What Fools These Mortals Be

The title of this post, taken from Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream, hardly qualifies as a startling insight. Nonetheless, after reading two columns in this morning's Star, I couldn't help but reflect on the mass of contradictions that we are. It has likely always been thus, but stands in especially sharp relief in today's broken world.

My very wise friend Dom pointed out something to me recently. "Lorne," he said, "the genius of the corporate world has been to get us addicted to cheap stuff from China, even though that cheap stuff comes at a very high cost: the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs, as well as the spread of retail positions (think Walmart) that refuse to pay a living wage."

On some level, I suspect we are aware of this truth, but choose not to ponder it as our search for bargains encompasses an increasingly wide swath. In her column today, Heather Mallick confronts the issue head-on in a meditation prompted by Wall Street's reaction to Apple Tim Cook's recent announcement about bringing a small amount of Apple jobs back from China. What should have been a cause for celebration in the depressed American job market turned out to be anything but:

Wall Street’s instant response was to drop the stock several percentage points. Apple is the biggest company in U.S. history. But despite its might and inventiveness, the market judged it solely on its merits as a behemoth built mainly on cheap Chinese labour.

But it seems that it is not just the stock market that takes a dim view of such a move:

Ten years ago I paid $250 for a coffeemaker. Today I pay $80. Would I pay even $60 more to restore Canadian jobs?

Yes, I say. But am I being truthful? I buy books from Amazon.ca because they offer me 37- to 50-per-cent discounts and free shipping. But I could buy them locally at full price if I were of a mind. I am not.

So yes, we would like to see a return to good-paying jobs, but not if we have to pay more for our goods as a result. While I realize this may be an over-generalization, Mallick really does speak an unpleasant truth about our contradictory natures.

On a separate topic, Dow Marmur writes about the irony of how our best impulses, our philanthropic ones, may have undesirable and unintended consequences. Echoing a concern I recently voiced here, Marmur opines that private efforts to relieve hunger in fact make it easier for governments to ignore the problem of growing and intractable poverty.

He writes about Mazon, a Jewish group whose aim is to feed those in need irrespective of background and affiliation. So far it has allocated more than $7 million to food banks and related projects across Canada.

Its founding chairman, Rabbi Arthur Bielfeld, recently

... challenged the government to render it and all organizations of its kind obsolete. In reality, however, the need continues to increase multifold. A quarter of a century ago there were 94 food banks in Canada; today there are more than 630.

Citing recent data, Rabbi Bielfeld said that some 900,000 Canadians use food banks every month. Last year more than 150 million pounds of food were distributed to families in need; 38 per cent of recipients were children. This year many will have to make do with less because of growing demand and diminishing resources.

Marmur observes the irony of it and many other organizations committed to the reduction of poverty:

... as essential as it is to help those in need, ironically, the relative success of such efforts helps governments to get off the hook. At times it even seems that charities find themselves inadvertently colluding with the inaction of politicians.

And so we have it. Two very good writers making some very relevant observations about the contradictions that define our humanity. On the one hand we want to be oblivious to the economic and social consequences of our propensity for bargain-hunting; on the other hand, even when we allow our better angels to come to the fore, the results are anything but an unalloyed good.

I guess, as always, the answer to this conundrum ultimately does lie in our own hands.

Canada and Egypt: A Study in Contrasts

My wife, well aware of my anguish over the disengagement with democracy of so many Canadians, made a comment this morning that has inspired this post. She observed the sharp contrast that exists with Egypt, where the notion of democracy is still more a dream than a reality, a dream the people feel is well-worth putting themselves at risk of arrest, injury, and even death, to achieve. This became quite apparent less than two years ago with the vigorous protests leading to the toppling of Hosni Mubarak, and the people's passion continues to this day, evident in the demonstrations against President Mohamed Morsi's attempt to arrogate dictatorial powers in the guise of 'protecting democracy.'

Well, it seems that taking the notion and promise of democracy seriously has paid off for the Egyptians. As reported in today's Star, Morsi made unexpected concessions Saturday in a move to appease opponents — even rescinding most of the Nov. 22 decree that gave him sweeping new powers. While there remains the very real question of whether these concessions will be enough to quell the strong opposition to Morsi, it is nonetheless instructive in what an engaged citizenry can accomplish.

The contrast with Canada couldn't be sharper. I have written several times on the state of democracy under Harper, most times with a note of despair over the willful contempt the Prime Minister has shown for our traditions, and the singular lack of outrage expressed over that contempt by the majority of Canadians. But it would also seem that even when people attempt to participate in the 'discussion,' their voice is ignored, even suppressed.

