David Sweet's Video Appearance

While Conservative M.P. David Sweet is coming under criticism after his appearance in a video honouring James Hubley, a gay teen who was bullied before his suicide, I have a different interpretation of his participation which I am sure many will disagree with (which is fine, by the way).

I gather that the controversy surrounding Sweet stems from the fact that he has previously expressed his religious view that homosexuality is unacceptable in the eyes of God. Now, everyone wants him to clarify his position, implying that his appearance in the video is either hypocritical or politically opportunistic.

I see it differently. Despite the 'gottcha' mentality that now pervades our society and which is probably at the root of much of this ado, I see his appearance in the video not as a negative event, but as a positive one. Casting aside for the moment my usual cynicism, I can't help but think that his decision to participate was done after some significant soul-searching, and marks a brave choice for a member of a party whose constituents are often angry, intolerant and dismissive of concepts such as differing sexual orientations.

So for me, David Sweet, even though he refuses to discuss the issue further, has made a moral choice that transcends both party affiliation and religious beliefs. And for that, I commend him.

What Media Pundits Don't Understand

Robert Hackett, a professor in the school of communication at Simon Fraser University and a research associate at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ B.C. Office, has written an incisive article on the failure of media pundits to understand the true nature of the Occupy Movement.

Including references to both the disgraceful Kevin O'Leary 'interview' with Chris Hedges and recent comments by Andrew Coyne, Hackett dismisses the frequently-cited criticism that the movement lacks specific demands by arguing the following:

Social movements have often started out with a shared grievance, not a particular solution. Think of the flagship of today’s global movements, environmentalism. It ranges from conservationists who want to preserve wilderness, to more politically-oriented groups advocating policies to counter global warming, to radicals who see civilization itself as the problem. A smorgasbord of approaches. But united by a concern that the ecosystems on which humans depend are threatened, and need our conscious protection.

So too with Occupy Canada. The people involved share one belief: that the currently dominant “neoliberal” or “free market” version of capitalism is not working for the vast majority of people. While it creates wealth for some, it is also the destructive global engine behind massive and growing inequality, the current fiscal and economic crisis, and climate change and environmental collapse.

Hackett's piece is well-worth perusal.

Capitalism Tries To Turn Occupy Wall Street Into A Commercial Venture

In what can only be regarded as a perversion of the Occupy Movement, a couple in Long Island, New York has paid a $975 patent application fee to turn the phrase “Occupy Wall Street” into a brand for a line of coffee mugs, T-shirts, bumper stickers and bags.

“If I didn’t buy it and use it someone else will,” Robert Maresca, 44, told thesmokinggun.com.

While I'm not surprised at this attempt to commercialize an anti-establishment movement, just as I am not surprised to see increasing interest on the part of Obama and the Democrats to ride its coattails for political advantage, I can only hope that the movement itself continues to represent the widest diversity of views and unrelenting challenge to conventional ways of doing things.

Chris Hedges Discusses OWS On Charlie Rose

Just back from my hiatus, I found a very recent Charlie Rose interview with the always articulate Chris Hedges and Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. It is well-worth watching as a primer for both the Occupy Movement and the corporate dominance that has turned true democracy into a charade.

And Now For A Pause

Be back soon.

The Latest From Chris Hedges

For those who have not yet read Chris Hedges' Death of the Liberal Class, his latest essay on truthdig, entitled A Movement Too Big to Fail, is must-reading.

Using the thesis from his book, namely that the members and institutions of the traditional liberal class: unions, political parties, academia, etc. long ago abandoned their function of opposing the rise of imbalance through the dominance of the power elite, Hedges asserts that the Occupy Movement will not be co-opted by those failed counter-balances.

Says Hedges:

The Occupy Wall Street movement, like all radical movements, has obliterated the narrow political parameters. It proposes something new. It will not make concessions with corrupt systems of corporate power. It holds fast to moral imperatives regardless of the cost. It confronts authority out of a sense of responsibility. It is not interested in formal positions of power. It is not seeking office. It is not trying to get people to vote. It has no resources. It can’t carry suitcases of money to congressional offices or run millions of dollars of advertisements. All it can do is ask us to use our bodies and voices, often at personal risk, to fight back. It has no other way of defying the corporate state. This rebellion creates a real community instead of a managed or virtual one. It affirms our dignity. It permits us to become free and independent human beings.

I especially like his reference to creating a real community and affirming our dignity, permitting us to become free and independent human beings. It is through the spreading realization of this strength as individuals opposing a system rigged in favour of the few that the many will grow and have a voice.

So despite Bob Rae stopping by at the St James encampment the other day, no doubt for political advantage, and despite unions beginning to show solidarity with the movement, they are not the important elements in this fight, having long ago sold out principle to become part of the power structure. It is the people themselves, you and I and all others who want to see change, that are the ones who matter in this movement.

The Latest Threat To Financial Stability? Canadian Obstructionism

While we reflect on the concepts brought forth by the Occupy movement, namely that the many are ill-served by the control exerted by the few, we should also consider the role that our own government is playing in the world.

I have written extensively on the shame our government has brought to our name internationally by its unrepentant support of the export of asbestos to developing countries, going so far as to prevent it even being listed as a toxic substance under the Rotterdam Convention's Annex 111 classification.

Equally shameful is the obstructionist role Canada is playing at this weekend's pre-G20 meeting, when it tries to thwart a European proposal to add a minuscule tax on financial transactions that would yields billions in revenue to cash-strapped nations in Europe. In Canada, such a tax could generate more than $3.7 billion annually.

The proposal that our Finance Minister Jim Flaherty finds so threatening is as follows:

...a tiny tax of 0.1 per cent ($1 per $1,000) on transactions of stocks or bonds and only 0.001 per cent (1 cent per $1,000) on transactions of financial derivatives.

So a stock trade of $100,000 would cost an additional $100. Who is threatened by this?

And this isn't the first time the Harper government has worked against the interests of the majority. Prior to the 2010 Toronto G20 summit, he and his cabinet minister colleagues embarked on an international campaign to scuttle an IMF proposal for a levy on banks. As a result, the agreement by G20 leaders at the 2009 Pittsburgh summit to have the financial industry make a “fair and substantial contribution” for the costs of the crisis remains
unfulfilled.

Now what is it again that the Occupation movement has been saying about the 1%?