Tag Archives: Canada

Greens Sunk By Pirate Party

Check out the video lol

With the results of November 29th, 2010 by-elections, a few observations can be made:

One: No one gives a shit! Voter Turnout was in the twenty to thirty percent range.

Two: The Green Party is still afloat, but sinking fast, after almost being beaten by the Pirate Party. That’s right…  A political joke party called the Pirate Party was twenty votes away from beating Elizabeth May’s Green Party in Monday’s By-election.  In Winnipeg North, the drop was from a poor 4.75 percent  to an embarrassing zero point seven percent.  In the Ontario riding of Vaughan, the Greens’ popular vote dropped from 6.9 percent in 2008, to only 1.2 percent.. Greens received only 1404 total votes in all by-election races combined.  Even Elizabeth’s organic farming star candidate and Green Party Federal Counsellor Kate Story could only inspire 809 votes in Monday’s By-election. The results for the Greens’ was just 5.6 percent of the vote, which is worse than the same candidates 2008 finish.

People are sick of being misled by politicians.  Elizabeth May called the 1.2% finish for the Green Party in Vaughan a “strong campaign” in her press release.  How is losing 80% of your popular vote a “strong campaign”… or honest?


G20 Questions: The Criminalization of Dissent

Montebello 2007:  Police dress up in black as protesters and throw rocks at the Police injuring a protester.  They are caught and it makes international news.  But nothing happens to them or their bosses or the politicians that ordered it.  There is no public inquiry–no accountability.  Apparently it is legal to start a riot for political purposes as long as you are an agent of the government…

June 2010:  Marc Emery sits in jail–extradited to the USA for his political beliefs by Stephen Harper and Rob Nicholson.  Jacob Hunter is assaulted by police outside the Justice Ministers constituency office.  Somehow the police claim that Jacob assaulted the police…  There’s video proving otherwise (check out the 5 minute mark).  How are the charges still being pursued?  How is the officer still employed?  Why did the police respond at all? and why so quick?  As a security guard that has worked on movie sets all over the Greater Vancouver area, I have called 9-1-1 many times.  Usually it takes a very long time for police to respond even for an assault–especially in poor areas.  I once called the police from Shaunesy (one of the richest neighborhoods in the country) and three police cars came within a couple minutes… But this lightning response to no crime or threat takes the cake.

And about the idea that Jacob Hunter’s camera is a weapon–you bet it is! (just not a violent one : D ).  If Jacob Hunter’s cell phone was a weapon, or the officer felt threatened by it or Hunter, then he shouldn’t have turned his back on him.  The officer should have dealt with the threat immediately, the fact that he didn’t proves that the officer was just looking for a technicality to arrest the protesters.  That isn’t policing–its politicking.

2010: Stephen Harper announces a plan to remove billions in spending from programs that reduce crime–like education, welfare, medicine–and spend it instead on prisons and enforcement of laws that only affect those that vote for parties other than the Conservatives…  The more crime–the greater the fear of crime or anger about crime (thanks to the corporate funded media)–the more votes for the corporate agenda… Sad isn’t it?

G8 Toronto 2010:

Border patrol stops people from entering Canada because of their political beliefs.
Police, with a billion dollar budget round up thousands of innocent political protesters, and illegally search anyone they please.  The police outnumber the protesters by 2-1 in many areas.
Groups of protesters are arbitrarily charged at and attacked without warning or provocation by the police.  There was no reason to move them–no justification for an action that may lead to the injury of a police officer, protester or bystander.  This wasn’t about safety and security or law and order…

Police surround peaceful protesters that are singing the national anthem, and pepper-spray and beat these innocent people and then arrest then for being where they are–even though the police won’t let them leave–and they have every right to be there and protest peacefully.

Anyone with a camera is targeted and pushed away to hide the actions of the police.  Unmarked vans pull up and throw random people in the back kicking and screaming and speed off–like something out of a movie about resistance to a violent military regime… Like Burma in 2007.

A small group dressed in black with a media friendly name the “Black Bloc” rampages through the Toronto without any police response whatsoever–in fact the police stand by as the riot starts–then retreat to let it happen.  Remember, the police outnumber the protesters by 2-1 in many areas…  Many cameras get close but the police somehow cannot–or will not…
The rioters have no cause, no message, no strategy–they aren’t protesting–just destroying things for the TV cameras.  All over the world people are thinking what a bunch of lunatics and radicals the protesters are (all of them).  The only political movement that benefits from this violence is Stephen Harper’s corporate conservatism…

The rioters go to the “free speech” zone (the whole country) and take off their masks and dark clothes and just walk away.  Other videos show plain clothes people under the protection of the police, beating protesters with their batons.  Why do the rioters never get identified or charged, but the peaceful protesters get attacked and beaten? Hmmm…

With Stephen Harper and the media so eager to save the country from terrorists and evil-doers, why have they not labeled the Black Bloc “terrorists”?  I guess Harper only disagrees with terrorism when the terrorists are brown… or maybe they’re not terrorists–but cops?

