The Illusion Of Choice

I know that I am but one of millions who long for the day the Harper regime is electorally deposed. That day cannot come soon enough. Yet, along with countless others, I am also aware that merely electing a Liberal or NDP government may only mean a change in style, not substance, given the many positions they hold in common with Dear Leader.

The anti-terror measures of Bill C-51 is one very worrisome case in point.

In today's Star, Thomas Walkom makes the following observations:

Both New Democratic Party Leader Tom Mulcair and Liberal chieftain Justin Trudeau danced warily around the substance of Bill C-51.

They had nothing to say about measures that would criminalize speech the government deemed pro-terrorist.

They had no views on proposals that would give 17 security agencies access to any information in any government department on any Canadian.

They said nothing about a section of the bill that would permit the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to engage in illegal and unconstitutional dirty tricks.

Indeed, the only criticism of Bill C-51 levelled by the Liberals and New Democrats to date is that it doesn’t provide parliamentary oversight of security agencies that have been given these new powers.

Which is another way of saying to Harper: We don’t mind if you erode civil liberties, as long as you let a few of us in on what you’re up to.

Wary of being labelled 'soft on terrorism,' the leaders of the two parties vying to replace Harper are revealing once more that the quest for power takes primacy over what is best for Canadians. No questions about why such measure are needed. No queries about what the inadequacy of existing laws might be. Only silent consent with a soupçon of carping at the periphery.

Contrast that cowardice with the brave and consistent integrity of Green Party leader Elizabeth May:

She said Monday in the Commons that it would turn CSIS into a “secret police force.”

She also asked if the bill’s remarkably broad definition of crimes against the security of Canada included anti-pipeline protests (and got no answer).

And so the charade goes on.

But where are the rest of us on this issue? Despite a very compelling warning by Edward Snowden as well as objections by The Canadian Civil Liberties Union and others, far too many of us seem content to shrug our shoulders and dismiss concerns with a simple, "I'm not a terrorist, so why should I worry?" an attitude fraught with pitfalls.

But I guess there is at least one undeniable inference to be drawn from all of this: Human beings are remarkably consistent in their ability to ignore the lessons of history.

A Timely Warning From Edward Snowden

But will anyone listen?

Edward Snowden, the man wanted for leaking U.S. security documents in 2013 says Canadians should be “extraordinarily cautious” in reference to an anti-terror bill proposed by the Harper government. Snowden and journalist Glenn Greenwald spoke to a group of Toronto students Monday evening.

An Explanation For Baird's Departure?

Ed Tanas has perhaps hit upon the reason for the pitbull's pending egress from federal politics:

John Baird resigning due to PTED (Post Traumatic Egging Disorder)?



Or could it be this, which Ed also sent along? (Satire alert!)



And the National Post's John Ivison speculates that it may be that he is being pushed.

John Baird to Resign?

If true, this is quite unexpected.

Herr Harper, His Propaganda Machine, Your Tax Dollars

Hmmm.... it seems that the CBC has not yet quite capitulated to the Harper regime, at least when chief appeaser Peter Mansbridge isn't hosting The National:

Have Your Say

I see that the Globe and Mail is conducting an online poll, the full results of which will be published February 7, as we approach the ninth anniversary of Harperland. While it asks several questions, its theme is this: How do you feel about the Canada Stephen Harper has shaped?

Those wishing to express their views can do so by clicking here.

And On A Personal Note...

I thought long and hard before making the decision to post the following, for two reasons: one, in the broader scheme of things it is a quite negligible plaint, and two, it perhaps exposes me as the petty and vindictive person that I on occasion can be. On the other hand, since it deals with what I consider to be exploitative and disdainful corporate practices, it may be of interest to some readers.

I will let this letter that I sent off to Air Transat speak for itself:

To Whom it May Concern:

Recently, my wife and I flew Air Transat to Cuba, departing from Toronto early morning January 23 and arriving back in Toronto January 30 at about 5:00 pm. While our one-week sojourn on the Caribbean island was a delight, our experiences with your airline were not. As a consequence, we will no longer be patronizing Air Transat unless there is absolutely no alternative.

On our previous trip to Cuba, we had a good experience with Sunwing, where a 'snack' is the choice of a substantial sandwich or pizza. A large cookie constituted dessert. Additionally, a glass of champagne and wine with the snack were provided at no charge, as were the headphones. Ensuring that the passengers feel respected appears to be part of Sunwing's business philosophy.

Clearly, Air Transat embraces an entirely different view of the customer, first evidenced by the fact that your airline's 'snack' consisted of a Krispy Kernnels 14 gram (.50 oz.) bag of bbq toasted corn, the quantity about the size of the ones found in bulk Halloween bags. Any sustenance that might have been considered appropriate for a journey of three and one-half hours cost at least $7. To compound the insult, headphones were offered at $8 each.

It is clear from the above that you view your passengers, not as paying guests but rather as cash cows. Since I am not given to the kind of bovine passivity that afflicts so many others, I find such a corporate attitude quite objectionable and unacceptable.

The return trip had even more unpleasantness in store. My sister-in-law, who accompanied us on our trip, paid for preferred seating because she is tall. She was supposed to have been guaranteed the same aisle seat both going and returning. However, she was assigned a different seat on our return, and when she pointed out to the head attendant she needed an aisle seat, she was rather imperiously told, 'That's not going to happen.' When I pointed out to the attendant that she had paid for her seat choice, she said, “Everyone just calm down.” Frankly, I have not been spoken to in such a condescending manner since childhood. I then pointed out to her that it was disgraceful that she didn't get the seat she paid for.

My sister-in-law, when we deplaned, told me that the offending attendant was later conciliatory and told her she would be able to get her seating surcharge reimbursed, so I speak only for myself and my wife here when I say that the attendant's initial disdainful response was disrespectful but hardly surprising, given the attitude your company seems to have toward its customers.

In a few days I shall be posting my comments on some travel forums. I strongly suggest that you rethink your arrogant and exploitative attitudes before you find more and more travellers choosing alternative carriers.