Homeless in Abbotsford, BC
I DO NOT, HAVE NOT, WOULD NOT ever suggest throwing money at a problem. I am a REALIST, believing in examining a problem to understand what the situation IS. I am not an Ideologue who, wearing the blinders of ideology, looks at a situation and sees what they want to see, not what really is. There is NO perfect solution. A system dealing with people demands flexibility and denies neat, easy answers. Rigidly applying Ideology guarantees failure. How I came to homelessness: click Backstory below.
Vote James W. Breckenridge
I am currently running for a seat on Abbotsford City Council. In connection with that I have launched www.jameswbreckenridge.ca.
As you can well imagine life is rather hectic right now so I am focused on posting to the new website.
Please check out www.jameswbreckenridge.ca - you can subscribe to the new site to ensure you get all the postings.
Also please be sure to get out and vote - preferably for Breckenridge.
Thank you.
I am currently running for a seat on Abbotsford City Council. In connection with that I have launched www.jameswbreckenridge.ca.
As you can well imagine life is rather hectic right now so I am focused on posting to the new website.
Please check out www.jameswbreckenridge.ca - you can subscribe to the new site to ensure you get all the postings.
Also please be sure to get out and vote - preferably for Breckenridge.
Thank you.
Reality Check
I spent some extra time with some homeless friends today as a reminder and reality check.
There is this kafuffle going on concerning the building of safe, affordable, supported housing in Abbotsford with BC Housing and Social Development picking up the cheque.
It was not the fact that none of us know what type of housing were are talking of at this point and won’t know what type of housing it is that is proposed to be built until the submissions are made in response to BC Housing’s call for proposal submissions that had me seeking a reality check.
The reality check was set in motion by the comment from someone experienced with politics in Abbotsford who said that the way to win a council seat was to come out in opposition to building this type of housing or housing of this type on these sites or for building this type of housing only in the “right place” and that supporting this housing, no matter how badly needed, was political suicide.
I had found myself thinking along those lines as I sat at both Wednesday’s and Thursday’s public meetings. It was on my mind when I got up to speak on Thursday evening. When speaking to someone after Monday’s council meeting I found myself wondering if I should admit my name and that I was a candidate for council. I knew what the proper course of action was and I took that course of action but I was aware of the political implications and was tempted to take easy way out.
That temptation had me heading off to spend time with some homeless friends for a reality check and a reminder – of who I am and what I stand for.
Abbotsford has some serious problems it must address such as homelessness. A major reason homelessness and related social problems have become such a large and pressing issue is the failure to deal with the problems. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the failure is the result of avoiding having to make unpleasant decisions and tough, unpopular decisions.
To often the politically astute choices are the wrong choices because the politically astute choices are choosing not to deal with the problem in an effective manner to avoid conflict or making an unpopular decision.
So it was that I sat down to talk to my homeless friends about this because they have a way of cutting through the angst and inner conflict of such dilemmas to ground one in the harsh reality of the streets and remind me of who it is that I am and that I am prepared to stand for something rather than rolling along whichever way the wind is blowing.
I spent some extra time with some homeless friends today as a reminder and reality check.
There is this kafuffle going on concerning the building of safe, affordable, supported housing in Abbotsford with BC Housing and Social Development picking up the cheque.
It was not the fact that none of us know what type of housing were are talking of at this point and won’t know what type of housing it is that is proposed to be built until the submissions are made in response to BC Housing’s call for proposal submissions that had me seeking a reality check.
The reality check was set in motion by the comment from someone experienced with politics in Abbotsford who said that the way to win a council seat was to come out in opposition to building this type of housing or housing of this type on these sites or for building this type of housing only in the “right place” and that supporting this housing, no matter how badly needed, was political suicide.
I had found myself thinking along those lines as I sat at both Wednesday’s and Thursday’s public meetings. It was on my mind when I got up to speak on Thursday evening. When speaking to someone after Monday’s council meeting I found myself wondering if I should admit my name and that I was a candidate for council. I knew what the proper course of action was and I took that course of action but I was aware of the political implications and was tempted to take easy way out.
That temptation had me heading off to spend time with some homeless friends for a reality check and a reminder – of who I am and what I stand for.