The media ignores the peaceful protest and the reasons for it–like always.  Why is the story always about violence?  Why doesn’t the media report on what is going on?  There is obviously lots of interest.  There is obviously lots at stake if the G8/20 meetings need such high security that we will suspend the rights of all Canadians to host it.  So why not cover the issues instead of “violent protests”?

Stories begin to break through alternative and social media.  The reliance on the internet is what the corporatists want.  They own the system.  President Obama just signed into the law the right to shut down the internet–shut down dissent.  This is full scale political war–and we’re losing.

The police were quoting phony laws–lying to people to violate their rights.  And what happened to anyone who called there bluff?  They were arrested for disobeying a lawful order (which wasn’t lawful)–or trespassing (even though they weren’t)–or resisting arrest (which couldn’t be a lawful arrest) for breaching the peace before it was breached (cause cops have time machines).

The really disturbing part is that there is no defense against the police making up laws.  How can a citizen assert that they have knowledge to the contrary about a made-up law?   The police now have claimed the right to tell you to do anything and force you to comply with every order they make…  Shouldn’t a single instance of an officer making up a law and infringing upon the rights of protesters be enough to end that officer’s career for good?  How can this be perpetrated on us all by those that claim to serve and protect us?

The police are literally making their own laws in Canada.  This is unconstitutional–the people make the laws through our local representatives.  The actions of the police are criminal.  Even rape was threatened…

Flashback Vancouver 2009:  A man is killed by police.  It is caught on camera.  The phone is seized and an officer erases the evidence of his crime. Without the video, no wrong doing can be proven.

Robert Dziekański:  If it wasn’t for the video that proved each officer involved was a liar, most Canadians would have believed that four heavily armed cops were threatened by a stapler.  Remember how the police refused to release the video of their crime and the photographer had to get a court order?  Remember how at first the “thorough and complete” investigation showed the officers “acted within the law in the performance of their duties”? even though the video clearly shows, if you don’t know the context, what looks like a man being executed in seconds.  Thank G_d all four “bad apples” happened to be on duty in the same place and at the same time…

Two Vancouver City police officers show up at a man’s house, drag him onto the lawn and severely beat him.  The man could have easily died.  The only reason this often repeated story makes news is that the police got the wrong guy–the police were supposed to beat the man in the basement suite.  If they had got the right guy they would have claimed he resisted arrest and the officers would never be disciplined or even suspected of wrongdoing because we all know cops follow the law–they’re the “good guys”, and of course the good guys should be rough with the bad guys–especially before they are proven guilty of anything in a court of law.
A choice is before us all.  This is either the end of political freedom in Canada, or the beginning of the end of Stephen Harper’s corporate agenda.  This isn’t a false alarm.  This is the full scale criminalization of political dissent and it must be stopped before we lose the right to protest–or disagree–altogether.

We must push Stephen Harper back across the border and begin a public inquiry into the attempts by these forces to alter the laws and culture of Canada, to turn citizens into captive customers that can be rounded up at will for being one of the 70% of Canadians that doesn’t share Stephen Harper’s backwards, oppressive views.

But all of this is a logical argument, and unfortunately most people make emotional decisions and only use logic to justify those decisions to their egos or peers.  Just click on the videos again and tell me: who are the good guys and who are the bad guys?  Especially watch this one.

Who’s side are you on?  The side of Canadians–or corporations?  The police–or the law?

Rick Mercer’s Rant

“We are a parliamentary democracy and that system has served us well for 141 years, but clearly, we’ve fallen asleep at the wheel, and if we want to protect our democracy, we have an obligation to wake up and get informed, because quite frankly, our Members of Parliament can’t be trusted with it anymore.” ~Rick Mercer

Our political system is not failing–our politicians and political parties have failed.  We have put our faith in hypocritical leaders that promise the farm and deliver nothing but dirt.

