While long regarded as something of a provincial backwater vis-a-vis its 'world-class' cousin 70 kilometres down the highway, the City of Hamilton is surely feeling a measure of cultural vindication now that the barbarians have breached the gates of Toronto.
As reported in the Toronto Star, world-renowned Margaret Atwood (despite her apparent obscurity to the Ford clan), has received and accepted an invitation from Hamilton Mayor Bob Bratina to visit and tour Hamilton's central library, an institution that recently underwent a multi-million dollar publically-funded renovation to better serve the people.
Responding to the insult hurled at her by Doug Ford, the Toronto mayor's brother (who said that if Atwood walked by, “I wouldn’t have a clue who she is” ) Mayor Bratina had this to say:
“We’re very proud of our Canadian cultural icons and regret that there was any question that Margaret Atwood’s stature might be dismissed in any way,” he said. “There’s a regrettable backwoods feeling to all this and it’s not right, it’s not true.”
Hamilton, which is quickly building a solid reputation for welcoming and supporting the arts as an important economic driver, is attracting a substantial number of artists from the Toronto area, both on the basis of cheap rents and land prices and an increasingly cosmopolitan attitude that only cities such as Toronto used to be able to lay claim to.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Christopher Hume's Modest Proposal To The Ford Brothers
Although my right-wing friends seem to have neither an understanding nor an appreciation of irony (I'm lying - I don't have any right-wing friends), more centered people will enjoy The Star's Christopher Hume who, in today's paper, has a modest proposal for Toronto's mayor and his brother to raise revenue for the allegedly cash-starved world-class city.
Enjoy.
Enjoy.
Elizabeth May's Current Projects
Although I detect a subtext of sarcasm running through the article, Jane Taber's recent piece on Elizabeth May is well-worth a read, as it illustrates a woman involved in a worthwhile battle to encourage political engagement on the part of young people. As well, her concerns about the electromagnetic radiation from cellphones, which some have used to try to suggest a certain wackiness, is well-founded, if recent research is any indicator.
It is good to see an MP who can think independently and critically, an increasingly rare occurrence in our presently poisoned political landscape.
It is good to see an MP who can think independently and critically, an increasingly rare occurrence in our presently poisoned political landscape.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Shaking Up The Complacent
If anything will defeat us as a progressive nation, it is the complacency and defeatism of the electorate. Feeling powerless, something I am convinced the extreme right wants us to feel, contributes to low civic and political engagement and, of course, low turnout at elections, again keys to victory by the right.
Although the following video is American, I find the issues it addresses and the potential resilience of the people it suggests to be heartening. There is absolutely no reason a similar movement could not exist in Canada:
Although the following video is American, I find the issues it addresses and the potential resilience of the people it suggests to be heartening. There is absolutely no reason a similar movement could not exist in Canada:
Saturday, August 6, 2011
More Nonsense Out Of Toronto Thanks To Ford And His Minions
The lack of critical thinking skills in the public arena is a painful thing to watch. In a story from yesterday's Toronto Star entitled Despite warning, fire chief refuses to suggest cuts, the Toronto fire chief, Bill Stewart, opposes any cuts to his fire-fighting complement, warning that public safety would be jeopardized. The same kind of warning has been issued by Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair in his efforts to protect his force.
I suspect Mayor Ford and his acolytes are delighted at these warnings which will enable them, if the public refuses to think critically, to make the kinds of cuts to programs that the Ford Brothers feel fall outside the mandate of city services, such as libraries, long-term-care homes, cultural grants, etc.
Said Ford's former chief of staff, Nick Kouvalis:
Torontonians face tough choices and they have to decide if it’s worth closing “a few” libraries to keep police and fire response times low, which in turn keeps down insurance premiums for businesses and homes.
“Do people want police and fire at standard or do they want (author) Margaret Atwood at their fingertips 24 hours a day,” said Kouvalis, a principal at Campaign Research who talks regularly with Ford.
“If they want Margaret Atwood they can order from amazon.com or take a subway to the library. It’s about tough choices and there’s no way the mayor is going to let insurance rates go up to save a few libraries or a few parks.”
By presenting the choices in these stark absolutist terms, Ford and his team are framing the debate in an artificial and high circumscribed way that ignores a range of other possibilities and conveniently overlooks the fact that he was elected mayor on a platform promising no service cuts, lower taxes, and the elimination of the 'gravy train'. In other words, he has no mandate for decimating services.
Until the people start exercising some critical thinking and demand accountability from lying and deceptive politicians, expect the abuses of democracy to continue.