Abbotsford has some serious problems it must address such as homelessness. A major reason homelessness and related social problems have become such a large and pressing issue is the failure to deal with the problems. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the failure is the result of avoiding having to make unpleasant decisions and tough, unpopular decisions.
To often the politically astute choices are the wrong choices because the politically astute choices are choosing not to deal with the problem in an effective manner to avoid conflict or making an unpopular decision.
So it was that I sat down to talk to my homeless friends about this because they have a way of cutting through the angst and inner conflict of such dilemmas to ground one in the harsh reality of the streets and remind me of who it is that I am and that I am prepared to stand for something rather than rolling along whichever way the wind is blowing.
Supportive Housing Proposal
- discussion pointless without information
I want to thank the gentleman (and his wife) I spoke to after this afternoons (Monday October 20, 2008) Council meeting for his patience in taking the time to talk to me.
Listening to what he and his wife had to say was though provoking and sent me back to read all the documents and material again from as analytical/language/neutral prospective as possible.I read the handouts, went to government web sites and read the materials there and went back over all these materials again.
The conclusion I reached was that the documents were written in bafflegab (confusing or generally unintelligible jargon; gobbledegook), complicated by government bureaucratese (a style of language that is full of circumlocutions, euphemisms, buzzwords etc) and ass covering language.
It is no wonder that at the community meetings city staff (with apologies) appeared somewhat clueless and less than truthful vis-à-vis the proposed housing. Reading over the material available this afternoon, this housing could be anything; mention is made of the second stage housing I was told it was to be and was speaking of OR it could be minimal barrier housing OR it could be something else entirely.
There is no way to tell what kind of housing we are speaking of. Without knowing what type of housing we are talking about there is no way to make any judgment, must less a decision, on location.
I spoke to Mr. Giesbrecht this evening (Monday) and while I am not in agreement (or necessarily disagreement - to many unknowns), with his preference to build nothing there I do agree with his point that without knowing what other options as to location are available and the pros and cons of the locations you cannot judge “best’ location. I would go so far as to say that without knowing what kind of housing we are speaking off there is no way to judge if a location is even suitable, much less good or the best.
We agreed that from the information provided one cannot know or understand what type of housing or who the occupants will be or who will be responsible for the operation of the housing and that that information is critical. Speaking to Mr. Geisbrecht did send me back to read the Questions and Answers handout from the City.
I said to some people on Wednesday night in reference to the first community meeting that I was not sure that this type of meeting and the timing was a good idea. I can now say that this type of meeting and the timing was an ill-considered idea.
Until the city and citizens know what kind of housing, tenants and operating organization we are talking about any discussion is pointless. Garbage in garbage out, certainly applies here where we are missing the most vital pieces of information needed to judge the matter which means any decision at this point could be flawed, wrong or garbage – or all three.
The city cannot and should not be having a discussion on the matter of this proposal until they (and citizens) know what is being talked about in terms of what kind of housing, tenants and operating organizations are under consideration.
We need to step back and wait for the information needed to have an intelligent conversation, make an informed judgment and come to a sensible decision is available.
At that point we will at least all know what we are talking about and if we have points of disagreement we will at least be disagreeing about the same thing. We will not be arguing/comparing apples to oranges to watermelons to kiwi to pineapples etc. as we currently are doing.
Re-writing History?
“Gibson initially spoke out against the Plan A initiative but later supported it after the three projects received public support through two referenda.”
Let us be accurate here – there were not two referendums on Plan A. The first referendum Mr. Gibson cites was only permission to make a plan and present it to the community. It was in no way an approval of Plan A - except perhaps in the minds of those desperately seeking to justify their support of Plan A.
More importantly, if as he states Mr. Gibson was opposed to Plan A his duty to the people who elected him was to stand up and speak his opposition out loudly during the Plan A debate, informing the public of his opposition so they could take that into consideration as they voted on Plan A
As a strong and vocal opponent of Plan A I attended all public meetings and sessions about Plan A and carefully scoured the local papers for any words written about Plan A.
I do not recall hearing or reading of Mr. Gibson speaking out against Plan A nor do any citizens I spoke with about Mr. Gibson’s claim remember any statement or statements by Mr. Gibson against Plan A.
Given the closeness of the referendum results, a long term Councillor such as Mr. Gibson speaking out against Plan A would in all probability have resulted in a NO outcome and spared taxpayers the large cost overruns, the large tax increases and the debt load the city carries as a result of Plan A.
