Pie Palace

How do you define success when it comes to a protest? Two weeks ago, when I hooked up with Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament (CAPP), I would have defined a successful protest as having a bunch of people show up.

In that case, today’s protest against Stephen Harper shutting down Parliament was epic. Sorry, EPIK!!!!1. 3,500+ folks turned out. Speakers spoke. Fists were shaken. Signs were waved.

So what?

Let’s geek out a little bit here. Why hold a protest?

1. To scare the bejesus out of your opposition. Imagine your company pays kids in Sri Lanka to chew asbestos to make iPhones. Everyone likes iPhones, nobody cares about cancer kids overseas. Life is good. Until one day when you show up at work and there are a thousand people burning you in effigy. You may start to consider other ways of making iPhones.
2. To impress the pundits. Media, commentators, bloggers, and other self-declared arbiters of importance will pooh-pooh your cause when they think it’s just you and your mom who care about it. When you and your mom organize a rally that brings a couple of thousand people out, those commentators will change their position. And if they think you’re important, that helps scare your opposition all the more, and draw more folks into your movement.
3. To attract more supporters. It’s really disheartening to feel like you’re the only person who feels something. A rally can help solve that. It’s shows potential supporters that they aren’t alone and they have a group to plug into. Hopefully, it will swell your ranks, and enable future (metaphoric) asskicking on your issue.

All of this said, we’re in a weird place. We have certainly have an opposition: Harper and every power-grubbing prime minister from the past 30 years. But we don’t have an “us”. Yeah, there are 213,178 people in a Facebook group, and three opposition parties doing everything they can to ride our momentum; but there’s nobody at the head of CAPP waving a sword and yelling “CHARGE!”

So what did our protest accomplish?

1. Scared the opposition? Hard to tell. Intrepid PiePalace reporters are busily peeking in the windows of 24 Sussex to see if a night-light was left on. When we find out, you’ll be the first to know.
2. Impressed the pundits? Maybe. Mostly? Definitely.
3. Attracted more supporters? Again, hard to tell. The Facebook membership seems to have plateaued, but it seems unlikely to grow, since it was explicitly aimed at this weekend’s protest.

A sympathetic observer might call that two out of three. An unsympathetic type might call that one out of three. Either way, it’s better than a fail. We’ll know the real result when we see the responses from MPs, the government, and the public.

I just got home from Ottawa anti-prorogation rally. 3,500 braved sub-zero temperatures for two hours to show their support for our Parliamentary democracy. Nothing short of awesome. Well done, Ottawa! (I’ll post pics once I warm up)

To be “winning”, for once. I started refreshing the anti-prorogation Facebook group’s web page. Every few seconds, when I refresh, another few people have joined the group. It’s gone from less than twenty thousand when I saw it on Monday, to 98,840 now. Yeah, it’s just a Facebook group. But it feels nice to be part of something verging on a majority.

Another year, another prorogation.

In December 2008, Stephen Harper faced a united opposition willing to vote his government down. He prorogued Parliament.

In December 2009, Stephen Harper faced questions about his government’s policies in Afghanistan and an unfriendly Senate. He prorogued Parliament again.

When Parliament is prorogued, all of the government legislation working its way through the House is discarded. Committees are disbanded before they’ve reached a productive resolution. Harper’s action costs taxpayers money and slows down the work of government. Worse, it’s an abuse of the law: Harper appears to be shutting down our legislature for partisan reasons. Instead of taking his lumps, Harper is taking his ball and going home.

Happily, the story seems to be gaining traction. A Facebook group protesting the move has doubled in size in the last 24 hours: it’s now up to over 40,000 members. Comments on CBC seem to universally damn Harper’s decision. There’s talk of a rally on January 25 23 to protest the prorogation.

In some senses, a rally won’t have any effect. Parliament won’t reconvene until March, regardless of how many rallies are held. But it may remind our Prime Minister that he is a public servant, and as such, he should be working on our behalf. To quote Mr. Harper:

When a government starts trying to cancel dissent or avoid dissent … is when it’s rapidly losing its moral authority to govern.

UPDATE: I had the wrong date for the rally. As RG mentions in the comments, it’s January 23, not January 25.

The Centretown News is running a story about a municipal party being assembled here in O-town. David Chernushenko is the only member of the coalition who is speaking publicly.

I’m glad to see that David is getting back into politics. Longtime PiePalace readers will remember that I volunteered with his various election campaigns when he was running for the Green Party in Ottawa-Centre. He reeks of credibility and honesty. He’s one of the few people I’ve met who should be in politics.

Having said that, I don’t want to see parties pushing into City Hall. Party politics acts to homogenize elected representatives. Party members must vote according to the party line, and private members’ bills rarely pass. At best, politicians must work within their parties to push ideas forward. At worst, parties are petty fiefdoms that only represent the views and priorities of a small elite.

