Hopefully, they will be returned to their enclosures post-haste:
The Liberal campaign is confronted by some protestors at a campaign stop in Coburg. They are yelling about freedom and vaccines as Trudeau speaks. There is swearing in this video.
I am disappointed with my fellow Canadians who choose not to get vaccinated, for various personal reasons each have expressed.
These individuals could be relatives, friends, neighbours, young and old and come from all walks of life, but even after conversations and education on the matter, they continue to hold strong against vaccination.
I have lost a brother to COVID-19 who was living in a nursing home in Toronto. Both my father in Toronto and father-in-law in Calgary, who were living in personal homes, died from COVID contracted from in-home health-care providers.
The government should mandate vaccinations for all Canadians, and if they do not have the political willpower to do this, then at least target the health-care sector who, by profession, are there to save lives and not endangering the sick and vulnerable.
If individuals choose not to get vaccinated, they should have to purchase a health insurance policy to cover costs if they get sick with COVID.
Why should fellow Canadians have to not only deal with the selfishness of individuals who choose not to be vaccinated, but have to pay for their misguided decisions as they fill up our hospitals and stress out are dedicated health care professionals?
Then there is this, from an Ontario resident:
I guess the above describes what happens in a society led by political cowards, those who rule by fear of offending their traditional bases of support. I guess they haven't gotten the memo that when it comes to Covid-19, the tide has definitely turned.
Thank you for reading my letter.
Let me begin by saying that I had hoped to maintain a congratulatory tone throughout this missive. After all, you have done a very good job keeping us relatively safe during the extraordinary times we have undergone these past 17 months.
You delivered on the vaccine.
You delivered with CERB
You initiated badly-needed supports for businesses devastated by the pandemic.
You set a national example during our time of confinement.
You followed the Covid rules, isolating when required.
You showed your willingness to forsake tonsorial splendour.
You talked to us daily about the disease.
You wore a mask.
Essentially, you were a positive role model when the times demanded one.
You really had our backs.
But now, sadly, I must turn to the darker side of your soul, the political part demonstrating the grave dichotomy between your public persona and your deeper self.
What will so many people infer from your calling an unnecessary election during a fourth wave? Surely many will see it as a reckless, even ruthless, willingness to place your political hopes (a majority government) over the health and safety of your fellow citizens.
Consider this. A fourth wave of Covid is convulsing the nation. People, even the vaccinated, are contracting the Delta variant, said to be as contagious as chicken pox and deadlier than the original virus.
Your chief medical health officer, Teresa Tam, continues to advise extreme caution.
In Canada's most populous province, Ontario, growth of the virus is alarming, and has now reached a reproduction rate of 1.62, meaning, of course, that every 100 Covid cases causes an average of 162 infections.
Of course, you know all of this. And yet you are calling an election that will require millions of Canadians to congregate dangerously at polling stations, which brings me to another disturbing point about your recklessness. Presumably, the bulk of polling stations will be in their traditional locales, many of which are schools. Have you not considered the health risks you are inflicting on children trying to get back to a reasonable approximation of traditional learning?
There is more that I could say, but allow me to close by reiterating my disappointment in the path the media tell us you have chosen. It is a path that will serve only to deepen cynicism in an electorate that expects much better of you.
I have just read a fascinating book by Anand Giridharadas entitled Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. His thesis: that big-name, wealthy and corporate philanthropists, aided and abetted by world 'thought leaders,' do much good in the world, but the solutions they promote are also benefitting them while at the same time protecting the status quo, i.e. the systems that are in fact responsible for inequality, poverty, lack of opportunity, etc. Hence, increased taxation and regulation are off the table.
Examples abound of what this means in practical terms: charter schools instead of ensuring proper funding for all schools through decent levels of taxation; developing companies and apps like Uber or Lyft that promote precarity and are strongly anti-union, all while touting 'greater consumer choice' and worker 'flexibility' but taking no responsibility for their employees, whom they term 'independent contractors' and hence not subject to minimum wage laws, labour legislation, etc.
These movers and shakers have a simple mantra: do good by doing well. In other words, my success is the world's success, a win-win situation.
Except that it isn't. In pursuing this very narrow filter for philanthropy, it is doing two things: misdirecting people away from the underlying causes of the problem, as previously stated, and undermining democracy by promoting the idea that business, not government, is the answer to the world's problems - a neoliberal's dream!
That government should get out of the way of business is, of course, nothing new, and is frequently found in the policies of the Trudeau government, from the leveraging of Infrastructure Bank funds to pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into foreign pharmaceuticals (think Sanofi and BioNtech) to set up shop in Canada.
But I digress.
One of the best illustrations of the corporate world's 'charitable' practices can be found in this excerpt from a book entitled Take the Money and Run, an indictment of the unholy relationship that exists between food banks and Walmart Canada:
For decades critics have identified Walmart Canada’s employment practices — characterized by inadequate wages with few benefits — as contributing to household food insecurity (HFI). Walmart Canada also opposes unionization drives which would result in higher wages and benefits through the collective bargaining process. In a remarkable example of image management, Walmart Canada now brands itself as an important ally in reducing HFI by entering a partnership with the major food bank association in Canada, Food Banks Canada (FBC).
Mastering the magician's art of misdirection, corporations like Walmart burnish their images and derive practical benefits such as the avoidance of costly disposal fees while the underlying causes of food insecurity go unaddressed:
Walmart Canada’s contribution to food banks, when placed against its history of anti-union activities and its effects upon their own workers and other workers’ well-being, is trivial. Its anti-union activities have a far greater impact upon HFI, and not for the good. Additionally, Walmart Canada and other similar corporations — through partnerships with CSOs such as FBC — go from villains to saviours, making dealing with the causes of HFI such as low wages and inadequate social assistance benefits more difficult. Such partnerships make it unlikely that HFI organizations such as Food Banks Canada will call for reducing HFI by raising minimum wages, promoting unionization and increasing corporate taxes on profitable corporations such as Walmart Canada to help restore the Canadian social safety net. In fact, the chair of the FBC’s board of directors of FBC is a vice-president of Walmart Canada.
The authors suggest that Food Banks Canada should make a better use of their resources:
Instead of embracing Walmart Canada as a partner, FBC and its affiliated food banks should highlight how unjust and unfair employment creates HFI and call for major reform of the employment market as a means of reducing HFI in Canada. They should also resist the role that corporate lobbying plays in maintaining low wages and poverty-inducing social assistance levels. Embracing corporations and polishing their images is not a solution to HFI in Canada.
Most of us, both as individuals and corporate entities, like to feel good about our philanthropic practices. But I leave the final word to Hamlet about the dangers of ignoring or minimizing the underlying causes of, in this case, the socio-economic diseases we seek to cure:
Lay not that flattering unction to your soul
….
It will but but skin and film the ulcerous place
Whiles rank corruption, mining all within,
Infects unseen.
that flattering unction to your soul
That not your trespass but my madness speaks.
It will but skin and film the ulcerous place,
Whiles rank corruption, mining all within,
Infects unseen.
I hope to be back with something new tomorrow. In the meantime, this speaks volumes:
I somehow doubt it is possible anymore to "fly the friendly skies" south of us.