Massive cost overruns, high taxes and big debt load – all barriers to filling more pressing needs for the city such as infrastructure. Leaving one to wonder how if indeed “Municipal infrastructure, particularly roads, is a high priority for Gibson” he could have failed to strongly and vocally oppose Plan A – as did those of us who also had concerns about municipal infrastructure? How could he in any way support Plan A when it would be a major barrier to being able to fund infrastructure?
Why did we the public not hear of Mr. Gibson’s opposition to Plan A? How could Mr. Gibson vote for Plan A and its costs if infrastructure is a high priority for him?
“Gibson initially spoke out against the Plan A initiative but later supported it after the three projects received public support through two referenda.”
Let us be accurate here – there were not two referendums on Plan A. The first referendum Mr. Gibson cites was only permission to make a plan and present it to the community. It was in no way an approval of Plan A - except perhaps in the minds of those desperately seeking to justify their support of Plan A.
More importantly, if as he states Mr. Gibson was opposed to Plan A his duty to the people who elected him was to stand up and speak his opposition out loudly during the Plan A debate, informing the public of his opposition so they could take that into consideration as they voted on Plan A
As a strong and vocal opponent of Plan A I attended all public meetings and sessions about Plan A and carefully scoured the local papers for any words written about Plan A.
I do not recall hearing or reading of Mr. Gibson speaking out against Plan A nor do any citizens I spoke with about Mr. Gibson’s claim remember any statement or statements by Mr. Gibson against Plan A.
Given the closeness of the referendum results, a long term Councillor such as Mr. Gibson speaking out against Plan A would in all probability have resulted in a NO outcome and spared taxpayers the large cost overruns, the large tax increases and the debt load the city carries as a result of Plan A.
Massive cost overruns, high taxes and big debt load – all barriers to filling more pressing needs for the city such as infrastructure. Leaving one to wonder how if indeed “Municipal infrastructure, particularly roads, is a high priority for Gibson” he could have failed to strongly and vocally oppose Plan A – as did those of us who also had concerns about municipal infrastructure? How could he in any way support Plan A when it would be a major barrier to being able to fund infrastructure?
Why did we the public not hear of Mr. Gibson’s opposition to Plan A? How could Mr. Gibson vote for Plan A and its costs if infrastructure is a high priority for him?
Tax cuts? What tax cuts?
Listening to the “we’re asking for your input” advertisements from Gordon Campbell and his BC Liberals two points struck me.
The first point was that the ads were formatted to appear to be requests for input from citizens, rather than the rah-rah, self-promotional sales ads for Campbell and his BC Liberals they are. Formatting the ads in this manner means citizens get to pay for being inundated with self-congratulatory, we’re (Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals) wonderful ads. Apparently Campbell and the BC Liberals felt there was no ethical reason they should pay for self-promotional ads when a little formatting can stick BC citizens with the bill.The second point is that these ads clearly attempt to convey the false impression that Gordon Campbell and his BC Liberals have given tax cuts to all BC citizens.
The true reality is that only wealthy citizens have enjoyed a tax cut and are now paying less money to the government, while the majority of BC citizens are in fact paying higher taxes under Gordon Campbell.
Remember a tax is any sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services. Thus the $75 fee for renewing your drivers licence is a tax by another name.
What Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals have done is to replace progressive taxes - where those who can afford to pay more taxes (the wealthy) do so and those who cannot afford high levels of taxation (the working poor, those living in poverty etc) pay less tax – with regressive taxes where the poor pay the same tax as the rich.
To the working poor earning the minimum wage that $75 licence fee represents more than a day’s wages (9 hours) while to a highly paid bureaucrat it is less than an hours wage (approx. 40 minutes). Clearly the $75 licence fee (tax) is a much more onerous tax to the low paid worker than it is to the well-paid bureaucrat or MLA.
Across the board and year after year Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals have shifted the tax burden in BC from those most able to pay to those least able to pay. This transfer of wealth was not only from the poorest to the wealthiest; it enriched the wealthy at the expense of the majority of British Columbians.
Any taxpayer can calculate for themselves whether they are now paying more taxes to the government or if they are among the minority of British Columbians who have benefited from Gordon Campbell’s great (for the wealthy) tax shift:
Income taxes plus all fees paid to the government (licences, medical, user fees etc – any fee paid to the government) at the point Gordon Campbell was elected.