I wish David the best of luck. He would be a welcome addition to City Council.

Being a weenie, I created a Wikipedia page for Richard Colvin, the gent at the centre of Canada’s detainee abuse scandal. Take a look at the initial batch of released memos written by Richard Colvin. SPOILER ALERT: nothing conclusive.

Earlier this week, Richard Colvin dropped a political bomb, suggesting that his reports of torture had been ignored by the Conservative government. The respected diplomat said:

As I learned more about our detainee practices, I came to a conclusion they were contrary to Canada’s values, contrary to Canada’s interests, contrary to Canada’s official policies and also contrary to international law. That is, they were un-Canadian, counterproductive and probably illegal.
[...]
According to a very authoritative source, many of the Afghans we detained had no connection to insurgency whatsoever

The allegation is serious. According to his testimony to the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan, Canadian soldiers routinely handed over detainees to Afghan authorities, who were then routinely tortured. During 2006 and 2007, Colvin produced over 17 reports telling higher-ups that that abuse was happening. Initially, his reports were ignored. Then he was told not to put things on paper.

He compared Canada’s performance with that of the British and Dutch, whose military took many fewer prisoners while operating in equally dangerous environments. British and Dutch militaries reported each hand-over to their parliaments, and monitored the prisoners’ condition in Afghan prisons. Canada did no such thing, citing security concerns.

Our military went so far as to ignore the Red Cross for three months when the NGO tried to inform our mission in Afghanistan that our detainees were suffering torture.

Initially, government lawyers attempted to prevent Colvin from speaking in front of the Committee. Since his allegations, Peter MacKay has called Colvin a Taliban stooge: nothing short of hearsay, second- or third-hand information, or that which came directly from the Taliban and blamed the Liberals. The federal government has refused to pay Colvin’s legal bills, even though he is a whistle-blower.

This is not my Canada. This is not what Canada means. We are better than this.

We are the country that invented peace keeping. Our country is built on peaceful compromise between the colonies of two warring empires. We have never needed a revolution to clean our government. Our country was born democratic. We export human rights. Or so I want to believe.

Perhaps this is what we’ve become. Perhaps our defining moment wasn’t when Lester B. Pearson created the first peace keeping force in 1997. Perhaps it was the Somalia murders and cover-up in 1993.

I hope not.

City Council will apparently be voting on the Lansdowne Live proposal on Monday. As time has gone on, my out-and-out opposition to the OSEG proposal has tempered from “the proposed plan is terrible, and should be stopped” to “the proposed plan is mediocre, lacking any kind of vision.” Perhaps it was the public consultations that didn’t consult the public. Or maybe it’s the reports that most of Council supports the OSEG proposal.

In any case, here’s hoping that our municipal government puts the Lansdowne Live proposal on ice and runs an open design competition. If OSEG is the best the world has to offer, let’s do it. Otherwise, let’s go with a plan that involves some public space, and perhaps even a few sports fields for Ottawans.

On the off chance our councilors are still listening to what their constituents have to say, I sent the following with letsgetitright.ca.

Please vote against the Lansdowne Live proposal.

The OSEG proposal is unimaginative and would add little to Ottawa’s public life. The plan shown during consultations provides no public space, nothing to attract residents outside of shopping, fewer sports facilities than are at Lansdowne presently, and is financially predicated on the success of a CFL team. Lansdowne must be redeveloped, but the new facility should be something that all Ottawans can enjoy, not just CFL fans and up-market shoppers.

Instead of taking the first proposal to come along, Council should reopen the design competition and choose the best proposal on offer. Please vote against the Lansdowne Live proposal.

Update: One of the Councillors actually responded. Alex Cullen (or one of his minions) wrote back:

Thank you for this – I share your views.
[...]
No matter what corporate confidentiality disclaimer may appear below please feel free to share this message as you wish.

Nice. I dig both the sentiment and the signature.

On Monday I went to the City’s open house on the Lansdowne Live plan. It was a zoo. Concerned Glebe-ites singing protest songs; people asking passersby to sign petitions against the “sole-sourcing” of the plan; and people handing out leaflets telling the truth about the deal.

Inside, it didn’t get much better. Tiny posters in small font, replicating the text of the City’s Lansdowne Live website. Each poster was surrounded by a crowd three or four people deep trying to read what was on display. There were officials from the city and/or the developer, but they were too inundated with people for me to get close to them.

It was insanity.

I went there to find out what was proposed, and ended up with more questions than answers:

What happens if the CFL team folds? The Ottawa Renegades lasted only four seasons. Aside from the $300k in annual rent[1], where would the team’s failure leave the city? According to the business plan, the CFL team is supposed to contribute $42 million dollars back to the city and developers.[2] That seems like an awfully large risk in a $200 million plan.

