finally explain why his government passed a secret law to expand police powers during the G20 summit. I believe the public would have understood the necessity of these new powers to contain the violent thugs, but that does not mean McGuinty had the right to hide these new powers from the public.
We all know Ontario’s police officers have two fundamental responsibilities:
First, they are expected to preserve order and protect law-abiding families and businesses from criminal activity.
Second, they are expected to bring those responsible for criminal acts to justice.
It is on this second responsibility that we should now focus our attention.
We must make sure the thugs and hooligans who trashed downtown Toronto are held accountable for their crimes. The right to speak must never be confused with the right to vandalize property that tarnishes the reputation of our city and province.
The McGuinty government must do everything in its power to ensure the criminals behind this violence are caught, tried to the fullest extent of the law and held personally financially responsible for the cost of the damage they have caused.
In addition, the authorities should co-operate with any resident or business that wishes to pursue a civil action against the individuals and groups responsible for this violence.
In the meantime, the senior levels of government should establish a fund to compensate small business owners for property damages and the interruption of business caused by repairing the damages.
The hooligans behind the G20 violence gave our city a black eye on the world stage. We must not let special interest sideshows distract our attention from holding these criminals accountable for the harm they caused.
Now is the time for us to reclaim the reputation of our city and make it clear to the world that in Toronto, law-abiding citizens get protected, criminals get punished, and justice always gets done.
It is hoped that the perceptive reader will see the irony of some of Hudak's comments, especially those talking about criminals getting punished and justice getting done.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Message to Premiers and Prime Ministers: Even the Right is Demanding a G20 Inquiry
Politicians should know they are in trouble when even the more conservative elements of society, traditionally unquestioning supporters of the police and their tactics, begin to demand a full public inquiry into the massive abuse of people and their Charter Rights that took place during Toronto's G20 Summit. For example, The National Post has published an editorial calling for an inquiry. The Toronto Sun's Joe Warmington writes very critically about the police misbehaviour. The Globe and Mail has solid coverage of the report by the Canadian Civil Liberties Union demanding an inquiry. A more politically balanced paper, The Ottawa Citizen, baldly states that McGuinty is wrong to oppose an inquiry, as does The Toronto Star.
Despite the facile denials by both Premier McGuinty and Federal Public Safety Minister Vic Toews of the need for such an inquiry, a consensus seems to be emerging that it is the only way to clear the miasma of suspicion and cynicism that has engulfed Canadians over what transpired last June. The graphic video footage seen by so many clearly reveals that our complacent assumptions about Canadian rights and freedoms are little more than quaint notions, easily suspended at the whim of our political leaders and their underlings.
Only a full inquiry can begin the healing process.
Despite the facile denials by both Premier McGuinty and Federal Public Safety Minister Vic Toews of the need for such an inquiry, a consensus seems to be emerging that it is the only way to clear the miasma of suspicion and cynicism that has engulfed Canadians over what transpired last June. The graphic video footage seen by so many clearly reveals that our complacent assumptions about Canadian rights and freedoms are little more than quaint notions, easily suspended at the whim of our political leaders and their underlings.
Only a full inquiry can begin the healing process.
Monday, February 28, 2011
A New and Damning G20 Report
As reported in The Toronto Star, a 59-page report by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and National Union of Public and General Employees, set to be released today, calls for a full-scale enquiry into the abuse perpetrated by the authorities during last summer's G20 Summit in Toronto.
During three days of hearings last November which the police refused to take part in (no surprise there), a strong picture emerged from the testimony of dozens of witnesses who were physically abused and/or had their Charter rights taken away from them (a Kafkaesque and oxymoronic situation if there ever was one in Canada) of large-scale malfeasance on the part of the police, aided, abetted, and emboldened by both the McGuinty and Harper Governments.
Despite the damning nature of this report, despite the compelling video evidence to be found on YouTube and last Friday's fifth estate, and despite the fact that Ontario Ombudsman has said that “the most massive compromise of civil liberties in Canadian history” had occurred during the G20 weekend,
my dark suspicion is that governments will continue to deny responsibility for what they wrought, police chiefs will continue to mouth platitudes about prosecuting where evidence warrants, officers will continue to go unpunished, and the scars of that weekend will continue to haunt the Canadian psyche for a long time to come.
During three days of hearings last November which the police refused to take part in (no surprise there), a strong picture emerged from the testimony of dozens of witnesses who were physically abused and/or had their Charter rights taken away from them (a Kafkaesque and oxymoronic situation if there ever was one in Canada) of large-scale malfeasance on the part of the police, aided, abetted, and emboldened by both the McGuinty and Harper Governments.
Despite the damning nature of this report, despite the compelling video evidence to be found on YouTube and last Friday's fifth estate, and despite the fact that Ontario Ombudsman has said that “the most massive compromise of civil liberties in Canadian history” had occurred during the G20 weekend,
my dark suspicion is that governments will continue to deny responsibility for what they wrought, police chiefs will continue to mouth platitudes about prosecuting where evidence warrants, officers will continue to go unpunished, and the scars of that weekend will continue to haunt the Canadian psyche for a long time to come.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
The Fifth Estate and the Shame of the G20
While I have believed in the power of the written word my entire life, sometimes images are a more potent way to convey the outrages that frequently occur in the world. Probably the best examples of this power have been in the images we have been inundated with since the upheavals in the Middle East began.
Another example is surely to be found in last night's fifth estate program, broadcast on C.B.C., showing the horrific results of having a police force, apparently unfettered by the normal rules and expectations of behaviour in a democratic society, routinely abusing people, with absolutely no regard for their Charter Rights.
Now available on the C.B.C. website, I defy even the most inveterate supporter of the police to watch the program and tell me that the police (aided and abetted by both the McGuinty and Harper Governments) did nothing wrong.
Another example is surely to be found in last night's fifth estate program, broadcast on C.B.C., showing the horrific results of having a police force, apparently unfettered by the normal rules and expectations of behaviour in a democratic society, routinely abusing people, with absolutely no regard for their Charter Rights.
Now available on the C.B.C. website, I defy even the most inveterate supporter of the police to watch the program and tell me that the police (aided and abetted by both the McGuinty and Harper Governments) did nothing wrong.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Watch This Video To See What's Wrong With Canada's Foreign Investment Review Policy
This video, from Michael Moore's website, shows the social and economic devastation that will result from the decision by Brazilian-owned Vale to close its nickel and smelter refinery in Thompson Manitoba in 2015.
After receiving approval to buy Inco, the mine's previous owner, in 2006, and after receiving a $1 billion loan from the Harper Government last fall with the promise of increasing jobs, Vale has shown what kind of corporate citizen it is upon announcing this closure, which will result in upwards of 500 job losses.
This is the most recent in a series of disastrous decisions made by Investment Canada and Industry Minister Tony Clement, and mirrors the action taken by U.S. Steel in closing its Hamilton operations shortly after being given the green light to take over the former Steel Company of Canada.
Isn't it strange that it takes a foreign national, Michael Moore, to publicize what we Canadians should all be outraged about?
After receiving approval to buy Inco, the mine's previous owner, in 2006, and after receiving a $1 billion loan from the Harper Government last fall with the promise of increasing jobs, Vale has shown what kind of corporate citizen it is upon announcing this closure, which will result in upwards of 500 job losses.
