Sixty two percent. That represents the number of Canadians that did NOT vote for the Conservative Party of Canada in the last election. But of course, what we got, again, was the leader of the Conservative Party as our prime minister. Such is life in this archaic first-past-the-post system of election.
But wait.....we may still get what we wanted. There is a pressure relief valve built into our system that can, from time to time, correct what seems to be wrong with out system. This is our parliamentary system of government. In fact, in this system, we never vote for a prime minister. we vote for a local representative who goes to the House of Commons to vote, on our behalf, for a member of that House to be the prime minister. Traditionally, in order to obtain governing power, people would join together and form political parties. If their party got the most members elected (seats) their leader could easily be voted in as prime minister since every other party would only vote for their own leader as prime minister. if the party with the most seats got more than half of the seats in Parliament, they had a majority and could never be defeated by the other parties.
So, for the last 32 months, Canada has had a minority government where the ruling party had the most seats but could be out-voted by the other parties at any time. Defeating the government often meant that Canadians would have to go to the polls in an election - much like we did at the beginning of October this year - at the cost of $300 million for the same result we went into it with.
Which brings us to the current situation. The NDP, Liberals and Bloc have negotiated an agreement to take down the Conservatives and form a government. Stephan harper is the master of his own undoing here. He miscalculated that the opposition would be in such a disarray that he could push through even more ideologically-driven legislation. Now he faces full non-confidence of the House. Some are crying foul - that this is "undemocratic". Undemocratic that a party with 38% of Canadians support govern or a coalition of parties with 62% of voter support?!
With all of its problems, our parliamentary system provides this great relief valve to bring stability and exert the will of the people on government.
I say, give us what we want.......
Take Action:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/coalition_for_canada
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Sleeping in Victoria
Finally!!
One has to wonder what kind of society we live in when, not only are people left homeless, we don't even want a homeless person covering their head while they sleep in a PUBLICLY OWNED space. That's how it has been in Victoria, City of Gardens, until yesterday.
A B.C. Supreme Court judge has struck down the City of Victoria's bylaws that prevent homeless people from sleeping in city parks.
In a judgment released today, Justice Carol Ross found it is unconstitutional to prevent homeless people from sleeping on public property or erecting shelter to protect themselves when there are not enough shelter beds available for the number who are homeless.
“We're very, very pleased,” said Catherine Boies Parker, one of the lawyers representing the people challenging the bylaws. “It's a huge step towards recognizing the importance of the safety and the dignity of homeless people.”
Victoria mayor Alan Lowe the local Times colonist reports, will release a statement later in the day.
“I'm sleeping in a tent-city tonight,” wrote David Arthur Johnston, one of the defendants challenging the bylaws, in an e-mail. Supporters were to meet at the Victoria court house at noon.
So now we wait and see. Will this scenario run like that of the courts ruling on Insite where the Conservative government is appealing the ruling that it is unconstitutional to not provide safe consuption space? Will the city decide they just don't want to support struggling people in the most simplest of ways?
On my blog, I can say what I want. Why, why does the ruling class hate helping those that struggle in our society?
One has to wonder what kind of society we live in when, not only are people left homeless, we don't even want a homeless person covering their head while they sleep in a PUBLICLY OWNED space. That's how it has been in Victoria, City of Gardens, until yesterday.
A B.C. Supreme Court judge has struck down the City of Victoria's bylaws that prevent homeless people from sleeping in city parks.
In a judgment released today, Justice Carol Ross found it is unconstitutional to prevent homeless people from sleeping on public property or erecting shelter to protect themselves when there are not enough shelter beds available for the number who are homeless.
“We're very, very pleased,” said Catherine Boies Parker, one of the lawyers representing the people challenging the bylaws. “It's a huge step towards recognizing the importance of the safety and the dignity of homeless people.”
Victoria mayor Alan Lowe the local Times colonist reports, will release a statement later in the day.
“I'm sleeping in a tent-city tonight,” wrote David Arthur Johnston, one of the defendants challenging the bylaws, in an e-mail. Supporters were to meet at the Victoria court house at noon.
So now we wait and see. Will this scenario run like that of the courts ruling on Insite where the Conservative government is appealing the ruling that it is unconstitutional to not provide safe consuption space? Will the city decide they just don't want to support struggling people in the most simplest of ways?
On my blog, I can say what I want. Why, why does the ruling class hate helping those that struggle in our society?
Monday, June 02, 2008
Old News...New Research
Recently, the Centre for Addictions Research of BC released some fresh new research on alcohol and other drug use in BC. The research is a result of the compilation of a pilot project – BC Alcohol and Other Drug Monitoring Project. It’s not so much the distinctiveness of the information or that it is so noteworthy as much as it is so unremarkable that makes it remarkable. Speak with anyone that works in the addictions field and see that the stats are old news.
For example, people in the field have known for some time that the so-called “Crystal Meth epidemic” is only another form of fear-mongering. Those interested in furthering the failed war on drugs love to make the use of any substance sound worse than it really is. Substances with as or more devastating effects on health are more commonly used in British Columbia than crystal meth. These include alcohol, cocaine, ecstasy and nicotine. In fact, higher percentages of people surveyed tried alcohol, marijuana, cocaine and ecstasy than those that tried crystal meth. Crystal meth was tried by more people than only heroin. The same goes for those with some form of dependence on the substance. Only, at that measure, crystal meth had the least proportion of people dependent than any other substance. Not what you would call epidemic proportions.
Another consideration: crystal meth is the drug of choice for young people. Again, the facts don’t mesh with with the popular mythology. It is very frightening to think that your 15 year old daughter is likely to try and become addicted to this substance. But is it really that scary to think that a 40 year old homeless guy is likely to use crystal meth? The fact is, that is who is most likely to use this drug.
Don’t get me wrong. There is no doubt that crystal meth and other illicit drugs are harmful in a variety of ways. I take issue with how they are portrayed and, by extension, how we as a society deal with the problem.
Stay tuned for my next post. I’ll talk about how we deal with the problem and the recent BC Supreme Court ruling that the Insight clinic in Vancouver is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights.
For example, people in the field have known for some time that the so-called “Crystal Meth epidemic” is only another form of fear-mongering. Those interested in furthering the failed war on drugs love to make the use of any substance sound worse than it really is. Substances with as or more devastating effects on health are more commonly used in British Columbia than crystal meth. These include alcohol, cocaine, ecstasy and nicotine. In fact, higher percentages of people surveyed tried alcohol, marijuana, cocaine and ecstasy than those that tried crystal meth. Crystal meth was tried by more people than only heroin. The same goes for those with some form of dependence on the substance. Only, at that measure, crystal meth had the least proportion of people dependent than any other substance. Not what you would call epidemic proportions.
Another consideration: crystal meth is the drug of choice for young people. Again, the facts don’t mesh with with the popular mythology. It is very frightening to think that your 15 year old daughter is likely to try and become addicted to this substance. But is it really that scary to think that a 40 year old homeless guy is likely to use crystal meth? The fact is, that is who is most likely to use this drug.
Don’t get me wrong. There is no doubt that crystal meth and other illicit drugs are harmful in a variety of ways. I take issue with how they are portrayed and, by extension, how we as a society deal with the problem.
Stay tuned for my next post. I’ll talk about how we deal with the problem and the recent BC Supreme Court ruling that the Insight clinic in Vancouver is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)