It is somewhat heartening that the Toronto police board, which has traditionally enjoyed harmonious relations with the Toronto Police, is showing a bit of spine.
As reported in today's Star, the board is refusing to accept Chief Bill Blair's recommendation for the promotion of nine officers who brought discredit to themselves and the force, not to mention undermined public respect for the police, by removing their name tags during the G20 demonstrations last year.
Apparently the police association, which is filing a grievance on behalf of the offending officers, argues that they were already docked a day's pay for their misbehavior and that further punishment is unwarranted. Funny, I always thought a promotion was a reward for good work, not an automatic bump in pay grade.
One can only hope that the board is sending an unequivocal message to Bill Blair about who is really in charge of the police.
Friday, September 2, 2011
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Why Higher Taxes For The Ultra-Wealthy Is Truly Progressive Taxation
Back from my annual retreat from technology, I've had the opportunity to do a bit of thinking within a relaxing environment. The following is one of the things I've been thinking about:
Current political orthodoxy suggests that income tax increases are a thing of the past, and that only by continuing to reduce the tax 'burden' on both individuals and corporations can prosperity for all be assured. Happily, that specious argument is coming increasingly under fire.
The central thesis of The Trouble With Billionaires, written by Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks, is that the growing inequality gap being experienced in North America can be narrowed by a return to the notion of progressive taxation directed at the ultra-weathy who now pay a historically low rate on the tremendous income they enjoy. Soundly reasoned and within a rich historic context, the authors make some compelling arguments for their vision. It is reading I highly recommend.
Similarly, in a recent op-ed piece for the New York Times, share one of the world's richest men, Warren Buffet, makes a similar request. He says people with wealth of his magnitude, and there are many such individuals, need to be taxed at substantially higher rates, given that they owe much to the countries that have made it possible for them to prosper, offering an effective challenge to the myth of the self-made man or woman.
A few days later, a group of French billionaires made the same plea, arguing that they can and should do much more to help their country's economy. 16 company executives, business leaders and super-rich individuals called for the creation of a "special contribution" that would target wealth without forcing the rich to quit France for overseas tax havens.
In a recent Toronto Star article entitled Where is Canada's Warren Buffet, Larry Gordon asks the pointed question of why Canadian wealthy elites are not offering similar help to our country.
Sadly but predictably, the political establishments in the aforementioned countries don't seem to be listening. Indeed, in the United States, the extreme right, aka The Tea Party, has mocked and lambasted Buffet for his proposal.
And in Canada, neither of the two main opposition parties federally has shown any enthusiasm for the idea. During the recent federal election, the boldest suggestion made was to roll back some of the corporate tax cuts. Not a mention was made of increasing individual rates.
We have to wonder why the shyness exists. For the NDP, it is perhaps to avoid the traditional association of being the party of high taxation as the only solution to inequality. The Liberal and The Conservative reticence on the issue is consistent with the contention made by many that despite the facade of democracy reinforced by going to the polls every four years or so, the voice of the people is not the voice these parties listen to. Rather, they listen to those with whom they most identify and stand to benefit from, the economic elite of the country.
At one time, I would have attributed such a notion to the rather overwrought ravings of the extreme left. Today, I see it as a realistic assessment of the current sad state of politics in North America, a state where few politicians dare challenge the orthodoxy of spending cuts as the way to a productive and responsible economy, resulting in societies that increasingly seem to afford benefits only to a select few.
It is time that we we begin to force a change in the conversation. More about that soon.
Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.
Current political orthodoxy suggests that income tax increases are a thing of the past, and that only by continuing to reduce the tax 'burden' on both individuals and corporations can prosperity for all be assured. Happily, that specious argument is coming increasingly under fire.
The central thesis of The Trouble With Billionaires, written by Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks, is that the growing inequality gap being experienced in North America can be narrowed by a return to the notion of progressive taxation directed at the ultra-weathy who now pay a historically low rate on the tremendous income they enjoy. Soundly reasoned and within a rich historic context, the authors make some compelling arguments for their vision. It is reading I highly recommend.
Similarly, in a recent op-ed piece for the New York Times, share one of the world's richest men, Warren Buffet, makes a similar request. He says people with wealth of his magnitude, and there are many such individuals, need to be taxed at substantially higher rates, given that they owe much to the countries that have made it possible for them to prosper, offering an effective challenge to the myth of the self-made man or woman.
