Canada Continues to Export Death

The NDP motion read as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) ban the use and export of asbestos; (b) support international efforts to add chrysotile asbestos to the list of hazardous chemical products under the Rotterdam Convention; (c) assist affected workers by developing a Just Transition Plan with measures to accommodate their re-entry into the workforce; (d) introduce measures dedicated to affected older workers, through the employment insurance program, to assure them of a decent standard of living until retirement; and (e) support communities and municipalities in asbestos producing regions through an investment fund for regional economic diversification.

Predictably, the Harper-led Conservative majority defeated the motion, with a final vote of 152-123. No report on how Conservative M.P Dr. Kellie Leitch voted, but my guess is with her government.

The immorality continues; Canada continues to kill in our name.

A Tax on Financial Transactions

The Globe and Mail has an online story reporting Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan's adamant opposition to any consideration of a tax on financial transactions at the G20. Although the article doesn't provide details, most of what I have read about such a measure would involve the following: 0.1 per cent tax on transactions of stocks and bonds and 0.01 per cent on derivatives.

While the advocates of unfettered capitalism are always reluctant to share, given the preferential tax treatment capital gains and dividends receive, such a measure would hardly be punitive, and would contribute substantially to efforts to relieve the grinding poverty in which much of the world lives. In the West, the revenues from the tax could be used for many purposes, including better funding for healthcare, climate change adaptation and costs, etc.

However, just as with proposals to combat climate change, I suspect that nothing will come of the G20 discussion for the same reason, namely that without universal application of such a tax, it would be unfair and counterproductive, or so we are told.

Clearly the North American powers-that-be have not been paying attention to the the needs of the people, as recently reflected in the Occupy Movement.

Seattle Police and the OWS Movement

Many thanks to Roxy Katt for her post and link to a story and video showing Seattle Police arresting a woman for opening up an umbrella while on the ground in a park, a practice recently banned by the city.

While watching the video, I initially had the sense that the police were behaving so gingerly in making the arrest because a camera was filming the action. Then I started to wonder whether or not it might also be indicative of their ambivalence about what they had to do. Did they too think the new law, which they are required to enforce, is an oppressive response to peaceful protest?

A Video That Police In All Democracies Should be Required To Watch

Sometimes sweet justice prevails. Watch this video from Democracy Now's Amy Goodman to see how.

Reasons To Occupy Toronto

There are many Canadians, most prominently Prime Minister Harper, who dismiss the Occupy Movement as having little or no relevance for Canadians. In a column specifically directed toward the young, but of significance to all progressives, The Star's Heather Mallick, with both style and considerable humour, today offers a wealth of reasons that counter this notion.

Another Excellent Column From Rick Salutin

As I have written elsewhere, in my view there are few Canadian columnists who can match or exceed the depth and range of intellect consistently reflected in the work of The Star's Rick Salutin. In today's piece, entitled Drawing inspiration from the strike that wasn’t, he explores the relationship between democracy and unions, reminding us that their members are the unions, not the executive, not the bargaining committee, not the leadership in general. He also reminds us of the challenges they face in the current political climate.

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.