MINUS
Income taxes plus all fees paid to the government (licences, medical, user fees etc – any fee paid to the government) at this current point in time.
A positive number represents your savings, a negative number means you are paying more taxes now than when Campbell and the BC Liberals became the government.
Perform this calculation and find out whether you are wealthy enough to be paying less to the government under Gordon Campbell’s great tax shift.
Despite Premier Campbell’s attempt to convey the false impression that BC citizens are paying less to the government, most British Columbians are going to find they are not wealthy enough to have benefited to the extent of paying less and find they are now paying (taxes + taxes by any other name – fees etc) more to the BC government.
Still, they are undoubtedly far better off that the poor who have been devastated by this onerous tax shift. When you are poor you gain no benefit from income tax cuts (when your income is sufficiently low you pay no tax, a cut leaves you still paying zero taxes) but are stuck paying the new fees and fee increases.
Campbell has pillaged the poorest and those least able to afford increased payments to government, robbing from the poor to give to the rich.
Finally, remember that cuts to services represent a cost and are a price citizens pay for the touted tax “savings”. Individual citizens must decide for themselves whether these costs are worth the “savings”.
That Premier Campbell’s government is running these rah-rah, promotional/sales ads touting none existent “savings” suggests not only that they are ethically challenged, but that they are out of touch with the realities of life and finances of the average (non-wealthy) British Columbian.
Harper - it's the Economy hebetudinous one
I hear by the advertisements on radio and television that Stephen Harper has stopped rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic with his “don’t worry, be happy, everything’s rosy economically in Canada” attitude and acknowledged that perhaps, with the rest of the world struggling with economic meltdown, Canadians should have some concerns about the economy.
How have Mr. Harper and his Conservatives addressed Canadian’s concerns about the economy and the future? Have Mr. Harper and his Conservative Party laid out their plans and policies for dealing with what is happening around the world economically? No.
Mr. Harper, rather than say what his plans (if any) are for guiding Canada through this period of economical turmoil are, has continued his practice of scare tactics about why Canadians should not vote for his opponents as opposed to telling Canadians why they should vote Conservative.
This approach leaves one to conclude that the economy is one more area that Mr. Harper and his Conservatives have no vision and thus no plans for dealing with economic challenges.
What did Mr. Harper and his Conservatives, beneficiaries of a booming economy, accomplish economically during their period in office?
They oversaw the increased transfer of wealth from most Canadians to the wealthiest 10% of Canadians, making the rich richer and increasing the economic unfairness or lack of balance in the economy.
Despite their claims to have run what Mr. Harper calls “surpluses”, when you factor in the cost of the war in Afghanistan those surpluses disappear. How can Mr. Harper claim to be fiscally responsible when he chose to ignore the billions of dollars spent on Afghanistan in reporting on the state of the Canadian economy? It was totally irresponsible to be cutting taxes and claiming surpluses without taking the billions being spent on Afghanistan into their calculations.
Mr. Harper and his Conservatives policies resulted in significant increases in homelessness, poverty and working poor; managing to bring about these increases during a time of economic boom. The mind boggles at the thought of how much more homelessness, poverty and working poor, how much more misery Mr. Harper and his Conservatives can cause in a faltering economy.
Sorry Mr. Harper, but considering your performance on the economy over your term in office and in light of the faltering Canadian and worldwide economy, there is no scarier economic prospect than you in charge of the economy and Canada’s economic future in this time of challenge.
True generosity?
“A bone to the dog is not charity. Charity is the bone shared with the dog, when you are just as hungry as the dog.” Jack London
Watching the news reports about the desperate state of need for donations at local food banks left me considering the true essence of generosity and charity.
There are studies that have shown that the people with little or nothing to spare can be the most generous. Not in the amount given, since obviously the $$$ are just not there, but in the relationship between what they keep for themselves and what they give. When things are tough and there is little to spare this group continues to give – often because they have worn the shoes of people who depend on places such as the food banks for enough to eat to live.
On $1 meal days I have watched those who did not have a dollar the meal day before and who may not have a dollar on the next meal day, but had a spare dollar this meal day, buy someone else a meal. I have had to ponder my own generosity after watching someone spend their $1 on someone they thought really needed the meal – even though it meant they had to eat a bowl of free soup.