This is the most recent in a series of disastrous decisions made by Investment Canada and Industry Minister Tony Clement, and mirrors the action taken by U.S. Steel in closing its Hamilton operations shortly after being given the green light to take over the former Steel Company of Canada.
Isn't it strange that it takes a foreign national, Michael Moore, to publicize what we Canadians should all be outraged about?
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Police Response to Criticism? The Best Defence is an Offence (to all of us)
Yesterday I wrote an entry detailing the frustrations of Ian Scott, head of the Ontario's Special Investigations Unit, over his inability to get the cooperation of the majority of police forces when investigating allegations of police misconduct. Today, The Star reports on the strategy these forces use to combat such criticism.
Here is an excerpt from that story:
The association representing 33,000 front-line police officers in Ontario has accused the head of the province’s police watchdog of “destroying public confidence in the criminal justice system” with a “bias against police officers.”
In a letter of complaint to the body that regulates lawyers, the Police Association of Ontario says that Special Investigations Unit boss Ian Scott, a lawyer, committed professional misconduct by telling the Star in an interview that officers being investigated for alleged crimes “get all kinds of breaks in the (criminal justice) system.”
The Law Society quickly dismissed the December 2010 complaint without an investigation, telling the Police Association there is “insufficient evidence” of misconduct to warrant even a request for a probe.
The most ironic part of the complaint made by the police against the SIU head is found in the first paragraph, accusing Scott of destroying public confidence in the criminal justice system by his assertion that police officers are not held to the same high standard when being investigated for alleged crimes.
I agree that public confidence is being undermined, but not by the SIU. It is the refusal of the police themselves to cooperate with investigations, their refusal to bring wrongdoing of fellow officers to light (e.g., exactly how many have been charged in the G20 fiasco?), and the refusal of the police chiefs in charge of them to do anything to try to alter the 'brotherhood of the badge' mentality that appears to allow corruption and abuse of authority to exist and spread.
But then again, I'm sure, in their complaint to the Law Society of Upper Canada, that they were aware of how effective 'shooting the messenger' can be.
Here is an excerpt from that story:
The association representing 33,000 front-line police officers in Ontario has accused the head of the province’s police watchdog of “destroying public confidence in the criminal justice system” with a “bias against police officers.”
In a letter of complaint to the body that regulates lawyers, the Police Association of Ontario says that Special Investigations Unit boss Ian Scott, a lawyer, committed professional misconduct by telling the Star in an interview that officers being investigated for alleged crimes “get all kinds of breaks in the (criminal justice) system.”
The Law Society quickly dismissed the December 2010 complaint without an investigation, telling the Police Association there is “insufficient evidence” of misconduct to warrant even a request for a probe.
The most ironic part of the complaint made by the police against the SIU head is found in the first paragraph, accusing Scott of destroying public confidence in the criminal justice system by his assertion that police officers are not held to the same high standard when being investigated for alleged crimes.
I agree that public confidence is being undermined, but not by the SIU. It is the refusal of the police themselves to cooperate with investigations, their refusal to bring wrongdoing of fellow officers to light (e.g., exactly how many have been charged in the G20 fiasco?), and the refusal of the police chiefs in charge of them to do anything to try to alter the 'brotherhood of the badge' mentality that appears to allow corruption and abuse of authority to exist and spread.
But then again, I'm sure, in their complaint to the Law Society of Upper Canada, that they were aware of how effective 'shooting the messenger' can be.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
And The Beat(ing) Goes On
I couldn't help but think of that old Sonny and Cher song this morning as I read in The Star about the inability of the SIU to do its job thanks to the refusal of the majority of Ontario police forces to co-operate with its investigations. At a time when citizen cynicism about the police is pervasive, a cynicism exacerbated by the many videos depicting police brutality and violation of Charter Rights during last summer's G20 Summit in Toronto, one could be forgiven for thinking that our security forces would be eager to rehabilitate their image, but such is not the case.
In the article, SIU head Ian Scott says that with the exception of the Hamilton and York forces and smaller services like South Simcoe, it is routine for police to refuse to co-operate with the SIU, even in the most serious of cases. Consider the following:
In a letter dated May 5, 2010, Scott questions why a police force waited to notify the SIU until an official medical report confirmed the severity of the injury to a civilian's head. The SIU director suggests to the police chief that it should have been immediately obvious, because “when the paramedics arrived, (the man)'s head was sitting in a pool of blood and (he) initially appeared unconscious. He was placed on a spine board and transported from the scene to the local hospital.”
In one case, an officer not responding to a call and with no emergency lights on was driving 74 km/h in a 50-km/h zone and struck a cyclist that ran a stop sign.
The civilian was propelled into the air, and the impact broke his skull and bones in his back, chest and neck. The cyclist was also scalped. Scott wrote that while the officer's speed did not justify a dangerous driving criminal charge, “the subject officer was exceeding the speed limit at the point of impact by 24 km/h and according to the accident reconstructionist could have avoided the accident but for his rate of speed ... I leave issues of charges under the Highway Traffic Act to your police service.”
In several other cases, Scott told the police force that witness officers, who are required to talk to the SIU, refused to answer questions; in a few cases, Scott said he would be “happy” to supply police with tape-recorded evidence of the refusals, and in one case he bluntly asked a force to charge two officers with neglect of duty. In another, involving the broken jaw of a civilian, the dispirited director said that he had already tried to address the issue with the police force but never got a reply.
Until the police drop this 'brotherhood of the badge' mentality, they can expect to continue to be looked upon with quite justifiable suspicion and distrust.
In the article, SIU head Ian Scott says that with the exception of the Hamilton and York forces and smaller services like South Simcoe, it is routine for police to refuse to co-operate with the SIU, even in the most serious of cases. Consider the following:
In a letter dated May 5, 2010, Scott questions why a police force waited to notify the SIU until an official medical report confirmed the severity of the injury to a civilian's head. The SIU director suggests to the police chief that it should have been immediately obvious, because “when the paramedics arrived, (the man)'s head was sitting in a pool of blood and (he) initially appeared unconscious. He was placed on a spine board and transported from the scene to the local hospital.”
In one case, an officer not responding to a call and with no emergency lights on was driving 74 km/h in a 50-km/h zone and struck a cyclist that ran a stop sign.
The civilian was propelled into the air, and the impact broke his skull and bones in his back, chest and neck. The cyclist was also scalped. Scott wrote that while the officer's speed did not justify a dangerous driving criminal charge, “the subject officer was exceeding the speed limit at the point of impact by 24 km/h and according to the accident reconstructionist could have avoided the accident but for his rate of speed ... I leave issues of charges under the Highway Traffic Act to your police service.”
In several other cases, Scott told the police force that witness officers, who are required to talk to the SIU, refused to answer questions; in a few cases, Scott said he would be “happy” to supply police with tape-recorded evidence of the refusals, and in one case he bluntly asked a force to charge two officers with neglect of duty. In another, involving the broken jaw of a civilian, the dispirited director said that he had already tried to address the issue with the police force but never got a reply.
