Mulcair's Dutch Disease Comments: A More Rational Assessment

Despite the near-hysterical reaction of certain CBC broadcasters to the comments made last week by Thomas Mulcair about how tarsands developments are inflating the value of the Canadian dollar, thereby weakening our manufacturing sector, there are those who are able to more objectively assess his comments. One of them is Lawrence Martin.

In his column today entitled Ottawa’s industrial policy divides Canada against itself, Martin observes that we made progress in the decades before 2000 in moving away from an economy based on resource extraction. Using figures from Jim Stanford's research, he reveals that well over half of Canada’s exports consisted of an increasingly sophisticated portfolio of value-added products in areas such as automotive assembly, telecommunications, aerospace technology and more.

However, as of July 2011, unprocessed and semi-processed resource exports accounted for two-thirds of Canada’s total exports, the highest in decades,” Mr. Stanford wrote. “Compare that to 1999, when finished goods made up almost 60 per cent of our exports.”

So while the Conservatives and their apologists at the CBC (aka Peter Mansbridge and Rex Murphy) can wax apoplectic about the 'divisiveness' of this national leader's comments, Lawrence Martin ends his piece thus:

But let the debate roar on. The country needs a new industrial strategy, one based on more than corporate tax cuts, free-trade agreements and rampant resource exploitation.

What Do Bumper Stickers Reveal About Us? Part 1

Although I have never affixed a sticker to my car bumper, I am fascinated by those who do. When I was young, it was very common to see bumpers proudly proclaiming travel to lands both near and far, I Drove The Alcan Highway and Rushmore Aerial Tramway being just two examples. Then, over time there was a movement toward signs that raised awareness for causes or beliefs, such as Think Pink (breast cancer) and Honk If You Love Jesus (evangelical promotion)

However, the sticker that most intrigues and disquiets me is one I see with some regularity: If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free To Stand In Front of Them.

I saw it again just the other day, and my immediate desire, not acted upon, was to approach the driver to ask how he interpreted it. The first part may seem clear enough, the expectation that we will support the troops, but exactly what does supporting our troops mean in the minds of those who purvey this sticker?

Is it the equivalent of the tired absolutist phrase, America, Love It Or Leave It? If so, it is demanding that all citizens adopt an unquestioning, unthinking, uncritical acceptance of all things military including, one would have to assume, actions and policies that may violate personal values and norms, for example the euphemistic collateral damage that sometimes occurs in battle and is usually explained away by government and military command as 'a regrettable but unintentional event.'

Broadening the consideration, does a failure to support the troops include asking whether the loss of young soldiers' lives in a place like Afghanistan is worth it? Indeed, does a healthy debate about such matters constitute a betrayal of the sacrifice that they have made? That certainly seemed to be the mentality that earned Jack Layton the sobriquet 'Taliban Jack' for questioning the Harper regime about its military strategy in Afghanistan a few years back.

Moving to the second part of the sticker, Feel Free To Stand In Front Of Them, I assume, although I stand to be corrected, that we are being told raising any kinds of questions about the military is tantamount to treason and therefore warrants execution.

You perhaps begin to see that there are wider implications to this mentality, which I will address in Part 2 of this post.

Make That A Soya Burger For Me

If the Harper regime has its way, a rise in cholesterol levels may be the least of your worries when you make that next trip to Macdonalds.

Michael Moore: The Evolution of An Activist

Having suffered one of my fairly frequent bouts of insomnia last night, the blog post I had hoped to make is not yet complete, so just a quick entry here. I recently completed reading Here Comes Trouble, Michael Moore's memoir that takes us from his childhood to the world premier of his first documentary, Roger and Me. It is a book I highly recommend.

Although I initially had no particular interest in reading it, I happened to see the book in my local library branch one day and was pleasantly surprised by its drolly amusing, self-deprecating and very informative content. I realized that heretofore I actually knew little about Moore, other than his success in the film world. That success, and the activism behind it, I discovered, were clearly presaged very early in his life, only one indication of which I will deal with here.

When he was 17, he was invited to take part in a mock state government. Housed in a dorm at one of the universities, Moore actually had little interest in partaking in the process, but one day when he was going to the vending machine for a snack, he saw a notice inviting entries into a contest sponsored by The Elks on the subject of why Abraham Lincolm was a great president. Knowing that The Elks, a private club, at the time excluded non-whites from membership, Moore, in a moment of teenage outrage, was truck by the hypocrisy of the essay topic. He therefore wrote an essay, not about Lincoln, but about the fraternal order's hypocrisy. Having to deliver the speech the next day with some trepidation in a room filled with other entrants, he was shocked to learn that the judge, a high school teacher and a non-member of the Elks, declared him the winner.