Yes the future is uncertain, but rather than being less generous we need to be more generous to essential services such as the food bank – because the demand for help to put food in stomachs increases during economic down turns.
Jack London is right, true generosity is sharing even when times may be tight or tough for you.
Ask handyDART Users.
I was at an Abbotsford-Mission Transit Committee meeting in support of a presentation being made to the committee about difficulties that had been encountered with handyDART service.
Time will tell how that matter plays itself out, but two items, one I didn't hear and one I did hear, came to my attention at the meeting.
It was stated that the committee is working on its new five year plan for the transit system - including handy dart
What I didn't/haven't heard is that the committee has sought input from those who need and use handyDART service.
There are methods and techniques that have been developed for planning transit. However these are not applicable to handyDART as this service is by its nature much more of an individual transit system, as opposed to mass/public transportation system.
Given the individualized nature of handyDART service it would see both logical and sensible to seek out input on the current state of handyDART service and information about probable demands on handyDART service over that five year period.
I heard no comments from the committee to suggest they are seeking input from those with an personal vested interest in the handyDART system, nor have I heard anything about such input being sought from those I know who use or have clients that use/need handyDART services.
I believe it is necessary for the committee to seek input from those who use handyDART services prior to formulating a new five-year transit plan. Failure to seek such input before formulating the plan would result in a plan having no more validity than if they had used a Ouija board to formulate it.
Hearing feedback from patrons about problems and lack of access with handyDART service was of concern, but what was truly disturbing was the reason given for why patrons and caregivers did not want to step forward and complain - Retaliation.
There is something unconscionable about the thought that some of our most of vulnerable citizens, people who truly need our help to have a good quality of life, are afraid to assert their right to handyDART services out of FEAR.
It is a point that Abbotsford-Mission Transit Committee must explore and address.
Both these matters unheard and heard demonstrate why the Abbotsford-Mission Transit Committee needs to have representatives of users of both public and handyDART services as members on the committee, if they are to understand the needs of patrons in order to maximize the delivery of services.
Do we really live in a Democracy? la deuxième partie
Listening to the Elections Canada radio ads had me pondering the state of democracy in Canada – assuming Canada can still be referred to as a democracy. A claim that strikes me as highly questionable when you give some thought to the matter.
Democracy is one of those either/or states, either it is or it isn’t. There is no such thing as a partial democracy. Either all the people have the right and ability to vote, the right and ability to run for office and the right and ability to vote for candidates of their choice – or you don’t have a democratic system.
The economic policies, actions, inactions and failure to address poverty and homelessness by the federal government have driven tens of thousands, perhaps even a hundred thousand plus Canadians onto the streets in an ever increasing tide of homelessness and poverty. Unknowable further tens of thousands (or again a hundred thousand plus) find themselves couch surfing etc. from place to place and are not in stable housing.
None of these thousands of dispossessed will be receiving voter information cards in the mail to tell them where to vote. If you go to your local polling station on Election Day they will want proof of address and proof of identity.
How do you provide proof you are living under a bridge, in a tent, in a park, in a field, under a tree et al?
We take having ID for granted, but for many of the disposed ID has long been lost and the only record of their ID is photocopies at Income Assistance. Others lack even that for proof of identity.
One person denied their right to vote is too many.
Our current Federal Election will see thousands, tens of thousands perhaps hundred(s) of thousands of the disposed disenfranchised.
How can Canada be called a Democracy when it has disenfranchised so many of its citizens?
__________________________________________________________________
If you visit the Elections Canada website you will find the following statements:
“The right to be a candidate in a federal election is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The procedures and responsibilities are spelled out in the Canada Elections Act.”
“Unless specifically declared to be ineligible under section 65 of the Canada Elections Act, any person qualified as an elector may run for election.”
And yet the Canada Elections Act proceeds to do exactly that – deny me and others the right to run for Parliament.
The requirement that a $1,000.00 deposit be posted by all candidates denies those who are not wealthy enough to be able to spare $1,000.00 or backed by political parties their Charter right to run for election to Parliament. The requirement of an onerous deposit particularly discriminates against the dispossessed and poor, denying them their right to seek federal office.