One of the latest examples demonstrating the contemptuous and autocratic rule of the Harper regime is to be found in the machinations playing out in the Trans-Pacific-Partnership talks, which many claim is one of the biggest threats to our sovereignty to come along in decades. In his column today, Michael Geist reports on the Harper propensity for secrecy and the suppression of any information that contradicts his policies.

Observing that the deal may require a major overhaul of Canadian agriculture, investment, intellectual property and culture protection rules, Geist reports:

The talks remain shrouded in darkness, with a draft text that is secret; public interest groups are largely banned from where the negotiations are being held.

Moreover, the Canadian government has failed to engage openly with the public on the TPP. Foreign Affairs has created an insider “consulting group” that will be granted access to secret and confidential information regarding the negotiations (members of the group are required to sign a nondisclosure agreement). The department has not publicly disclosed the existence of the consulting group or indicated who might be granted privileged access to otherwise confidential information.

To compound this open disdain for any semblance of democratic transparency, despite the fact that the Harper regime launched a six-week public consultation on Canada's potential participation in the trade talks,

... the government never revealed the results. The individual submissions were not posted online and no public report summarizing the responses was ever published.

Yet, according to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, the government was overwhelmed with negative comments urging officials to resist entry into the TPP and the expected pressures for significant intellectual property reforms as part of the deal.

In addition to tens of thousands of form letters and emails criticizing the TPP, the government received hundreds of individual handcrafted responses that unanimously criticized the proposed agreement.

Suppression of information. Contempt for the will of the people. Disregard for democracy. They all sound like pretty good reasons to take to the streets.

I'm sure the Egyptians would agree.

Sins Of The Harper Government: Ministerial Incompetence, Secrecy, and Contempt For Democracy

For anyone who needs a quick primer over the damage being done to Canada and its citizens by the Harper regime, I recommend the following:

In the F-35 fiasco, truth is the first casualty, a stinging indictment not only of the government lies surrounding the true projected costs of the F-35 fighter jets, but also of the incompetence of the teflon Defense Minister, Peter McKay.

Freedom of expression is more than an international issue, in which Star Public Editor Kathy English laments the sad state of our Freedom of Information Act as obstructed by Mr. Hartper et al.

How Harper exploits Canadians’ ignorance of parliamentary democracy, in which Frances Russell explores the debasement of democracy under Harper, and cites other Parliamentary jurisdictions with models that would throttle the near-dictatorial powers the Prime Minister currently wields.

If knowledge is power, it is time we all begin arming ourselves with the facts.

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Tim Hudak?

I guess the short answer is to ignore the prating lad. Failing such a massive challenge to self-discipline and restraint, I suppose the other best answer is to hold his pronouncements up to public scrutiny, a goal I have modestly tried to achieve in this blog.

Such scrutiny invariably gives rise to ridicule; the risible nature of most of Tim's recycled pronouncements, many of which are mere carry-overs from the inaptly named Common Sense Revolution of his failed mentor, Mike Harris, invite such a response.

As usual, Toronto Star readers are happy to share their own observations, their letters-to-the-editor mirroring, I suspect, widely-held assessments of the young leader of Ontario's Progressive Conservative Party. To whet your appetite to read the full array of their reflections, here are a few of them:

There are no demonstrations at Queen’s Park demanding that the LCBO be privatized. The demands are coming from businesses that want to make profits.

Hudak says that “competition” is needed and it’s time to end the monopoly. Why would we take a monopoly that serves the public interest and change it to one that serves the private few?

Remember when the Tories introduced “competition” into the electricity sector? Rates have now tripled. Has “competition” lowered gasoline rates, car insurance rates or credit card interest rates?

To use Tory terms, the LCBO benefits from “economies of scale” that have resulted in “increased efficiencies.” The LCBO is extremely well run and well organized. Its profits serve all the people in Ontario.

Hudak is just a schill who wants to transfer that public wealth to the private few.

Paul Kahnert, Markham

There is an error in the following letter, which infers that The Beer Store is a government operation. It is, in fact, a private consortium:

So it’s official. Politicians are out of ideas. Is the tired (and tried) chestnut of privatizing the LCBO and Beer Store really the best Tim Hudak has to offer us? I guess “a chicken in every pot” didn’t test well.

Never mind the LCBO and Beer Store provide quality employment for 10,000 Ontarians and are reliable cash cows for the government, helping fund education, healthcare and social programs. Got to keep the stumping simple and treat the electorate as simple-minded.

David Kinahan, Toronto

With the government looking for ways to decrease its (our) huge debt, only a fool would suggest privatizing the LCBO cash-cow that brings in a billion a year.

The beer stores are in a different category, as they are owned by foreign breweries. They should be privatized as soon as possible and corner stores should be allowed to sell beer.