A few days later, a group of French billionaires made the same plea, arguing that they can and should do much more to help their country's economy. 16 company executives, business leaders and super-rich individuals called for the creation of a "special contribution" that would target wealth without forcing the rich to quit France for overseas tax havens.
In a recent Toronto Star article entitled Where is Canada's Warren Buffet, Larry Gordon asks the pointed question of why Canadian wealthy elites are not offering similar help to our country.
Sadly but predictably, the political establishments in the aforementioned countries don't seem to be listening. Indeed, in the United States, the extreme right, aka The Tea Party, has mocked and lambasted Buffet for his proposal.
And in Canada, neither of the two main opposition parties federally has shown any enthusiasm for the idea. During the recent federal election, the boldest suggestion made was to roll back some of the corporate tax cuts. Not a mention was made of increasing individual rates.
We have to wonder why the shyness exists. For the NDP, it is perhaps to avoid the traditional association of being the party of high taxation as the only solution to inequality. The Liberal and The Conservative reticence on the issue is consistent with the contention made by many that despite the facade of democracy reinforced by going to the polls every four years or so, the voice of the people is not the voice these parties listen to. Rather, they listen to those with whom they most identify and stand to benefit from, the economic elite of the country.
At one time, I would have attributed such a notion to the rather overwrought ravings of the extreme left. Today, I see it as a realistic assessment of the current sad state of politics in North America, a state where few politicians dare challenge the orthodoxy of spending cuts as the way to a productive and responsible economy, resulting in societies that increasingly seem to afford benefits only to a select few.
It is time that we we begin to force a change in the conversation. More about that soon.
Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Thursday, August 25, 2011
The Extreme Right Continues Its Jack Layton Barrage Of Abuse
Given the recent spate of classless comments about Jack Layton by people like Christie Blatchford, Jonathan Kay and Barbara Kay, I have come to the conclusion that there is something deeply threatening to the far right in the life and death of Jack Layton.
For much too long, the extremists of the right have been busy convincing us that the only worthwhile nightly news is how the stock indices fared and what the future holds for interest and mortgage rates, with tales of human achievement and suffering a distant second in both import and impact.
So successful have they been, we are frequently left with only cynicism and despair over the prospect of change, leading us to express ridicule and suspicion of those working in public service who proclaim their desire to advance the common good and not simply their own careers.
Jack Layton was a constant challenge to that bleak worldview. Affable and approachable, he was a leader with a strong set of social values who was also a realist. Rather than rely on the reflexive impulse to vilify his political opponents, he sought compromise and co-operation. His influence on the Paul Martin budget of 2005 to halt corporate tax cuts and increase social spending is ample testament to that.
By refusing to stereotype those who opposed him, he humanized the opposition, standing in sharp relief to a minority government with a leader happy to call him 'Taliban Jack' when he stood firmly against the abuse of Afghan prisoners of war captured by Canadian troops.
Indeed, the civility he attempted to bring to the House of Commons was without question a reflection of his deep humanity. To be able to look beyond labels and party affiliations, to be able to recognize the humanity in the men and women opposing his agenda in Parliament, showed all of us how there is a better way, a way based on shared humanity and shared needs and goals, with concern for the collective outweighing the thrall of selfish pursuit.
This is the true legacy of Jack Layton. If, like him, we can see that we share a common bond and a common fate, then we can, as he says in the final paragraph of his final letter, “be a better, fairer, more equal country by working together. Don’t let them tell you it can’t be done.”
Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.
For much too long, the extremists of the right have been busy convincing us that the only worthwhile nightly news is how the stock indices fared and what the future holds for interest and mortgage rates, with tales of human achievement and suffering a distant second in both import and impact.
So successful have they been, we are frequently left with only cynicism and despair over the prospect of change, leading us to express ridicule and suspicion of those working in public service who proclaim their desire to advance the common good and not simply their own careers.
Jack Layton was a constant challenge to that bleak worldview. Affable and approachable, he was a leader with a strong set of social values who was also a realist. Rather than rely on the reflexive impulse to vilify his political opponents, he sought compromise and co-operation. His influence on the Paul Martin budget of 2005 to halt corporate tax cuts and increase social spending is ample testament to that.