Until the police drop this 'brotherhood of the badge' mentality, they can expect to continue to be looked upon with quite justifiable suspicion and distrust.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
G20 Special on The Fifth Estate
Just a brief post to provide a link to the preview of a Fifth Estate program this Friday (February 25th) showing people's eyewitness videos of police violence during the summit.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Paul Krugman and the Wisconsin Attack on Unions
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has some interesting insights on Wisconsin's attempts to strip the collective bargaining rights of public service unions. He sees it as an effort by the American oligarchs to destroy what little opposition is left to their assuming complete control, not only of the economy through tax policies that favour the rich, but also of the entire political agenda. Much of what Krugman says, I believe, has direct application to the Canadian scene now under the control and sway of a right-wing administration that has shown little respect for opposing views during its five years in power.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Something New from Michael Moore - A High School Newspaper
I recently received an email from Michael Moore's website describing a very interesting and timely addition: a high school newspaper, edited by Moore's 17-year-old niece, soliciting the input of young people on a wealth of issues. While the stereotype of teenagers suggests that they are simply shallow and self-absorbed, I suspect the content in this paper will demonstrate otherwise.
Access to Information and the Health of Democracies
In getting caught up on my reading of the Saturday Star this morning, I came across a column by Katy English entitled, English: Words can change the world. Referring to the recent upheavals in the Middle East, she reflects upon the vial role that access to information plays in a healthy and democratic society. While she shows restraint in making comparisons with Canada, I couldn't help but juxtapose the Middle East restrictions on information she discusses with our own limited access to information that has become something of a fetish for the Harper Government.
Whether we are talking about Afghan detainee documents, spending estimates for government bills, political ads that seek to inspire fear and loathing of 'the other,' or answers to questions about CIDA funding, we, and the people we elect to represent in Parliament, are being treated with the same contempt shown by Middle East despots who have been doing everything in their power to keep the people under their oppressive dictates.
Whether we are talking about Afghan detainee documents, spending estimates for government bills, political ads that seek to inspire fear and loathing of 'the other,' or answers to questions about CIDA funding, we, and the people we elect to represent in Parliament, are being treated with the same contempt shown by Middle East despots who have been doing everything in their power to keep the people under their oppressive dictates.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Catherine Porter on KAIROS
In today's Star, Catherine Porter has an interesting column that helps us to understand the Harper Government's antipathy toward KAIROS. Amongst its 'sins' are its opposition to the Alberta tar sands and its concerns over the free trade agreement with Columbia due to the latter's poor human rights' record. Very insightfully, Porter also explores similarities in the Harper Government's underhanded tactics, (lying, forging and altering documents, going after perceived enemies) and those of the repressive regimes that KAIROS has traditionally fought against.
Friday, February 18, 2011
The Value of the Blogosphere
For me, the greatest value of the blogosphere is the exposure it offers to stories and ideas that would otherwise often escape my attention. In writing my own blog, I am under no illusion that I am going to change society or people's thinking with whatever opinions I may have, but I do like, as so many others do, to provide links to published pieces that provoke thought and discussion.
Having just read a piece on punditman's blog, I was taken to another site called alternet.org, where I came across the following video depicting yet another instance of police brutality, this time in Houston Texas. One can only hope that with the wide access to information provided by the Internet and social media, real change, as is occurring in the Middle East, is in the offing for the West as citizens, inspired by both knowledge and sterling examples, realize their collective power.
Having just read a piece on punditman's blog, I was taken to another site called alternet.org, where I came across the following video depicting yet another instance of police brutality, this time in Houston Texas. One can only hope that with the wide access to information provided by the Internet and social media, real change, as is occurring in the Middle East, is in the offing for the West as citizens, inspired by both knowledge and sterling examples, realize their collective power.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Anti-Unionism in Wisconsin
Long a favorite target of the right-wing and the envious, unions and collective bargaining are under fresh assault in the state of Wisconsin. As reported at Salon.com, a bill introduced by its Republican Governor, Scott Walker, and speeding through the legislature would essentially strip public sector unions (those representing teachers, prison workers, etc.)of their collective bargaining rights, increase what they have to contribute to their pensions, and essentially make union membership optional; it would also require surviving unions to hold annual votes in order to stay organized.
It has become increasingly popular over the last few years to denigrate the notion of unions, with many of the uninformed claiming that they might have served a purpose at one time but are really unnecessary, indeed obsolete now. My answer to that has been to look at what happens in non-unionized environments, where there is no real protection against unjust dismissal, bad working conditions, or unsafe working conditions.
In additional to the ideology that drives much opposition to unions, there is the sheer envy that non-unionized workers feel. We frequently hear of the benefits enjoyed by union members that provoke howls of outrage from the non-unionized. My answer to that is, even though it can be a difficult process, these people should start a drive amongst themselves to unionize.
It has become increasingly popular over the last few years to denigrate the notion of unions, with many of the uninformed claiming that they might have served a purpose at one time but are really unnecessary, indeed obsolete now. My answer to that has been to look at what happens in non-unionized environments, where there is no real protection against unjust dismissal, bad working conditions, or unsafe working conditions.
In additional to the ideology that drives much opposition to unions, there is the sheer envy that non-unionized workers feel. We frequently hear of the benefits enjoyed by union members that provoke howls of outrage from the non-unionized. My answer to that is, even though it can be a difficult process, these people should start a drive amongst themselves to unionize.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
The Bizzaro World of Stephen Harper
When I was a child, I was an avid reader of Superman comics, fascinating to me since that universe contained such an amazing array of heroes and villains. One of my favorite parts of that universe was the Bizzaro world, a planet peopled by beings whose actions and values were the complete opposite of their earthly counterparts. For example, the slowest participant was the winner of the race, clocks moved backwards, beauty was considered ugly, and the highest virtue was not truth, but lies.
Reading Thomas Walkom's column in today's Star entitled, Oda's attempt to mislead is part of Tory strategy, reminded me of that world, discussing, as it does, the Harperite propensity for making up things, i.e. lying, when the truth becomes inconvenient or gets in the way of their ideology. As Mr Walkom reports, the recent disgraceful behaviour of International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda is just one small aspect of a pattern long ago established by the secretive, paranoid, anti-democratic and ideologically-driven Conservative Party of Canada.
Reading Thomas Walkom's column in today's Star entitled, Oda's attempt to mislead is part of Tory strategy, reminded me of that world, discussing, as it does, the Harperite propensity for making up things, i.e. lying, when the truth becomes inconvenient or gets in the way of their ideology. As Mr Walkom reports, the recent disgraceful behaviour of International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda is just one small aspect of a pattern long ago established by the secretive, paranoid, anti-democratic and ideologically-driven Conservative Party of Canada.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
An Insightful Comparison Between Egyptian Forces and G20 Security
Now that we are subscribing to the Toronto Star, I have the luxury of lingering over the paper as I finish my morning coffee. Given the many posts I have written over the months about the abuses of our Charter Rights by both the McGuinty Government and the security forces given the task of protecting the G20 politicians and dignitaries, I always keep an especially watchful eye out for stories pertaining to those abuses.
In today's edition, the Star's lead letter, written by Richard Taylor of Toronto, draws a sharp contrast between the way Egypt dealt with its protesters during the recent uprising and how our police dealt with peaceful protest last summer in Toronto. I highly recommend the letter, effectively reminding us as it does of how serious was the abuse of Canadian citizens exercising their democratic rights. As I have written before, it is one of the main reasons, given its collusion with the security forces, that I cannot support the provincial Liberals in the next election.
In today's edition, the Star's lead letter, written by Richard Taylor of Toronto, draws a sharp contrast between the way Egypt dealt with its protesters during the recent uprising and how our police dealt with peaceful protest last summer in Toronto. I highly recommend the letter, effectively reminding us as it does of how serious was the abuse of Canadian citizens exercising their democratic rights. As I have written before, it is one of the main reasons, given its collusion with the security forces, that I cannot support the provincial Liberals in the next election.