As for Tim Hudak, first he says: “let’s let the private sector into the alcohol business, let’s have some more competition.” Then he says there would be no reduction in the price of alcoholic beverages.

No wonder Hudak lost the election. He’s a dumkopf.

William Bedford, Toronto

Let me transpose what Mr. Hudak is really saying here. He can’t create any meaningful jobs so what he’s proposing is a liquor store on every corner — in the U.S. there’d also be a gun store.

So he wants you to know that when you really need to lash out at your family, because you just can’t find work, there will be a source of mind-numbing alcohol close by for your comfort. Because we all know alcohol is just like comfort food in a crisis.

Bon appetite.

Richard Kadziewicz, Scarborough

A Law And Order Government That Loves Guns - Part 2

The post I wrote yesterday elicited a rather spirited and passionate response from one of its readers. Since I promised a reply to Anonymous after reading the links he provided, I thought I would base today's contribution on his observations.

First, one of the points Anon made (I will reproduce his entire commentary in a moment) turned out to be largely correct. He asserted that the Harper government would not loosen the gun laws based on the committee recommendations. As reported in The Globe, in a link provided by Anon, the Prime Minister, in a rare move that bespeaks common sense over partisan priorities, has firmly stated that prohibited weapons such as the Ak-47 assault weapon will not be reclassified as 'restricted,' something that would have made them much more readily available.

What follows is the exchange Anon and I had over my original post:

Do you even understand what any of the above terminology actually means?

Do you not realize that these recommendations were made in March? How long do you think that the Toronto Star has been sitting on this non-story? Any particular reason that they maybe chose today to print this?

To which I responded:

I believe I understand both the terminology and the implications of the Harper thrust to appeal almost exclusively to its constituency, Anon.

As to why The Star chose to print the story today, I would think the answer is obvious: to show the absolute hypocrisy of a government that claims to be hard on crime while at the same time making it easier to acquire and maintain the weapons that would facilitate crime.

I hope I have answered your questions to your satisfaction.

Anon replied:

Not even close. The government is probably finished with firearms. The only recommendations that might be examined is the merging ATT's with licenses, if only because it won't cost the government much. There's the merger of the POL and PAL, which you don't mention. Beyond that...

It's unlikely that the government would choose to reclassify prohibited weapons as restricted. At best, the government could remove the OiC prohibitions on named weapons like the AK-47, or more likely it's semi-auto only equivalent. The tories aren't stupid enough to change automatics as an class from prohibited to restricted. At best, the civilian variant of the AK, semi-auto only could be taken off the prohibited-by-name list. Consider: http://www.wolverinesupplies.com/details/3426/CZ-858-2-Canadian-Model-762-x-39-19-Barrel.aspx. It's not an AK, it's a CZ-858. It LOOKS a bit like an AK. It's in the same caliber as the AK. It has roughly equivalent capabilites as a semi-auto only AK. That firearm is non-restricted. This is a Saiga semi-automatic rifle: http://www.jgsales.com/saiga-7.62x39-ak47-style-semi-automatic-rifle.-imported-and-converted-by-cai.-new.-p-7043.html. Same caliber as the CZ-858. Basically the same capabilities as the CZ-858. It's prohibited because it's an AK "variant." What kind of sense does this make, and what does it do for Canadians?

You obviously don't know what an authorization to transport is. An authorization to transport is a piece of paper issued by a provincial CFO which allows the owner of a restricted firearm to transport their trigger-locked, unloaded and encased firearm to a shooting range, and home again, by the shortest possible route, making no stops in between. Presently, an authorization to transport must be obtained separately to being licensed. It's a needless duplication of paperwork, and does nothing to enhance public safety. I don't see how that would stop the police one iota from laying criminal charges upon an offending individual whether or not the ATT was separate.

Fourth, allowing police forces to sell firearms to the public. The sales of siezed firearms used to be a significant contributor to police budgets. Since C-68, the police have had to make do without that income, further increasing the strain on municipal and provincial budgets, with no effect on public safety. Finally, making firearms licenses last 10 years does not in fact strip the RCMP of its ability to stop licenses, "the form must be verified by another person."

That's an outright lie. This is the actual form that an individual must fill out to renew their firearms license: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/form-formulaire/pdfs/979-eng.pdf. (THIS WAS A LINK I WAS UNABLE TO CONNECT TO) Note that there is no section for verrification by a third party, except a person's spouse, or former spouse. They are only expected to declare that they are aware of the applicant's application for renewal not verrify its authenticity.