By refusing to stereotype those who opposed him, he humanized the opposition, standing in sharp relief to a minority government with a leader happy to call him 'Taliban Jack' when he stood firmly against the abuse of Afghan prisoners of war captured by Canadian troops.
Indeed, the civility he attempted to bring to the House of Commons was without question a reflection of his deep humanity. To be able to look beyond labels and party affiliations, to be able to recognize the humanity in the men and women opposing his agenda in Parliament, showed all of us how there is a better way, a way based on shared humanity and shared needs and goals, with concern for the collective outweighing the thrall of selfish pursuit.
This is the true legacy of Jack Layton. If, like him, we can see that we share a common bond and a common fate, then we can, as he says in the final paragraph of his final letter, “be a better, fairer, more equal country by working together. Don’t let them tell you it can’t be done.”
Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
These Pictures Tell A Real Story
Taken at Nathan Phillips Square in Toronto, these photos depict many of the tributes that have been written in chalk honouring the memory of Jack Layton.
‘Contempt of cop’ no crime
So read the headline in today's Hamilton Spectator in a story by Ken Peters.
In yet another blow to the patina of respect that used to envelop the police,
Ontario Court Justice Lesley Baldwin offered a scathing rebuke of Burlington OPP Constable Ryan Cox and Halton Regional Police Officer Erich Paroshy in connection with a June 20, 2009, arrest that left Burlington resident Kyle Davidson with a fractured left arm.
Apparently the young Mr. Davidson, who mouthed an obscenity when asked to approach the officers in question, was arrested on suspicion of drunkenness and resisting arrest (the latter, I suppose, a natural reaction when one feels he/she is being arrested for no cause). Unfortunately, during the arrest, in addition to the fractured arm, Davidson sustained injuries to his face and nose which he claims were the result of the officers grabbing his head and smashing it into a curb. The arresting officers claim that he 'slipped off the curb' (is this police code for brutality?) when they attempted to arrest him.
As usual, the SIU investigated and found no basis for further action. Thankfully, Justice Baldwin was not so timid, finding, “It is not an offence to be rude to an officer” and concluding that "the police conduct in this case was harsh and callous.” She also recommended "at a minimum, that both officers be retrained in the appropriate use of police force”.
Given the ever increasing incidence of police misconduct and abuse of authority, many would suggest that much harsher measures are called for.
Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.
In yet another blow to the patina of respect that used to envelop the police,
Ontario Court Justice Lesley Baldwin offered a scathing rebuke of Burlington OPP Constable Ryan Cox and Halton Regional Police Officer Erich Paroshy in connection with a June 20, 2009, arrest that left Burlington resident Kyle Davidson with a fractured left arm.
Apparently the young Mr. Davidson, who mouthed an obscenity when asked to approach the officers in question, was arrested on suspicion of drunkenness and resisting arrest (the latter, I suppose, a natural reaction when one feels he/she is being arrested for no cause). Unfortunately, during the arrest, in addition to the fractured arm, Davidson sustained injuries to his face and nose which he claims were the result of the officers grabbing his head and smashing it into a curb. The arresting officers claim that he 'slipped off the curb' (is this police code for brutality?) when they attempted to arrest him.
As usual, the SIU investigated and found no basis for further action. Thankfully, Justice Baldwin was not so timid, finding, “It is not an offence to be rude to an officer” and concluding that "the police conduct in this case was harsh and callous.” She also recommended "at a minimum, that both officers be retrained in the appropriate use of police force”.
Given the ever increasing incidence of police misconduct and abuse of authority, many would suggest that much harsher measures are called for.
Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Christie - blah blah blah - Blatchford
I read Chrisie Blatchford's reprehensible column yesterday on Jack Layton, and since the comment boards are ablaze with outrage over her remarks, allow me to briefly add my own thoughts about people of her ilk:
I have come to the conclusion that the right is unable to recognize the genuine grief over Jack Layton's passing because it challenges too sharply its notion that the only things of value are bottom lines, profitability, and the unalloyed 'joys' of unfettered capitalism and materialism.
To be shown that human beings are more than simply economic entities is just too much for the conservative mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)