I suspect Mayor Ford and his acolytes are delighted at these warnings which will enable them, if the public refuses to think critically, to make the kinds of cuts to programs that the Ford Brothers feel fall outside the mandate of city services, such as libraries, long-term-care homes, cultural grants, etc.
Said Ford's former chief of staff, Nick Kouvalis:
Torontonians face tough choices and they have to decide if it’s worth closing “a few” libraries to keep police and fire response times low, which in turn keeps down insurance premiums for businesses and homes.
“Do people want police and fire at standard or do they want (author) Margaret Atwood at their fingertips 24 hours a day,” said Kouvalis, a principal at Campaign Research who talks regularly with Ford.
“If they want Margaret Atwood they can order from amazon.com or take a subway to the library. It’s about tough choices and there’s no way the mayor is going to let insurance rates go up to save a few libraries or a few parks.”
By presenting the choices in these stark absolutist terms, Ford and his team are framing the debate in an artificial and high circumscribed way that ignores a range of other possibilities and conveniently overlooks the fact that he was elected mayor on a platform promising no service cuts, lower taxes, and the elimination of the 'gravy train'. In other words, he has no mandate for decimating services.
Until the people start exercising some critical thinking and demand accountability from lying and deceptive politicians, expect the abuses of democracy to continue.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Injury, Death, and Concealment: A Tale of Two Police Forces
I have written previously about the botched drug raid by the Hamilton Police resulting in serious injury to Burmese immigrant Po La Hay, who suffered facial lacerations, three broken ribs and a fractured vertebra at the hands of police. While the court yesterday dismissed the case against the officer in question, Ryan Tocher, citing insufficient evidence of the use of excessive force, the presiding judge, Justice Paul Currie , had excoriating words for Tocher's fellow officers, none of whom could put a face to the leg and foot stomping /kicking Mr. Hay:
Currie suggested the conduct of four police witnesses in the case “raises the spectre of a coverup.”
Currie was particularly concerned that neither Sergeant Paul Henderson, the raid supervisor, nor Detective Constables Chris Camalleri, Christopher Button or Angela Weston — all of whom where in the kitchen with Hay and the accused — could positively identify Tocher as the officer who stomped Hay.
“I find the collective evidence of the witness officers to be troubling. Their inconsistencies in their version of the evidence and their apparent inability or unwillingness to identify the person attached to the leg, as most were easily serving in close proximity to the person who was attached to it, strains credulity and raises the spectre of a coverup,” Currie said in his ruling.
Indeed the judge hinted that the conduct of the witness officers could form the basis of a civil award where the burden of proof is not as high as in a criminal proceeding.
This troubling trend toward concealment, it seems to me, had its birth during last year's massive violation of Charter Rights during the G20, when police regularly and quite arbitrarily abused, assaulted, and arrested over 11000 people. Despite investigations, the force, due to a strange collective memory loss, was unable to identify the perpetrators of these abuses, with the exception of one officer.
And that penchant for secrecy and concealment continues to this day. For example, after the recent Caribbean Carnival Parade shooting, it took three days for the SIU to release the name of a man who was shot and killed, initially stating that
officers had “discharged their weapons’’ in the incident, with spokesman Frank Phillips later adding in an interview that cops had “interacted’’ with three men prior to the fatal shooting.
The use of euphemisms is never an encouraging sign, given that they are more often than not used to conceal some unpleasant truths; in this case, “discharged their weapons” and 'interacted' were apparently deemed good substitutes for the less palatable, but more accurate fact that the deceased was shot and killed by the police.
The latest instance of police action resulting in death came yesterday, when a handicapped 46-year-old man, Charles McGillivary, out for a walk with his mother, was tackled by police, went into cardiac arrest, and died. As reported in today's Toronto Star, the SIU says that
police officers were conducting an investigation in the neighbourhood before McGillivary’s arrest.
The release said McGillivary collapsed after a “physical interaction” during the arrest. The SIU did not respond to a request for an interview.
The need for careful inquiry into each instance of possible police wrongdoing is paramount, yet you will notice that not one word as to the nature of this investigation, nor why a handicapped man was targeted, is offered here.
My question, however, is a simple one: Why is the public's right to know exactly how our police forces are conducting themselves being thwarted, it seems, every step of the way by an increasingly secretive, uncooperative and truculent constabulary?
Currie suggested the conduct of four police witnesses in the case “raises the spectre of a coverup.”
Currie was particularly concerned that neither Sergeant Paul Henderson, the raid supervisor, nor Detective Constables Chris Camalleri, Christopher Button or Angela Weston — all of whom where in the kitchen with Hay and the accused — could positively identify Tocher as the officer who stomped Hay.