His victory required that he give the speech again at the awards ceremony, where he would be presented with the trophy by the Elks' president. When he gave the speech ...., well, you'll have to read the book to learn of the immediate result, but I will tell you that he next received a call from CBS requesting an interview with him, to be shown on Walter Cronkite's evening news. Moore declined the opportunity, but the event was a pivotal formative moment in what was to become his destiny, and the publicity resulting from his speech had a real influence on legislation that was later enacted outlawing racial discrimination in private organizations.

Many people frequently get annoyed or outraged by Moore's antics, but Here Comes Trouble does a very nice job in providing some real insight into the passions that drive the man.

The Star's Reader Reaction to Bill C-309

As promised in my previous post, I am reproducing letters from yesterday's Star in which readers offer their own trenchant insights on the implications of the abhorrent Bill C-309:

Re: Government backs bill aimed at masked protesters, May 7

This week the Harper government party threw its support behind Bill C-309 (Preventing Persons from Concealing Their Identity during Riots and Unlawful Assemblies Act) put forward by Wildrose MP Blake Richards. Owing to this support, Bill C-309 will almost certainly become law. But like so many recent Conservative initiatives, the bill is vindictive and manipulative.

Riding a public wave of unease after the riots in Vancouver and those in the U.K. in the summer of 2011, Richards drafted the bill in order to add ammunition to the police toolkit to respond to public assemblies. The bill aims to increase the punitive capacities of the law when reacting to people participating in the already illegal acts of rioting and unlawful assembly.

Let’s be clear: the deplorable behaviour of rioters in Vancouver was the act of vandals that should be punished. The problem, however, is the potential for this proposed amendment to the Criminal Code to be used in situations of legitimate protest, given the subjective criteria for determining riots and unlawful assemblies.

At the most basic level, a law of this nature will increase the risk of participating in even the most docile of events because all emotion-laden public gatherings, even of the most peacefully minded participants, hold the potential for violence.

There are many good reasons why people wear masks during public gatherings. To begin with, mask-wearing is a long-standing method of symbolic expression and political solidarity. Most often mask-wearing is innocuous and involves no risk to public safety such as when participants in Free the Children’s Vow of Silence Campaign cover their mouths with a small mask to symbolize the silencing of children or when Greenpeace activists don orangutan masks to publicize the destruction of rainforests. But Bill C-309 has the potential to criminalize those harmless acts.

Global protests, such as the G20 meeting in Toronto in 2010 have also drawn our attention to the fact that as the tension between police and protesters has risen in recent decades even the most peaceful protesters have been subjected to the use of pepper spray. In these instances, protective masks have become a commonly used method of protecting one’s physical well-being while expressing political views. Bill C-309 would almost certainly be used in these circumstances.

But there is also a question of political privacy and minimizing personal risk; for the same reason that we uphold the right of citizens to keep their vote private for professional and personal reasons, many people who engage in political dissent are not eager to publicize their political views. Canada’s legendary Cold War defector, Igor Gouzenko wore a hood covering his entire head during public appearances until his death in order to protect his family from the ramifications of his political choices.

Bill C-309 has very real consequences for Canadian civil liberties. At present, the bill conflates violent behaviour with mask wearing; the problem is that not all people wearing masks are intent on committing violent acts.

As a historical precedent, Britain’s Black Act of 1723 illustrates the dangers associated with such legislation. The Black Act was first designed to deal with poaching on private land. Being found in a park or on private property with a weapon and a disguised or blackened face could mean death by hanging.

The act became notorious however, because over time it was extended to cover an increasing number of behaviours, most of which involved the poor, including protest. As the historian E.P. Thompson wrote, the act “signalled the onset of the flood-tide of 18th century retributive justice.” Increasingly impossible to rationalize, the act was repealed in 1827. In as much as a democracy relies on a range of modes of engagement and expression, a watchful citizenry cannot leave undue powers in the hands of the police to decide when and how political assemblies will have their say.

By criminalizing legitimate political dissent, we can expect to achieve two things. First, we undermine a form of political action that is increasingly a favourite form of engagement among youth under 25. In an era where we decry the political apathy of youth, this is deplorable.

Second, we create an opportunity for greater extremism. For instance, the Black Bloc tactics — dressing in black, covering one’s head and face and causing targeted property damage during protests — have become an international phenomenon. The Black Bloc only gained momentum and notoriety after the German government banned masks in the mid-1980s as part of an effort to quash social movements.