Parliament needs to empower individual members to encourage involvement of independents that can break the partisan gridlock that paralyzes meaningful debate.  A handful of independents with the ability to speak in parliament, and vote in the best interests of their constituents can be an example to Canadians of what politics could be like without special interests dominating the debate.  This would  help keep all the parties honest.

Who Killed Canada?

The most important video you haven’t seen..


Dan Mick

Hypocrisy and Blame: The End of the United Right?

Western Separatists’ Anti-Quebec Stance Threatens to Split the Conservative Party

The Conservative Party is attempting to retain power by claiming the progressive coalition has no mandate. Forcing an election costing 300 million dollars, after trying to cancel $30 million in public financing for political parties, under the guise of saving money, shows that it is Stephen Harper that is engaged in a power grab that looks more like a power gasp.

Harper’s hubris, and his US strategists, who do not understand Canada’s parliamentary system, led to the strategy of bullying that has brought Harper from talk of a majority government in September, to the isolated Official Opposition in December.

The Conservative strategy is now to frame the debate as a “coup d’etat” by a Quebec conspiracy, instead of the will of the majority of Canadian voters. The separatist stance of the Bloc, does not give the minority government of Stephen Harper a mandate to govern. Stephen Harper’s failure to gain the confidence of the majority in Parliament does not bode well for his reign.

Alberta Reform Party bloggers are calling for “the west”–meaning Alberta–to separate. How does Harper claim that the progressive coalition is un-Canadian because it needs the votes of “separatists”, when his own power base is calling for the break-up of the country, because they can not dictate their will on the majority of the Canadian people?

How about this breaking news for hypocrisy? It turns out Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day attempted his own “coup d’etat” with the separatist Bloc in 2000.

Stephen Harper, with his hubris and hypocrisy, has been credited with “uniting the right and the left”. This is ironic given that the attack on Quebec voters will end all hope of a Conservative majority–the purpose for the existence of the united right.

With the hope of a majority gone, what reason will social conservatives, libertarians, and “red tories” have to stick together? (What reason did they ever have?) How will Ontario and Quebec Tories–real Tories–react to the strategy of claiming that the representatives of Quebecers have no right to help govern the country? How will PC’s justify their unity with so many that what to break-up the country? By dumping Stephen Harper, and entering into a divisive leadership contest.

UPDATE: CTV has this piece saying “Harper’s rhetoric on Bloc risks alienating Quebec” but a day later than my post ; )

A Message to Conservatives About the Progressive Coalition

Canadians vote on policies through local representatives–not governments. The 44% of Canadians that voted for the NDP and Liberal policies have more support than the 36% that voted for George Bush’s failed ideas. Period.

This is not a case of 5,205,334 vs. 75 making back-room deals. It is in fact 6,149,000 Canadians vs 5,208,000, or 7,528,000 vs. 5,208,000 if we include voters for the Bloc as well. In total, 8,466,000 Canadians voted against neo-conservative ideology just two months ago. Get the numbers straight.

There is also a tremendous amount of anti-Quebec language coming from Conservatives. First they say that the Bloc (and therefore all its supporters) are un-Canadian, then they say that this deal was put together exclusively by a Quebec conspiracy. And they wonder why some Quebecers want to separate from Canada… Harpercons, if you don’t like the Bloc–why don’t you beat them in the next election, instead of sleeping with biker chicks? = O

And why do you Alberta Reformers and northern Republicans call yourself “Tories” anyways? Tories are supposed to protect our parliamentary democracy, our constitution, and federalism–not destroy them.

Green Party Organizing Needs Overhaul

Elizabeth May takes credit for doubling poll support since taking over all aspects of the Green Parties operation, but the 6.8% result of the 2008 election is especially disappointing considering that the GPC received 4.3% the first time a full slate was run in 2004, without being in the televised Leaders debate. The question begs to be asked: what would the result have been with a more popular Liberal Leader to run against?

Elizabeth must bear responsibility for bypassing any democratic process and surrounding herself with people who’s only record of success was helping with Elizabeth’s Leadership campaign.

Accountability is the fundamental concept of democracy. It ensures fairness, and quality. The very leadership structure of the GPC is completely unaccountable to the members that are the Green Party of Canada, for the next two years, when there will be a mandatory Leadership contest. All Greens should keep this in mind when they speak of our electoral system being “undemocratic”, or other parties as being “hypocritical”.

The GPC, has appointed Deputy Leaders, no automatic leadership review after an election, there are no performance review procedures, no mandatory benchmarks of success, and no tracking of benchmarks beyond the often disappointing financial figures presented to the Federal Council. Ultimately, the Federal Council’s capitulation to the desires of E. may mean that every employee of the Green Party is appointed by–or approved by one person–Elizabeth May.