The violation of rights does not end there. By denying a candidate the right to run for election, all those who would have voted for the candidate are denied their right to vote for the candidate of their choice.
Democracy is suppose to be about voting for the candidate of your choice, not being forced to vote for the candidate you dislike the least.
How can Canada be called a Democracy when citizens are denied their right to seek federal office, denying other citizens their right to vote for candidates they may want to choose by limiting those who can run for federal office?
_______________________________________________________________________
When we accept and allow thousands upon thousands of Canadian citizens to be disenfranchised;
When we accept and allow a significant portion of Canadian citizens to be denied the ability to exercise their right to seek office through imposed financial barriers;
When we accept and allow the choice of Canadian citizens as to who will represent them to be limited to a chosen few, the choice becoming that of who is least objectionable dislike;
We no longer have a democracy.
“The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.”
Robert Maynard Hutchins
Listening to the Elections Canada radio ads had me pondering the state of democracy in Canada – assuming Canada can still be referred to as a democracy. A claim that strikes me as highly questionable when you give some thought to the matter.
Democracy is one of those either/or states, either it is or it isn’t. There is no such thing as a partial democracy. Either all the people have the right and ability to vote, the right and ability to run for office and the right and ability to vote for candidates of their choice – or you don’t have a democratic system.
The economic policies, actions, inactions and failure to address poverty and homelessness by the federal government have driven tens of thousands, perhaps even a hundred thousand plus Canadians onto the streets in an ever increasing tide of homelessness and poverty. Unknowable further tens of thousands (or again a hundred thousand plus) find themselves couch surfing etc. from place to place and are not in stable housing.
None of these thousands of dispossessed will be receiving voter information cards in the mail to tell them where to vote. If you go to your local polling station on Election Day they will want proof of address and proof of identity.
How do you provide proof you are living under a bridge, in a tent, in a park, in a field, under a tree et al?
We take having ID for granted, but for many of the disposed ID has long been lost and the only record of their ID is photocopies at Income Assistance. Others lack even that for proof of identity.
One person denied their right to vote is too many.
Our current Federal Election will see thousands, tens of thousands perhaps hundred(s) of thousands of the disposed disenfranchised.
How can Canada be called a Democracy when it has disenfranchised so many of its citizens?
__________________________________________________________________
If you visit the Elections Canada website you will find the following statements:
“The right to be a candidate in a federal election is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The procedures and responsibilities are spelled out in the Canada Elections Act.”
“Unless specifically declared to be ineligible under section 65 of the Canada Elections Act, any person qualified as an elector may run for election.”
And yet the Canada Elections Act proceeds to do exactly that – deny me and others the right to run for Parliament.
The requirement that a $1,000.00 deposit be posted by all candidates denies those who are not wealthy enough to be able to spare $1,000.00 or backed by political parties their Charter right to run for election to Parliament. The requirement of an onerous deposit particularly discriminates against the dispossessed and poor, denying them their right to seek federal office.
The violation of rights does not end there. By denying a candidate the right to run for election, all those who would have voted for the candidate are denied their right to vote for the candidate of their choice.
Democracy is suppose to be about voting for the candidate of your choice, not being forced to vote for the candidate you dislike the least.
How can Canada be called a Democracy when citizens are denied their right to seek federal office, denying other citizens their right to vote for candidates they may want to choose by limiting those who can run for federal office?
_______________________________________________________________________
When we accept and allow thousands upon thousands of Canadian citizens to be disenfranchised;
When we accept and allow a significant portion of Canadian citizens to be denied the ability to exercise their right to seek office through imposed financial barriers;
When we accept and allow the choice of Canadian citizens as to who will represent them to be limited to a chosen few, the choice becoming that of who is least objectionable dislike;
We no longer have a democracy.
“The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.”
Robert Maynard Hutchins
Do we really live in a Democracy?
The one thing you can say about our current election is it is indisputable proof that if we want to live in a Democracy and have good governance addressing the important issues and challenges facing Canada and Canadians, we must have Federal Electoral Reform.
OK – the one thing you can say beside the facts it is an unnecessary waste of taxpayers dollars (what else would expect from politicians than to fail to consider the effect of their actions on the people they are suppose to represent?) and in violation of the fixed election date law passed by the government that called the election (what else would you expect from politicians than to consider themselves above the laws of Canada?)