“I find the collective evidence of the witness officers to be troubling. Their inconsistencies in their version of the evidence and their apparent inability or unwillingness to identify the person attached to the leg, as most were easily serving in close proximity to the person who was attached to it, strains credulity and raises the spectre of a coverup,” Currie said in his ruling.
Indeed the judge hinted that the conduct of the witness officers could form the basis of a civil award where the burden of proof is not as high as in a criminal proceeding.
This troubling trend toward concealment, it seems to me, had its birth during last year's massive violation of Charter Rights during the G20, when police regularly and quite arbitrarily abused, assaulted, and arrested over 11000 people. Despite investigations, the force, due to a strange collective memory loss, was unable to identify the perpetrators of these abuses, with the exception of one officer.
And that penchant for secrecy and concealment continues to this day. For example, after the recent Caribbean Carnival Parade shooting, it took three days for the SIU to release the name of a man who was shot and killed, initially stating that
officers had “discharged their weapons’’ in the incident, with spokesman Frank Phillips later adding in an interview that cops had “interacted’’ with three men prior to the fatal shooting.
The use of euphemisms is never an encouraging sign, given that they are more often than not used to conceal some unpleasant truths; in this case, “discharged their weapons” and 'interacted' were apparently deemed good substitutes for the less palatable, but more accurate fact that the deceased was shot and killed by the police.
The latest instance of police action resulting in death came yesterday, when a handicapped 46-year-old man, Charles McGillivary, out for a walk with his mother, was tackled by police, went into cardiac arrest, and died. As reported in today's Toronto Star, the SIU says that
police officers were conducting an investigation in the neighbourhood before McGillivary’s arrest.
The release said McGillivary collapsed after a “physical interaction” during the arrest. The SIU did not respond to a request for an interview.
The need for careful inquiry into each instance of possible police wrongdoing is paramount, yet you will notice that not one word as to the nature of this investigation, nor why a handicapped man was targeted, is offered here.
My question, however, is a simple one: Why is the public's right to know exactly how our police forces are conducting themselves being thwarted, it seems, every step of the way by an increasingly secretive, uncooperative and truculent constabulary?
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Michael Moore and Dead Peasant Insurance
Long overdue, I finally got around to watching Michael Moore's latest documentary Capitalism: A Love Story last evening, having borrowed the disc from my local library. (Happily, not being a resident of Toronto, I don't at present have to worry about my branch closing.) While Moore is often criticized for the built-in biases of his films, his works, I think, are analogous to the pamphleteers of old, advocating for a particular goal or point of view. From the right-wing, such efforts are frequently viewed as subversive, while their constant propagandizing, of course, is different, mere earnest efforts to convey “THE TRUTH” (unregulated free markets good – regulation bad). But I digress.
While much of what the film covers wasn't new to me, as always, Moore puts a human face to the economic catastrophe that rocked the world in 2008, and helps us to connect emotionally to the personal tragedies that were the direct result of unregulated and unchecked greed. What was new to me, however, was the term 'dead peasant insurance', the ghoulish corporate practice of insuring the lives of employees, not for their families' benefit should they die, but to enhance corporate profits.
One example drawn from the film details how a 26-year-old young mother, employed by Walmart, died of an asthma attack, her demise yielding almost $90,000 to America's favorite superstore, while the widowed husband and father of their three young children struggled paying medical and funeral bills of over $100,000 for her unsuccessful treatment. No price rollback for him, unfortunately.
Another instance was of a bank benefitting to the tune of $1.5 million when one of its employees died, the widow, of course, having no knowledge of it and, of course, no offers of financial assistance from her late husband's employer.
I could go on with more of the grisly details of corporate greed and depredation the film covers, but I'll stop here and urge everyone to take a look at the film which is also available free online.
While much of what the film covers wasn't new to me, as always, Moore puts a human face to the economic catastrophe that rocked the world in 2008, and helps us to connect emotionally to the personal tragedies that were the direct result of unregulated and unchecked greed. What was new to me, however, was the term 'dead peasant insurance', the ghoulish corporate practice of insuring the lives of employees, not for their families' benefit should they die, but to enhance corporate profits.
One example drawn from the film details how a 26-year-old young mother, employed by Walmart, died of an asthma attack, her demise yielding almost $90,000 to America's favorite superstore, while the widowed husband and father of their three young children struggled paying medical and funeral bills of over $100,000 for her unsuccessful treatment. No price rollback for him, unfortunately.
Another instance was of a bank benefitting to the tune of $1.5 million when one of its employees died, the widow, of course, having no knowledge of it and, of course, no offers of financial assistance from her late husband's employer.
I could go on with more of the grisly details of corporate greed and depredation the film covers, but I'll stop here and urge everyone to take a look at the film which is also available free online.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)