Monday, February 14, 2011
The Tory Propensity for Secrecy
John ibbitson has a thought-provoking column in today's on-line Globe entitled, Harper keeps Canada in dark at own peril.
In it, he discusses how Scott Brison asked House Speaker Peter Miliken on Friday to rule the Haper Government in contempt of Parliament for its refusal to turn over estimates regarding projected corporate income from 2010 to 2015, and the costs of building those new prisons that will house such dangerous offenders as those who grow as few as six marijuana plants.
While it is probably understandable as to why the chronically spiritually-constipated Conservatives would fear an outbreak of mellowness across the country, what isn't understandable by either parliamentary history and custom or basic democracy is how they can withhold from us and our elected representatives the costs involved in their paranoid follies.
I eagerly await the next development in this unfolding saga of repression and suppression.
In it, he discusses how Scott Brison asked House Speaker Peter Miliken on Friday to rule the Haper Government in contempt of Parliament for its refusal to turn over estimates regarding projected corporate income from 2010 to 2015, and the costs of building those new prisons that will house such dangerous offenders as those who grow as few as six marijuana plants.
While it is probably understandable as to why the chronically spiritually-constipated Conservatives would fear an outbreak of mellowness across the country, what isn't understandable by either parliamentary history and custom or basic democracy is how they can withhold from us and our elected representatives the costs involved in their paranoid follies.
I eagerly await the next development in this unfolding saga of repression and suppression.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
More Brutality from the Ottawa Police
Many thanks to the blog Let Freedom Rain for providing this link to The Ottawa Citizen to yet another disturbing story involving brutality on the part of the Ottawa Police force.
Given the pattern of police abuse of our Charter Rights this past summer during the G20, it is becoming increasing evident that much stronger oversight than that provided by the SIU is needed in this country, and no longer can these incidents be dismissed as aberrations by a few 'rogue' cops.
Given the pattern of police abuse of our Charter Rights this past summer during the G20, it is becoming increasing evident that much stronger oversight than that provided by the SIU is needed in this country, and no longer can these incidents be dismissed as aberrations by a few 'rogue' cops.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Conservative Constipation
While most of the world celebrated the triumph of freedom over tyranny, of the will of the people over the despot in Egypt, one part of the political spectrum, at least in Canada, seemed decidedly uncomfortable.
My local television station had comments from a number of 'experts,' and while there was general satisfaction over the ouster of Mubarak one man, representing a think tank called the MacKenzie Institute, rather peevishly carped that the revolution was going to do nothing to bring down food prices in Egypt, something he seemed to feel was the impetus for what occurred. Typical of the right wing, he was looking at human motivation through the narrow lens of 'homo economicus' (economic man) which sees all human action as being prompted only by self-interest.
Similarly, Stephen Harper, in what can only be described as a bout of verbal constipation, (it seemed very hard indeed for him to get the words out), offered a very grudging and qualified endorsement of the Egyptian liberation, reminding them of the importance of adhering to their peace treaties. This, of course, was his way of reminding everyone of his unqualified, unwavering and completely uncritical support of Israel.
It has long been obvious to me that while the right wing likes to talk about the importance of human rights and democracy for the world, its support tends to be confined only to those people who make the correct choices at election time, the right choice being, of course, voting for those candidates who may not necessarily be best for the people, but rather friendly and deferential to first-world democratic interests, which are all too often synonymous with the goals of the corporate world.
My local television station had comments from a number of 'experts,' and while there was general satisfaction over the ouster of Mubarak one man, representing a think tank called the MacKenzie Institute, rather peevishly carped that the revolution was going to do nothing to bring down food prices in Egypt, something he seemed to feel was the impetus for what occurred. Typical of the right wing, he was looking at human motivation through the narrow lens of 'homo economicus' (economic man) which sees all human action as being prompted only by self-interest.
Similarly, Stephen Harper, in what can only be described as a bout of verbal constipation, (it seemed very hard indeed for him to get the words out), offered a very grudging and qualified endorsement of the Egyptian liberation, reminding them of the importance of adhering to their peace treaties. This, of course, was his way of reminding everyone of his unqualified, unwavering and completely uncritical support of Israel.
It has long been obvious to me that while the right wing likes to talk about the importance of human rights and democracy for the world, its support tends to be confined only to those people who make the correct choices at election time, the right choice being, of course, voting for those candidates who may not necessarily be best for the people, but rather friendly and deferential to first-world democratic interests, which are all too often synonymous with the goals of the corporate world.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Rick Salutin is Back!
One of the reasons I cancelled my over two-decade subscription to The Globe and Mail was the decision it made to drop columnist Rick Salutin, a man who always seems to have an unusual view of events and people, no doubt attributable to his formidable intellect. I'm happy to report that today marks the beginning of his weekly column in the Toronto Star. Guess we'll have to start subscribing.
The Conservatives Strike Again
A disturbing but not really surprising story appears in today's Star detailing how two well-known academic critics of the Conservative Party of Canada are being targeted, apparently for their outspokenness.
The two University of Ottawa professors, "Errol Mendes and Amir Attaran, frequently castigated as Liberal sympathizers by the Conservatives, were notified in recent weeks of two unusually massive freedom-of-information requests at the University of Ottawa, demanding details of the professors’ employment, expenses and teaching records."
While the names of requesters under Freedom of Information rules are kept anonymous, a logical inference is that it is Conservative operatives who are behind the request, given their leader's well-known propensity for targeting those who have the temerity to disagree with his stances and edicts. Even in the highly unlikely event that the Harperites have nothing to do with this intimidation tactic, Harper and his crew have only themselves to blame for being the prime suspects, having so poisoned the political landscape by their divisive and obnoxious rhetoric that rational and reasoned dialogue has become almost impossible in Canada.
I can only hope that the University of Ottawa delays the release of the information requested for as long as the Harper Government has been known to, which in many cases has been several years.
The two University of Ottawa professors, "Errol Mendes and Amir Attaran, frequently castigated as Liberal sympathizers by the Conservatives, were notified in recent weeks of two unusually massive freedom-of-information requests at the University of Ottawa, demanding details of the professors’ employment, expenses and teaching records."
While the names of requesters under Freedom of Information rules are kept anonymous, a logical inference is that it is Conservative operatives who are behind the request, given their leader's well-known propensity for targeting those who have the temerity to disagree with his stances and edicts. Even in the highly unlikely event that the Harperites have nothing to do with this intimidation tactic, Harper and his crew have only themselves to blame for being the prime suspects, having so poisoned the political landscape by their divisive and obnoxious rhetoric that rational and reasoned dialogue has become almost impossible in Canada.
I can only hope that the University of Ottawa delays the release of the information requested for as long as the Harper Government has been known to, which in many cases has been several years.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
The Sky is Falling (according to the Macdonald-Laurier Institute)
Described by John Ibbitson as an Ottawa-based think tank, The MacDonald-Laurier Institute insists that serious crime is on the rise, notwithstanding the fact that Statistics Canada's data show the opposite.
Claiming some sort of statistical legerdemain on the part of a venerable organization that has, at least until the abolition of the long form census, commanded world-wide respect for the integrity of its work, the Institute assures us, amongst other things, that there is widespread underreporting of crime. (Hmm, would this be similar to Donald Rumsfeld's 'known unknowns'?)