Citizens are being served garbage on a silver platter by all the federal parties. With apologies to anyone who makes silver platters, this is as apt a description of what politicians are trying to pass off as debate and discourse on which any semi-intelligent, semi-rational person could make an effective decision on who should be sent to Parliament to form a government.
At a time citizens need to decide who could (not would but could possibly) provide good government and effectively begin to clean up the mess our current and recent crops of politicians have strewn across all parts of Canada and abroad federal parties and politicians seem bent on demonstrating their complete lack of ability.
The very foundation of Democracy is informed consent of the governed. If citizens cannot make an informed choice and thus cannot give informed consent, the government is not democratically elected and the country (Canada) is not truly a democracy, even if politicians choose to label it a democracy in order to make ruling the population easier.
Slick – yes. Loud – yes. Full of empty promises, of politicians avoiding important issues and questions, of misleading statements, smoke and mirrors, half-truths, lack of debate and examination of reasoning/explanations, of sound bites – yes.
Substance to be able to make an informed judgment and thus grant informed consent – NO.
We look at China and decry the lack of democracy in China. But is there really any difference between Canada and China; between Canadians having to decide among 5 bad/unacceptable choices and Chinese having only one bad/unacceptable choice? Not in any meaningful way.
The one thing you can say about our current election is it is indisputable proof that if we want to live in a Democracy and have good governance addressing the important issues and challenges facing Canada and Canadians, we must have Federal Electoral Reform.
OK – the one thing you can say beside the facts it is an unnecessary waste of taxpayers dollars (what else would expect from politicians than to fail to consider the effect of their actions on the people they are suppose to represent?) and in violation of the fixed election date law passed by the government that called the election (what else would you expect from politicians than to consider themselves above the laws of Canada?)
Citizens are being served garbage on a silver platter by all the federal parties. With apologies to anyone who makes silver platters, this is as apt a description of what politicians are trying to pass off as debate and discourse on which any semi-intelligent, semi-rational person could make an effective decision on who should be sent to Parliament to form a government.
At a time citizens need to decide who could (not would but could possibly) provide good government and effectively begin to clean up the mess our current and recent crops of politicians have strewn across all parts of Canada and abroad federal parties and politicians seem bent on demonstrating their complete lack of ability.
The very foundation of Democracy is informed consent of the governed. If citizens cannot make an informed choice and thus cannot give informed consent, the government is not democratically elected and the country (Canada) is not truly a democracy, even if politicians choose to label it a democracy in order to make ruling the population easier.
Slick – yes. Loud – yes. Full of empty promises, of politicians avoiding important issues and questions, of misleading statements, smoke and mirrors, half-truths, lack of debate and examination of reasoning/explanations, of sound bites – yes.
Substance to be able to make an informed judgment and thus grant informed consent – NO.
We look at China and decry the lack of democracy in China. But is there really any difference between Canada and China; between Canadians having to decide among 5 bad/unacceptable choices and Chinese having only one bad/unacceptable choice? Not in any meaningful way.
The choice Canadians need to focus on, should be struggling with, is not who will form the next government but how do we take back our country and turn it into a democracy in fact and function - not just in name.
“The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.”
John F. Kennedy
My Linked Homeless Pages
Alternative Perspectives Views & News
Information & Reference
Lastest Posts
- Calling it ‘The News”, doesn't make it ‘The News”....
- Surprised? No, Just Politics as Usual
- To omit Information is to Misinform
- Motivation: an Evaluation Tool
- Car Trouble – It Came to Pass that...
- Beleaguered by the Universe?
- Done with the HST? BC should be so lucky.
- A Fallacy of Words
- The Reason.
- How many more?
Archives
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- March 2010
- April 2010
- May 2010
- June 2010
- July 2010
- August 2010
- September 2010
- October 2010
- November 2010
- December 2010
- January 2011
- February 2011
- March 2011
- April 2011
- May 2011
- June 2011
- July 2011
- August 2011
- September 2011
- October 2011
- November 2011
- December 2011
- January 2012
- February 2012
- March 2012
- April 2012
- May 2012
- June 2012
- July 2012
- August 2012
- September 2012
- October 2012
- November 2012
- December 2012
- February 2013
- March 2013
- April 2013
- May 2013
ATOM 0.3