How will people get there? The transit portion of the slides seems optimistic. Lansdowne is far from the transit way, far from the planned LRT, and far from the nearest highway on-ramp. During peak use, the plan suggests that people will park and ride from the burbs to get to Lansdowne. That seems optimistic. Bank street becomes terribly congested for anything larger than a 67s game (eg, the Ex). Without a change in infrastructure, that seems unlikely to improve.

What about public use? The City of Ottawa is short on centrally located sports fields. There doesn’t appear to be an allocation of land for amateur sports such as soccer and ultimate. The plan would see a “front yard” that would serve as parking for large events. There’s no mention of use for amateur sports.[3] It sounds like they’d keep the winter bubble over the field at Frank Clair stadium, but that’s about it. Even though the pictures show fountains and a plaza, but I couldn’t find any mention of those in the posters or business plans.

What about the extras? The first phase of the plan is replacing the stadium and asphalt parking lot with something a little nicer and adding retail to the site. Phase 2 is the development of hotel, residential, and office components. The plan doesn’t describe what those developments will be. How large will each retail space be? What is the 41,000 square foot “unique food store“? Since the site is far from major arteries, it seems unlikely that a big box store would move in there. What will happen if the space can’t be rented out?

Aside from these questions, I have to say that the event didn’t feel like a consultation. It felt like something verging on a coronation, or perhaps a revolt. The vocal members of the crowd clearly didn’t like what they saw. The city and the promoters did little to answer visitor’s questions – although there was a Q&A session at Wednesday night’s consultation.

After reading the City/promoter’s docs I’m left with the simple conclusion: even though the Lansdowne Live proposal is no worse than what’s currently at the site, it doesn’t have much going for it. The proposal envisions Lansdowne as an attraction, but without the necessary transit to get visitors to the site. It lacks public space: no statuary, no gardens, no playing fields, no plazas, no skate parks, no amphitheater. Nothing.

[1] – Business plan, page 20.
[2] – Business plan, page 23.
[3] – Take a look at the stadium page and search for “winter”.

I saw Food, Inc at the Bytowne over the weekend. For those who don’t travel in hippie circles, it’s this summer’s blockbuster lefty documentary, brimming with the such granola celebs as the author of Omnivore’s Dilemma Michael Pollan¹ and Eric Schlosser (author of the excellent Fast Food Nation).

The gist of the documentary is pretty straight forward: our food supply has gone industrial, with almost all forms of food production being done in vast factories. The industrial process creates cheap unhealthy food, pushes small producers out of business, and has potentially fatal side effects (notably e. coli and salmonella poisoning for consumers). On top of that, the companies that do the processing act like bullies: litigating against farmers who attempt to save part of their crop to plant the following year, suing anyone who openly speaks against their products, and lobbying various legislatures to pass consumer-unfriendly legislation. Special attention is paid to Monsanto, everyone’s favourite corporate Big Brother.

Ironically enough, Food Inc also paints large corporations as our potential saviors from this economic and health nightmare: they talk to the entrepreneur that started Stonyfield Farm² who gives a wonderfully cogent explanation of why companies can actually produce good food, and why companies aren’t necessarily bad. They even end up painting Wal-Mart as part of the solution. (I hope that the NDP listen to their new golden boy, Darrell Dexter and integrate this idea into their world view – but that’s a topic for another post)

Do I recommend it? Yes. But with a caveat.

If you haven’t read Fast Food Nation, the Omnivores Dilemma, or any of the other books on modern food production, then I highly recommend this documentary. It’s informative and engaging without being overly depressing. Perhaps most importantly, it ends on a fairly positive note: we aren’t as screwed as all this sounds – as consumers, we have the corporations who have built this system under our control. We can vote with our dollars, and vote with our feet. Industrial production methods can be reformed to produce healthy, tasty, and safe food.

Now, if you have read one or more of those books, and are up on the vague shape of the American (and Canadian) food production systems, then I still recommend this movie, but not as glowingly. It doesn’t bring a great deal of new information to the table, but it does give a succinct reminder for why you’re doing what you do. I’ve been falling off the conscientious objector train recently – I’ve stopped going to the farmer’s market, I’ve stopped trying to buy locally grown stuff, and I’ve been buying more and more junk food. The end of this doc was a not so subtle hint that I really should be paying an extra dollar or two for my grub, so long as it goes to the right people and supports a production system that has to get back to the main stream.

Overall? go see it. Seriously.

Images from Food, Inc website and wikipedia, respectively. Used without permission.

1. Okay, I don’t know if Michael Pollan is a real hippie celebrity, since I haven’t read his book. He may be a seal clubber in his spare time, for all I know. (back)
2. Makers of fantastic yoghurt, and with some legitimately green cred. (back)