This, the latest in a series of assaults on data and logic, no doubt engineered to help the Harper Government in its wasteful expenditures of prison expansions, is once more a reminder of the danger that would accrue to our country should the electorate ever hand a majority government to the Harper buffoons.
Claiming some sort of statistical legerdemain on the part of a venerable organization that has, at least until the abolition of the long form census, commanded world-wide respect for the integrity of its work, the Institute assures us, amongst other things, that there is widespread underreporting of crime. (Hmm, would this be similar to Donald Rumsfeld's 'known unknowns'?)
This, the latest in a series of assaults on data and logic, no doubt engineered to help the Harper Government in its wasteful expenditures of prison expansions, is once more a reminder of the danger that would accrue to our country should the electorate ever hand a majority government to the Harper buffoons.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
The Smart Saver Program
While I no longer subscribe to the Globe, I periodically check its online content, and this morning I read about a program intended to help poor families with the costs of post-secondary education. As described in Margaret Wente's column, the "federal government will contribute $500 for a Canada Learning Bond for any child born since Jan. 1, 2004, who lives in a low-income family. It adds another $100 every year, to a maximum of $2,000, and matches any extra family contributions by as much as 40 per cent.
Despite my antipathy toward the Harper Government, I have to give them credit for thus far not eliminating this anti-poverty measure in the name of fiscal restraint.
Despite my antipathy toward the Harper Government, I have to give them credit for thus far not eliminating this anti-poverty measure in the name of fiscal restraint.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Sgt. Ryan Russell's Funeral
I had thought about writing a blog entry on what I perceived to be the excesses surrounding the funeral of Sgt. Ryan Russell, the police officer killed last week in Toronto. I hesitated, however, out of respect for the deceased. While his death, like all others in public service, was tragic, I do question whether anyone is truly served by the measures undertaken by both the police forces across Canada and our domestic media in honouring his sacrifice.
In the first letter of today's online Globe and Mail, the writer makes, I feel, a valuable observation.
In the first letter of today's online Globe and Mail, the writer makes, I feel, a valuable observation.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Bill Maher On American Gun Laws
It's a cold Sunday afternoon where I live, and so the Internet is providing some much-needed insulation from mother nature. I just finished reading an article about Bill Maher on Salon.com which included an excerpt from his Friday night appearance on the Jay Leno Show. While I almost never watch the show (Leno is too bland and pays it too safe for my liking), Maher's appearance added some zest to a moribund format.
Police Brutality at the National Level
This morning, the Globe and Mail website has posted video evidence of brutality by the R.C.M.P. in Kelowna, B.C. The footage, shot by a newsman, shows the authorities pulling over Buddy Tavares, wanted in connection with careless use of a firearm. As he complies with the orders to get out of his vehicle and lie down on the pavement, one of the officers kicks him in the head, for no apparent reason. As one of Tavares' friends says in the video, he is recovering from brain surgery, and the kick could have either killed him or put him into a coma.
The sickening episode can be viewed here.
The sickening episode can be viewed here.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
A Word of Caution About Wind Turbines
I have long been a supporter of alternative forms of energy. While the geography is not always ideal, I felt for a long time that the Ontario's pursuit of wind and solar power suggested a government with a vision for the future. Those who complained about wind turbines near their homes, were, I believed, simply examples of Nimbyism, worried about their property values, their views of adjacent vistas, etc.
However, a column by Thomas Walkom in today's Star suggests that there in fact might be reasons for caution. Bob McMurtry, an orthopedic surgeon and former Dean of Medicine at the University of Western Ontario, heads a group called the Society for Wind Vigilance, which has uncovered disturbing evidence that turbines may not be as benign as we have been led to believe. You can read the article here.
However, a column by Thomas Walkom in today's Star suggests that there in fact might be reasons for caution. Bob McMurtry, an orthopedic surgeon and former Dean of Medicine at the University of Western Ontario, heads a group called the Society for Wind Vigilance, which has uncovered disturbing evidence that turbines may not be as benign as we have been led to believe. You can read the article here.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Thanks to Toronto Star, the Inept SIU Re-opens G20 Investigation
After the Toronto Star recently published photos surrounding the police assault on, and subsequent arrest of Dorian Barton, the student who ran afoul of authorities for taking pictures of police horses during the G20, the province's Special Investigations Unit, an ostensibly inept organization, has agreed to reopen its investigation into the case.
Having previously looked into the case but finding no evidence upon which to proceed, the Director of the SIU now finds himself in a situation where he and his unit can no longer gloss over at least one of the many hundreds of instances of police misconduct during last summer's summit.
At least it's a start.
Having previously looked into the case but finding no evidence upon which to proceed, the Director of the SIU now finds himself in a situation where he and his unit can no longer gloss over at least one of the many hundreds of instances of police misconduct during last summer's summit.
At least it's a start.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
A Way Out of Poverty?
In today's Star, Carol Goar writes about a fascinating anti-poverty experiment undertaken in Dauphin, Manitoba which ran from 1974 to 1978. A joint federal-provincial initiative, it was undertaken to determine if a guaranteed annual income could be effective in reducing the worst social and physical impacts of poverty.
The results are provocatively suggestive of real benefits for society if people are removed from the ranks of the poor. Unfortunately, given the current federal climate, it is unlikely that this idea will be revisited in the near future, but Goar's article is certainly worth reading.
The results are provocatively suggestive of real benefits for society if people are removed from the ranks of the poor. Unfortunately, given the current federal climate, it is unlikely that this idea will be revisited in the near future, but Goar's article is certainly worth reading.
More Evidence of Police Brutality at the G20
There is a compelling video on today's Star website in which Toronto student Dorian Barton explains how attempting to take some pictures of police horses during the G20 led to the police breaking his upper arm and arresting him for obstruction. Originally investigated by the SIU and dropped due to lack of evidence, it is to be hoped that this new spotlight will encourage them to revisit the assault. As matters now stand, Barton is suing the Toronto Police Force.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Why I Do Not Donate To Universities - Part 2
The other day I reprinted some material from The Hamilton Spectator dealing with the Freedom of Information request it had made to uncover some of the perks meted out to Peter George, the recently retired three-term President of McMaster, and his family.
Today, the paper has a hard-hitting editorial about the attitude of entitlement that afflicts so many of our institutions. I am reprinting it below:
Secrecy makes it all worse
It is too easy to simply rail against former McMaster University president Peter George regarding the university paying his spouse’s airfare so she could accompany him on a week-long trip to Australia in 2006.
He made a ton of money as the head of the university, we tell ourselves. Surely they could have covered the cost themselves. And besides that, he’s making a ton of money — $99,999 a year over 14 years — even after having left McMaster. Why shouldn’t we point our angry fingers his way?
Because this is not just about George and his ability to negotiate a lucrative employment contract and convince the university’s board of governors to pay his wife’s way to Australia.
It is about the “fat-catism” that seems to infect so many of our public institutions. And it is about the fact that those in charge of those institutions, including members of their governing boards, are so out of touch with both the optics of their spending habits and the day-to-day financial realities most of us face. Add to that a heavy shroud of secrecy and it’s no wonder individuals such as George end up at the business end of those angry fingers.
Most people would not object to an executive taking his or her spouse on a business trip. But most of us would also expect that executive to cover the extra cost. That an executive would ask for and be granted coverage of a spouse’s travel expenses smacks of a sense of entitlement and a complete lack of understanding of what the average person would deem appropriate.