As to why the Star chose to publish such an obviously loaded article today, it's clearly to spread irrational fear and provoke knee-jerk reactions among those who share your political bias. And, you fell for it. Why wouldn't the Star publish this in say, June, or August? They did it quite deliberately.

The Star's piece has had the opposite of its intended effect, as several members of the so-called gun-lobby wouldn't actually know about the recommendations if the Star had just kept quiet. In fact, I have personally witnessed several people announce that they'll be making donations to the CPC in direct response to the committee's recommendations, even if the government does nothing.

When is your side ever going to learn that in order to win this particular fight, it must either become educated about firearms, and how they are regulated in Canada, OR, it must learn to keep quiet when it comes to guns, because ignorance, and blatant pandering are just going to keep fueling your enemy's coffers?

While I appreciate the passion and the research that Anon put into his response, his interpretation of the data differs from my own in some fundamental ways. For example, I see even the possibility of a reclassification of the weapons he describes a cause for grave concern, since those weapons serve only one primary purpose, in my mind (an assertion that Anon would likely disagree with).

As well, the sale of seized weaponry may make economic sense, as Anon points out, but from my perspective, anything that facilitates the circulation of guns comes at too high a potential cost to society.

Also, I heartily disagree with his contention that 'my side' unless we have done copious research 'must learn to keep quiet when it comes to guns ... because ignorance, and blatant pandering are just going to keep fueling your enemy's coffers.' Nor do I fault The Star for printing the story. In a democratic and pluralistic society, debate is the one of our key rights and responsibilities. Indeed, what may strike one person as asinine may strike another as perceptive and informed. Hopefully, some new knowledge might ultimately be achieved through the clash of viewpoints.

Left unaddressed in Anon's commentary is a disturbing fact that, according to The Globe article to which he directed me, may be soon rectified. Despite pleas from law enforcement and victims of gun crime for representation, the firearms committee is dominated by sport shooting enthusiasts and those opposed to gun control. Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae suggested that the committee

needed wider representation, including from police chiefs, those fighting domestic violence and groups dealing with suicide prevention, Mr. Harper all but agreed.

Had The Star not run the story, I am dubious as to whether Stephen Harper would have been so receptive to the suggestion.

A testy exchange between Anon and me? Yes. But the fact that we have a fundamental and deep philosophical disagreement neither disturbs nor upsets me, one of the reasons being that unlike so much right-wing commentary that relies on bluster, bullying and empty rhetoric (and I am sure Anon would accuse his ideological opponents of the same shortcomings), Anon made a sincere attempt to support his point of view with documentation. Even though I was unable to get all of the links to function properly, I do appreciate the effort that he made.

It is to state the obvious that we live in extremely polarized times, times when the strategy of many is to simply shout down their opponents. I think the information provided by Anon in our exchange amply demonstrates the possibility of something more productive.

A Law and Order Government That Loves Guns

Anyone still harbouring doubts about whose interests the Harper regime is governing on behalf of would be well-advised to read this story in today's Star. Entitled RCMP concerned as Conservatives consider loosening firearms restrictions, it reveals the latest legislative considerations of a government that claims to be tough on crime, but sees little reason to reduce the opportunity to commit crime.

Co-chaired by Steve Torino of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, the Canadian Firearms Advisory Committee met with Public Safety Minister Vic Toews and other senior government officials in Ottawa in late March, after the bill to kill the long-gun registry had cleared the Commons and was on the verge of Senate approval.

The committee, comprised almost exclusively of lads who love their guns, has made a series of recommendation to the Harper regime. Amongst the gems are the following:

- getting rid of the “prohibited” category of firearms

- reclassifying weapons such as certain handguns and assault weapons (for example, the AK-47, shown in the picture at the top of this post) as “restricted” only

- removing the requirement on gun owners to get an “authorization to transport” firearms

- making seized firearms — which by law must now be destroyed — legally available for public sale or trade

- making [f]irearms licences ... valid for at least 10 years “or longer,”, a move strongly opposed by the RCMP, since it would impede their “ability to monitor, on a timely basis, any changes to an individual’s mental health status”

The entire breadth of the committee's recommendations can be read here, but surely even the brief overview I have included in this post should be sufficient to lead right-thinking people to realize that whoever the Harper regime is governing on behalf of, it surely isn't the majority of Canadians.

A Clarification From Young Tim

Tim Hudak, the boy who would be premier, has issued a policy clarification:

Hudak said the thrust of his proposal to put alcoholic beverages in corner stores, supermarkets or private specialty stores is to make it easier for Ontario consumers to buy a six-pack of beer or a bottle of wine.

Should the master recycler of tired ideas ever attain his ambition of leading the province, I suspect that the ready availability of alcohol, and the temporary solace it provides, will be much appreciated by Ontarians.