Monitoring and reporting of key indicators is rarely undertaken, because very few indicators point to successes. In their place are arbitrarily and deceptive statistical analysis, such as Jim Harris claiming that the number of votes received per dollars spent is the most “efficient” of the federal parties. This ignores the fact that the dollars spent per seats won is 0% “efficient” and the worst of all parties, and it does not include in the analysis that almost all of the increase in popular vote for the GPC could be protest votes that do not in any way indicate success of the Green Party.

This theory is supported by the loss of 2000 members since Elizabeth May took over. Most members would be surprised and outraged to learn membership figures were down 20% from two years ago. This is our fundraising and volunteer base that we depend on during elections. An accountable system would have discovered this and demanded a plan of action form the Executive Director and Director of Organizing, and then monitored progress of the plan and made changes to strategies or staff as required. The result would be a sizable increase in our election success.

In the past, when members have attempted to analyze metrics and to bring these issues forth, they have been shunned, banned, block, restricted, excluded from paid and volunteer roles, and spoken of dishonestly by the oligarchy that inevitably festers in all unaccountable systems.

The success of the Green movement and the implementation of the Green Party platform is more important than any individual friendships, or individual’s ego or job security. As Greens, the victory we seek does not belong to us–it belongs to our earth, our country, and our children. It is for them that I call for the resignation of Director of Organizing Sharon Labchuk.

UPDATE: (Monday, Dec 1 10am pacific) It has taken almost two days for the first vote to keep Sharon to come in. I have attempted to e-mail every candidate, organizer, council member and staff member about this blog. The result is 21-1 in favor of dumping Sharon Labchuk at this time. While this result is not scientific by any means, surely if Sharon had the confidence of members, then it would not have taken over 150 hits on this post to find the first person willing to vote to keep her. The verdict is in and Sharon is out.

UPDATE (Monday, Dec 1 1:20pm pacific) I wonder if supporters (if there is more than two) of Sharon would leave a comment and a name and tell us why they support her?

UPDATE (December 2) Former Leader, Chair of the Federal Campaign Committee, and National Campaign Chair Jim Harris resigns

The People, Divided, Will Always Be Defeated

All elements within the progressive movement, whether Liberals, New Democrats or Greens, are unified in opposition to the policies of the Conservative Party, yet they spend much of their time attempting to defeat the other two.

It is very common when one speaks of co-operation, coalitions or unification to hear, “But they–” followed by an attack on a policy or past action of that party. As long as the left defines itself by what it stands against, it will continue to divide into smaller and smaller groups, each more bitter and disorganized than the last.

Liberals, New Democrats and Greens are members of these unique parties because we do have differences in policy and leadership, though we nearly all agree that our environment is in trouble and major changes are needed immediately, tax cuts for the rich should be ended, corporations have far too much power, and that the government should act in the interests of all Canadians–not just those that voted for it. We also know that we will never get a fair, honest and accountable government if we continue to fight amongst ourselves.

Competition between three center/left parties is what empowers the Conservative government, when we are the majority. Any agreement to not run candidates in particular ridings creates resentment among voters and party members. No arbitrary system of cooperation seams fair to all.

How can we retain or unique platforms and values, and still cooperate–and compete–in a way that is fair to all Canadians?

The solution is to hold a combined nomination meeting (or virtual meeting) in each riding where the winning candidates from two political parties that receive the most votes stand in the general election, while the party in last place sits out that election. This can be accomplished by EDAs in cooperation, or by the party Leaders agreeing not to sign the nomination papers of any candidate that received the least number of votes at their nomination meeting when compared to the other party or parties in agreement. This would allow the best candidates and organizations to run, and only eliminate candidates that have no chance to win. All parties would be fairly represented with even the Greens winning some of these nominations.

If federal funding is maintained, while there would be less candidates running for each party, each candidate running would get more votes. The reduction of “strategic voting” would encourage more progressive voters to join, donate and volunteer for each party. The result would be even more votes, and therefor funding, for each party.

Liberals, the NDP and The Green Party would be guaranteed more seats, and voters would be guaranteed a better, more representative government.

Consider this and the alternative–a possible majority Conservative government. Those that still disagree with all forms of co-operation, coalition or unification, owe every Canadian, including those yet to be born, an explanation as to why they believe a neo-conservative government is preferable

Copyright 2008 Daniel Mick