What’s hardest to swallow, though, is the idea that expenses such as George’s — which totalled almost $30,000 for the Australian conference — are both so high and so, apparently, not our business.
Universities receive taxpayer funding and are supposed to be accountable to the public. Granted, universities are not solely funded through taxpayers’ money. But the public makes a substantial enough investment in post-secondary education that it is not unreasonable to expect an open accounting of that money.
The financial information regarding the Australia trip was released to The Spectator through a Freedom of Information request. That should not be necessary, just as it should not have been necessary for The Spectator to fight almost two years — between 2006 and 2008 — for disclosure of George’s contract, with details of its perks and job entitlements. It is even more aggravating that the university spent $66,000 on legal fees to prevent details of the contract from being released to The Spectator. McMaster abandoned its fight in June 2008, releasing the information to the paper.
It was a wise change last March when, four months before he took over as McMaster’s president, Patrick Deane’s five-year contract was made public on the university’s website.
Secrecy only makes bad optics even worse.
Lee Prokaska
Today, the paper has a hard-hitting editorial about the attitude of entitlement that afflicts so many of our institutions. I am reprinting it below:
Secrecy makes it all worse
It is too easy to simply rail against former McMaster University president Peter George regarding the university paying his spouse’s airfare so she could accompany him on a week-long trip to Australia in 2006.
He made a ton of money as the head of the university, we tell ourselves. Surely they could have covered the cost themselves. And besides that, he’s making a ton of money — $99,999 a year over 14 years — even after having left McMaster. Why shouldn’t we point our angry fingers his way?
Because this is not just about George and his ability to negotiate a lucrative employment contract and convince the university’s board of governors to pay his wife’s way to Australia.
It is about the “fat-catism” that seems to infect so many of our public institutions. And it is about the fact that those in charge of those institutions, including members of their governing boards, are so out of touch with both the optics of their spending habits and the day-to-day financial realities most of us face. Add to that a heavy shroud of secrecy and it’s no wonder individuals such as George end up at the business end of those angry fingers.
Most people would not object to an executive taking his or her spouse on a business trip. But most of us would also expect that executive to cover the extra cost. That an executive would ask for and be granted coverage of a spouse’s travel expenses smacks of a sense of entitlement and a complete lack of understanding of what the average person would deem appropriate.
What’s hardest to swallow, though, is the idea that expenses such as George’s — which totalled almost $30,000 for the Australian conference — are both so high and so, apparently, not our business.
Universities receive taxpayer funding and are supposed to be accountable to the public. Granted, universities are not solely funded through taxpayers’ money. But the public makes a substantial enough investment in post-secondary education that it is not unreasonable to expect an open accounting of that money.
The financial information regarding the Australia trip was released to The Spectator through a Freedom of Information request. That should not be necessary, just as it should not have been necessary for The Spectator to fight almost two years — between 2006 and 2008 — for disclosure of George’s contract, with details of its perks and job entitlements. It is even more aggravating that the university spent $66,000 on legal fees to prevent details of the contract from being released to The Spectator. McMaster abandoned its fight in June 2008, releasing the information to the paper.
It was a wise change last March when, four months before he took over as McMaster’s president, Patrick Deane’s five-year contract was made public on the university’s website.
Secrecy only makes bad optics even worse.
Lee Prokaska
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Education - A Favorite Political Whipping Boy
As a former teacher now enjoying his fifth year of retirement, there are several contentions in Angelo Persichilli's column, 'Public sector unions serving up a juicy issue' (January 9) with which I must take issue.
Persichilli's general thesis, hardly fresh, is that those working in the public sector are both coddled and protected by their unions. More specifically, he endorses the idea, recently resurrected by B.C. Liberal leadership hopeful Kevin Falcon, that teacher salary increases should be tied to student performance. The columnist readily dismisses B.C. Teachers President Susan Lambert's criticism of the notion as “a destructive idea that doesn't bode well for public education” and asks, 'Why can every profession be evaluated but teaching?”
Both his dismissal and his question deserve to be addressed. First, his implied equation that good teaching=good student performance is flawed. While I never regarded myself as an extraordinary teacher, 30 years of experience in the classroom taught me several truths, perhaps the most important one being that no matter what learning environment I provided, it was still ultimately the students' choice to either accept or reject what I offered. While that would seem to be a self-evident truth, it frequently gets lost when the discussion of remuneration for results is raised.
There will always be, as we used to sardonically describe them, 'difficult to serve clients,' students who have no interest in school and are there only due to parental pressure, provincial legislation, or the fact that they have nothing better to do during the cold winter months. While this may appear cynical and counter to the current orthodoxy which asserts that every student can achieve, it is a truth that few experienced educators would deny. How could I ever convince Jason, for example, whose main interest seemed to be drugs and girls, that education was his key to a successful future, and that what schools offer have real value? Or what about Janine, who, owing to an abusive family background, saw adult authority figures as untrustworthy and not to be respected? Indeed, were salaries tied to student performance, how many teachers would want to face the challenges presented by a class of such students, knowing that their ability to make a living was tied to the academic results they obtained?
Conversely, there are always those classes with students whose motivation, focus, and ready engagement with the subject matter ensure a vital atmosphere that is a joy to work within. What teachers, knowing that their livelihoods would be enhanced, would be reluctant to instruct such self-directed learners? Because such an academic environment almost guarantees good results, would that really be a good method by which to gauge a teacher's effectiveness and salary?
Persichilli's second question, “Why can every profession be evaluated but teaching?” deserves to be addressed as well. Implied in the question, indeed, in the entire article, is that teacher unions are somehow defenders of the incompetent and that educators are not bound by the rules constraining mere mortals. While there is some truth in his observation that “less qualified and ineffective teachers are shuffled around the board and thrown into class after class where their students learn nothing,” readers may be interested to know one of the key reasons for such unethical practices.
First, under provincial legislation, teachers are required to be evaluated on a regular basis, usually by senior administration, i.e., principals and vice-principals. The reality of administering schools today inevitably means that many assessments are either rushed or not conducted at all, owing to time constraints. While few would argue that having first-rate teachers should be the highest priority for a school, administrative politics and career ambitions that require networking, keeping current with the pedagogical 'flavour of the month,' meetings with disgruntled but influential parents, etc. etc. often take precedence, leaving principals little time to be the 'principal teachers' the term once meant.
My friend Dom, also a retired teacher, long ago summed up a large part of the problem when he said, “Lorne, administrators just don't want to do their jobs.” He was alluding to the hard work involved in rooting out bad or incompetent teachers. Rightly, federations have contractual procedures in place to prevent the arbitrary dismissal of teachers; a detailed series of steps must be completed, including offering opportunities for remediation, before a teacher can be dismissed for incompetence. Given the above-mentioned constraints, few administrators are willing to invest the time needed to complete those steps, which can hardly be deemed the fault of teacher federations.
Therefore, to base teacher remuneration on student achievement, while for some a beguilingly attractive expedient, is a shortsighted notion that ignores the complexities and dynamics of today's classroom. If implemented, it will not be the panacea that vote-seeking politicians would have the public believe it to be.
Persichilli's general thesis, hardly fresh, is that those working in the public sector are both coddled and protected by their unions. More specifically, he endorses the idea, recently resurrected by B.C. Liberal leadership hopeful Kevin Falcon, that teacher salary increases should be tied to student performance. The columnist readily dismisses B.C. Teachers President Susan Lambert's criticism of the notion as “a destructive idea that doesn't bode well for public education” and asks, 'Why can every profession be evaluated but teaching?”