News coverage treats the Black Bloc as a group of individuals, but more importantly it is an aesthetic and a credo symbolizing reactionary politics that escalates the tension between participants and police.

Police already possess the necessary power to deal with vandalism and violence. Make no mistake, this bill is not about crime. It is another attempt in a long line of conservative efforts to target the heart of our democratic rights to expression and to freedom of assembly.

Kathleen Rodgers and Willow Scobie, Department of Sociology, University of Ottawa

The Harper government is backing a back-bencher’s bill that would provide harsh penalties for protesters who wear masks at a demonstration. In considering this bill, I hope that MPs recognize that many protesters wear masks to protect themselves from tear gas.

I would also hope that, if this draconian measure should become law, it will apply equally to police officers who conceal their identities when policing demonstrations.

This practice by many members of the Toronto Police Service was much in evidence and well-recorded in Star photos taken at demonstrations against the G20 conference.

Bill Howes, Toronto

Does this mean the police can’t wear shields to conceal their identities as well? Or are they to protect their eyes? Maybe protesters should wear plastic face shields as well — tinted ones. Last time I checked, a plastic face shield does not a mask make. Protects the eyes though.

Richard Kadziewicz, Scarborough

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announces that anonymous protesting leads to, “Destructive and reckless behaviour [which] damages communities and should not be tolerated.” Interesting, when you compare this to certain members of Toronto’s police force at the G20 summit, who executed their “duties” with faces hidden by masks, adorning shirts with no ID badges.

“Quelle difference,” indeed.

Edward P. Swynar, Newcastle

I applaud Stephen Harper Inc. for backing Conservative backbencher Blake Richards’ private member’s bill giving police the power to arrest anyone hiding their identity during a riot or unlawful assembly. There must be a clampdown on anarchists who disrupt peaceful protests.

But what about police officers who hide their identity while disrupting protests as was done during the June 2010 G20 Toronto summit? Or will this be yet another Harper Inc. case of “do as I say not as I do”?

Alan Pellettier, Scarborough

In speaking of the proposed new Conservative bill to make it illegal for protesters to wear a face-mask (though police who beat such protesters cover up their name plates), Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said, “Destructive and reckless behaviour damages communities and should not be tolerated.”

He’s just summed up his government’s daily effect on this country since coming to power. And he’s right — their behaviour damages communities and should not be tolerated.

Peter Dick, Toronto

I suspect the government will be able to count on broad support for this bill assuming: a) it only targets those masked protesters caught committing acts of violence; and b) it also deals with police officers who remove or cover their own identification tags during demonstrations.

Michael Lennick, Toronto

When Does An Assembly Become Unlawful?

Because we were rather busy yesterday preparing a small celebration marking my sister-in-law's retirement at an enviably young age, I am just getting caught up on my Saturday newspaper reading. One of the issues that caught my attention is the private member's bill making its way through Parliament as an amendment to the Criminal Code. Introduced by Alberta Conservative Blake Richards, Bill C-309 is the preventing persons from concealing their identity during riots or unlawful assemblies act.

While the proposed amendment presents itself as a strong response to the violent depredations of anarchists like the Black Bloc during the 2010 G20 Summit demonstrations in Toronto, many infer a more sinister motivation behind Richards' initiative. Curious as to the truth in this matter, I checked out the Criminal Code's definition of unlawful assembly:

Unlawful assembly

63. (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they

(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or

(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously.

You can perhaps appreciate the ominous implications of this definition, most notably the subjective nature of fear that demonstrators will disturb the peace tumultuously, an elastic definition if there ever was one. As my wife pointed out to me, does that mean that if three people were picketing their M.P.'s office, their behaviour, whether masked or not, could constitute criminal behaviour based on someone else's reaction to the assembly?

Bill C-309 does indeed carry ominous implications, epecially since existing law already gives police all the power they need to arrest rioters and those committing crimes while masked.

As outlined in Section 351 of the Criminal Code,

Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

So yes, I think there is much merit in the argument that this private member's bill is just another move by the Harper regime to stifle dissent. That is also the view of many Star readers, who have responded to this issue with their usual vigour and thoughtfulness. I am posting a link to those letters here, but because access to readers' letters on the Star website is frequently of limited duration, I am going to later put up a separate post that reproduces several of them for your consideration.

Repression 2.0

Given its evolution, so to speak, the state of Tennessee's new attempt to control and criminalize people's thoughts and acts can hardly be seen as astonishing.