Both his dismissal and his question deserve to be addressed. First, his implied equation that good teaching=good student performance is flawed. While I never regarded myself as an extraordinary teacher, 30 years of experience in the classroom taught me several truths, perhaps the most important one being that no matter what learning environment I provided, it was still ultimately the students' choice to either accept or reject what I offered. While that would seem to be a self-evident truth, it frequently gets lost when the discussion of remuneration for results is raised.
There will always be, as we used to sardonically describe them, 'difficult to serve clients,' students who have no interest in school and are there only due to parental pressure, provincial legislation, or the fact that they have nothing better to do during the cold winter months. While this may appear cynical and counter to the current orthodoxy which asserts that every student can achieve, it is a truth that few experienced educators would deny. How could I ever convince Jason, for example, whose main interest seemed to be drugs and girls, that education was his key to a successful future, and that what schools offer have real value? Or what about Janine, who, owing to an abusive family background, saw adult authority figures as untrustworthy and not to be respected? Indeed, were salaries tied to student performance, how many teachers would want to face the challenges presented by a class of such students, knowing that their ability to make a living was tied to the academic results they obtained?
Conversely, there are always those classes with students whose motivation, focus, and ready engagement with the subject matter ensure a vital atmosphere that is a joy to work within. What teachers, knowing that their livelihoods would be enhanced, would be reluctant to instruct such self-directed learners? Because such an academic environment almost guarantees good results, would that really be a good method by which to gauge a teacher's effectiveness and salary?
Persichilli's second question, “Why can every profession be evaluated but teaching?” deserves to be addressed as well. Implied in the question, indeed, in the entire article, is that teacher unions are somehow defenders of the incompetent and that educators are not bound by the rules constraining mere mortals. While there is some truth in his observation that “less qualified and ineffective teachers are shuffled around the board and thrown into class after class where their students learn nothing,” readers may be interested to know one of the key reasons for such unethical practices.
First, under provincial legislation, teachers are required to be evaluated on a regular basis, usually by senior administration, i.e., principals and vice-principals. The reality of administering schools today inevitably means that many assessments are either rushed or not conducted at all, owing to time constraints. While few would argue that having first-rate teachers should be the highest priority for a school, administrative politics and career ambitions that require networking, keeping current with the pedagogical 'flavour of the month,' meetings with disgruntled but influential parents, etc. etc. often take precedence, leaving principals little time to be the 'principal teachers' the term once meant.
My friend Dom, also a retired teacher, long ago summed up a large part of the problem when he said, “Lorne, administrators just don't want to do their jobs.” He was alluding to the hard work involved in rooting out bad or incompetent teachers. Rightly, federations have contractual procedures in place to prevent the arbitrary dismissal of teachers; a detailed series of steps must be completed, including offering opportunities for remediation, before a teacher can be dismissed for incompetence. Given the above-mentioned constraints, few administrators are willing to invest the time needed to complete those steps, which can hardly be deemed the fault of teacher federations.
Therefore, to base teacher remuneration on student achievement, while for some a beguilingly attractive expedient, is a shortsighted notion that ignores the complexities and dynamics of today's classroom. If implemented, it will not be the panacea that vote-seeking politicians would have the public believe it to be.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
A Story of What is Possible
As I get older, I find the cynicism that seemed to hold me in such good stead when I was younger just doesn't fill the bill anymore. Oh, it's true that I will likely never lose my deep suspicion, even contempt, for the majority of politicians, who usually seem to be out not to serve the people but rather themselves and the interests of their party. (Forgive the over generalization, but some habits die hard.)
In any event, I find myself looking increasingly for some 'good news,' stories that demonstrate our capacity to rise above our mere self-interest and do something meaningful and substantial for others. That criterion is met in an article from today's Star that tells the story of Carlos, a 13-year-old Haitian, one year after the earthquake. Written by Catherine Porter, it describes the efforts of a Canadian family and the difference they have made in the life of this boy and those around him. I hope you will take a few minutes to read it.
In any event, I find myself looking increasingly for some 'good news,' stories that demonstrate our capacity to rise above our mere self-interest and do something meaningful and substantial for others. That criterion is met in an article from today's Star that tells the story of Carlos, a 13-year-old Haitian, one year after the earthquake. Written by Catherine Porter, it describes the efforts of a Canadian family and the difference they have made in the life of this boy and those around him. I hope you will take a few minutes to read it.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Why I Do Not Donate To Universities
The following two stories, the first of which could only be obtained by the Hamilton Spectator through a Freedom of Information Request, demonstrate two of the reasons I do not donate to universities. The first illustrates McMaster's tendency toward profligate spending by those it favors, and the second represents what some would say is the cost of such lavish expenditures:
Mac defends $13,000 to fly former president’s wife to Australia
McMaster University spent more than $13,000 on executive class airfare for the spouse of former president Peter George so she could accompany him on a week-long trip to Australia in 2006.
The $13,125 spent for return flights from Toronto to Adelaide for George’s spouse was part of nearly $30,000 in expenses he submitted for attending the Australian conference, hosted by the Association of Commonwealth Universities in April 2006. The documents were released to The Spectator through a Freedom of Information request.
The airfare for George’s spouse is equivalent to the average yearly tuition for two McMaster undergraduate students.
The university also paid $700 AUS (about $588 CDN) for George’s spouse to attend social activities and city tours associated with the conference.
The trip also included five nights’ accommodation at the Hyatt Regency in Adelaide.
Documents released to The Spectator also showed that McMaster paid $445 in airfare so George’s spouse could accompany him to New York City in March 2006 for what was billed as a four-day trip for “donor cultivation.”
A McMaster spokesperson said the spousal travel arrangements in both cases were pre-approved by the chair of the university’s board of governors and considered an appropriate use of the school’s funds.
“Under Peter’s contract, spousal travel was permitted when it was travel that served the purposes of the university,” said Andrea Farquhar, McMaster’s director of public and government relations.
“This wasn’t a holiday,” Farquhar added. “It was a trip for a conference. It was just a week, so it was essentially fly there, do the conference and fly home.”
George attended the Australian conference to speak on issues related to leadership and fundraising. At the time, the university was in the midst of an ambitious four-year fundraising campaign that ultimately brought in $473 million.
The fundraising campaign necessitated a significant amount of travel, Farquhar noted, and there were times when it was appropriate for spouses to be in attendance.
“Spouses often play roles in different kinds of events,” she added. “They can be called upon to meet with alumni or donors or spouses or business or government representatives or other university representatives.”
Information obtained from an earlier Spectator FOI request showed that George claimed more than $200,000 in expenses from January 2006 to August 2008, while another $185,000 in expenses was claimed by McMaster’s five vice-presidents during the same period.
The Spectator also requested receipts for a $2,676 expense submitted by George to cover the cost of a rental car for the month of October 2006.
The university indicated that the actual receipt was lost. The university said that the vehicle rented by George was a Nissan Altima.
The following represents the flip side of McMaster's largess with its employees, and is written by Cupe 3906, the bargaining unit in the new labour dispute:
To Hamilton Area Unions and Labour Organisations and allies:
I am writing to inform you of a pending strike at McMaster University
by the Hospitality staff who are members of SEIU Local 2. At present
picket lines are scheduled go up Friday Jan. 7th at 6am.
For the past few months we have been in negotiations with McMaster
University and have reached an impasse at the bargaining table.
The employer, a publicly funded institution, has demanded concessions and roll backs from some of the lowest paid workers at the University. Importantly the administration has asked to remove a job security
clause that would then allow them to move to casualize the workforce.
This would mean the eventual end of 175 decent paying full and
part-time jobs in Hamilton. In essence the administration wants to take
these jobs away and create poverty level McJobs in their place.
Several years ago we worked with the University to adopt a living wage
policy that would ensure the university paid its staff a living wage
and would not contract out our jobs. The new administration wants to
throw that out and begin a race to the bottom.
At present, barring a miraculous change of mind by the employer, we are
heading into a strike position as of 6am Friday January 7th.
It is sad that an institution funded by public money can see fit to give raises to its top administrators but demands the lowest paid give
what little they have.
We are hoping we can count on your support and where possible to ask
members to respect our picket lines, where that may not be possible we
ask that you request your members who may have to go into McMaster to
spend as much time as possible discussing the situation with our
members.
Further we will in the near future be calling for a solidarity rally at
the picket lines and we hope you will be able to send members from your
union or affiliates.
Of course all support on the lines is appreciated.
Mac defends $13,000 to fly former president’s wife to Australia
McMaster University spent more than $13,000 on executive class airfare for the spouse of former president Peter George so she could accompany him on a week-long trip to Australia in 2006.
The $13,125 spent for return flights from Toronto to Adelaide for George’s spouse was part of nearly $30,000 in expenses he submitted for attending the Australian conference, hosted by the Association of Commonwealth Universities in April 2006. The documents were released to The Spectator through a Freedom of Information request.
The airfare for George’s spouse is equivalent to the average yearly tuition for two McMaster undergraduate students.
The university also paid $700 AUS (about $588 CDN) for George’s spouse to attend social activities and city tours associated with the conference.
The trip also included five nights’ accommodation at the Hyatt Regency in Adelaide.
Documents released to The Spectator also showed that McMaster paid $445 in airfare so George’s spouse could accompany him to New York City in March 2006 for what was billed as a four-day trip for “donor cultivation.”
A McMaster spokesperson said the spousal travel arrangements in both cases were pre-approved by the chair of the university’s board of governors and considered an appropriate use of the school’s funds.
“Under Peter’s contract, spousal travel was permitted when it was travel that served the purposes of the university,” said Andrea Farquhar, McMaster’s director of public and government relations.
“This wasn’t a holiday,” Farquhar added. “It was a trip for a conference. It was just a week, so it was essentially fly there, do the conference and fly home.”
George attended the Australian conference to speak on issues related to leadership and fundraising. At the time, the university was in the midst of an ambitious four-year fundraising campaign that ultimately brought in $473 million.
The fundraising campaign necessitated a significant amount of travel, Farquhar noted, and there were times when it was appropriate for spouses to be in attendance.
“Spouses often play roles in different kinds of events,” she added. “They can be called upon to meet with alumni or donors or spouses or business or government representatives or other university representatives.”
Information obtained from an earlier Spectator FOI request showed that George claimed more than $200,000 in expenses from January 2006 to August 2008, while another $185,000 in expenses was claimed by McMaster’s five vice-presidents during the same period.
The Spectator also requested receipts for a $2,676 expense submitted by George to cover the cost of a rental car for the month of October 2006.
The university indicated that the actual receipt was lost. The university said that the vehicle rented by George was a Nissan Altima.
The following represents the flip side of McMaster's largess with its employees, and is written by Cupe 3906, the bargaining unit in the new labour dispute:
To Hamilton Area Unions and Labour Organisations and allies:
I am writing to inform you of a pending strike at McMaster University
by the Hospitality staff who are members of SEIU Local 2. At present
picket lines are scheduled go up Friday Jan. 7th at 6am.
For the past few months we have been in negotiations with McMaster
University and have reached an impasse at the bargaining table.
The employer, a publicly funded institution, has demanded concessions and roll backs from some of the lowest paid workers at the University. Importantly the administration has asked to remove a job security
clause that would then allow them to move to casualize the workforce.
This would mean the eventual end of 175 decent paying full and
part-time jobs in Hamilton. In essence the administration wants to take
these jobs away and create poverty level McJobs in their place.
Several years ago we worked with the University to adopt a living wage
policy that would ensure the university paid its staff a living wage
and would not contract out our jobs. The new administration wants to
throw that out and begin a race to the bottom.
At present, barring a miraculous change of mind by the employer, we are
heading into a strike position as of 6am Friday January 7th.
It is sad that an institution funded by public money can see fit to give raises to its top administrators but demands the lowest paid give
what little they have.
We are hoping we can count on your support and where possible to ask
members to respect our picket lines, where that may not be possible we
ask that you request your members who may have to go into McMaster to
spend as much time as possible discussing the situation with our
members.
Further we will in the near future be calling for a solidarity rally at
the picket lines and we hope you will be able to send members from your
union or affiliates.
Of course all support on the lines is appreciated.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Maude Marlow On The Dire Implications of A Pending Trade Agreement
Scanning the Globe's website, I read an article by Maude Barlow, National Chair of the Council of Canadians, regarding a trade agreement that could further erode our sovereignty. NAFTA-like in its scope and mechanisms, the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) would accord to European business entities many of the same rights Americans enjoy to sue Canada over, for example, environmental laws that affect their ability to conduct business. No wonder the Harper Conservative Government has been so secretive about these negotiations, given how the pact, if ratified, will give it a further excuse to do nothing to address our environmental concerns.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
A James Travers' Column
In yesterday's Star, James Travers wrote an insightful column entitled Being Canadian means taking ownership of Canada, in which he reminds us that there is a big difference between viewing ourselves as customers, as opposed to proprietors of the country. It is the former mentality that the Harper Government has been promoting and exploiting, so that many of us are fooled into the belief that simplistic 'solutions' requiring no sacrifice are the only requirements for addressing problems in our country. Those who see themselves as proprietors of Canada, on the other hand, appreciate the complexity of the issues we face. Political expedience, being what it is, dictates that the later view is discouraged.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Fair and Balanced Reporting on Cuba - Part 3
Part Three of the program on Cuba, dealing with the country's medical diplomacy, can be accessed by clicking on the above title.
Fair and Balanced Reporting on Cuba - Part 2
Part Two of the Cuba report highlighting the role of preventative medicine can be accessed by clicking on the above title.
Balanced Reporting on Cuba - Part 1
Having visited Cuba twice in 2010, my wife and I have developed quite an interest in and affection for the people. Warm and gracious, they seem to exude a passion for life that transcends their very humble, in many cases quite impoverished circumstances. PBS, one of the few American sources of fair and balanced reporting, recently completed a three-part series on the country. Part One offers an overview of the country and its prospects for economic change and growth, while Part Two examines the vital role preventative medicine plays in the overall health of the people. Part Three examines the role Cuban doctors play in helping the people of poorer nations through medical missions.
While the reports do not gloss over the restrictive nature of life in Cuba, neither do they take a confrontational ideological stance towards what are remarkable achievements in a developing nation.
Part 1 can be accessed below:
While the reports do not gloss over the restrictive nature of life in Cuba, neither do they take a confrontational ideological stance towards what are remarkable achievements in a developing nation.
Part 1 can be accessed below:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)