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.

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.

I occasionally get emails regarding the Asperger test hosted here on PiePalace. Some of them are heartbreaking:

I am trying to find information on how to test my son for Asperger’s. [... he has a hard time socializing... has difficulties with kids his own age...] Our insurance does not provide for testing and I can not afford to have him tested.

I know Canada’s health care system has problems, but at least anyone can get their kid in front of a doctor.

Years ago, I contributed policy to the Green Party of Canada on media. In it, I stated (words to the effect of) “media is a business like no other, it has a responsibility to be profitable, but more importantly, it has the responsibility to hold our public offices to account.” The policy items were my rough attempt to discourage the rise of large media conglomerates, and to support regional media outlets.

Yesterday, one of CTV shut down evening newscasts in Ottawa, and did similar things in Barrie, London, and Victoria. In doing so, they have cost Ottawa yet another media outlet, and yet another avenue for paid journalists to keep our politicians, bureaucrats, and corporations honest. Coincidentally, kottke.org has linked to a story describing how the cuts to Baltimore’s daily newspaper has made the police force less accountable:

Half-truths, obfuscations and apparent deceit — these are the wages of a world in which newspapers, their staffs eviscerated, no longer battle at the frontiers of public information. And in a city where officials routinely plead with citizens to trust the police, where witnesses have for years been vulnerable to retaliatory violence, we now have a once-proud department’s officers hiding behind anonymity that is not only arguably illegal under existing public information laws, but hypocritical as well.

And this isn’t just an American problem. As the Dziekanski enquiry is proving, Canadian police reports can sometimes differ dramatically from reality. Without an engaged, and well funded press, there will be no one to hold these officers to account.

What solutions do we have? A CRTC-mandated carriage fee for cable broadcasters? Preferential tax treatment for smaller news organization? Increased funding to public broadcasters? There are solutions, but we, as an electorate have to wake up to the fact these cuts don’t just cost jobs, they are a danger to our public institutions.

And Happy Festivus!

I’m an atheist¹ but I really do enjoy the Christmas season. It has everything I love: snow, time off, parties, a reason to see friends, and an excuse for binge drinking. Given the length of the Ontario winter, I’ve always thought that we should have Christmas sometime in late January, but I’m rarely consulted on these matters.

Here’s the first (and possibly last) Annual Pie Palace Gift List

Canadian Electorate

Over the past year, Canadians have stayed away from the polls in droves, and expressed consternation when opposition parties did their job and opposed poorly considered legislation.

• What they want: A Prime Minister like Barack Obama.
• What they deserve: A remedial civics lesson, explaining why voting is important, and the role of the opposition.
• What they will get: A Prime Minister like George Bush (namely Stephen Harper).

Iraqi Shoe Thrower

Muntadar al-Zaidi threw his shoes at George Bush, yelling “This is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq.” An event already immortalized across the intertubes by numerous animated gifs and at least one (crappy) flash game.

• What he wants: Stability in Iraq. (presumably)
• What he deserves: Stability in Iraq, and a new pair of shoes.
• What he will get: A long jail term, likely with abuse. (It looks like the abuse has already started)

Green Party Candidate Jen Hunter

Poor Jen. She ran as Green Party candidate in Ottawa-Centre during the 2008 federal election, getting 9.9% of the vote. If she’d gotten an extra 38 votes, she would have gotten 10%, and Elections Canada would have refunded 50% of her campaign expenses to the party.

• What she wants: A seat in Parliament.
• What she deserves: 39 more votes.
• What she will get: A new iPhone, and possibly a scarf.

OC Transpo’s Bus Drivers

Poor bus drivers. They just want their 7% raise over three years, and a contract that will allow them to set their own hours. Is that too much to ask?²

• What they want: A 7% raise, byzantine scheduling rules that favour drivers with seniority, and a pony for every driver.
• What they deserve: Better public relations.
• What they will get: Back to work legislation.

Stephan Harper

This year has been a bit of a roller coaster for the leader of Canada’s least disliked party. Breaking his own law and calling an election early, getting dissed by the Parliamentary auditor he appointed, almost losing the House when his poorly planned fiscal update backfired, and doing anything necessary to hold onto power.

• What he wants: A majority. And a pony.
• What he deserves: Visits from the Ghost of Christmas Past, the Ghost of Christmas Present, and the Ghost of Christmas Future.
• What he will get: A visit from the Ghost of Joe Clarke.

This post is a tardy addition to A&J’s Ottawa Blogger Virtual Christmas Party.

Image credit: AP and AbstractionReaction. Used without permission.

1. Agnostic, to be exact. But “agnostic” sound too noncommittal for my taste. It would probably be more accurate to say that I’m committedly unconvinced of the existence of any higher powers. (back)
2. I’m not sure how I feel about the strike. The union is doing a terrible job at getting their side of the story out. As a bus rider, I want the drivers to be treated fairly, and service to resume – but it’s hard to tell if the drivers’ demands are fair, when I can’t find out what they are. (back)

I’ve always voted for hope. Every time I’ve walked into a polling both, I’ve said to myself: “what do I want the future to look like?” I have a soft spot for sustainability and social justice, so I’ve usually given my vote to the Green Party. But thanks to yesterday’s fiasco at Governor General’s, I don’t want to play nice anymore. I want to punish Stephen Harper.

I feel like voting strategically for the first time in my life. I just want to see Stephen Harper fail.

Democracy can only thrive under the rule of law. In the case of a parliamentary democracy, such as Canada’s, the “rule of law” is a set of polite conventions that every parliamentarian is expected to follow. A party cannot govern without the tacit support of 50%+1 of the sitting MPs. If a party loses that support, the Governor General may either choose to trigger an election, or allow a coalition of other parties to take the reigns of power. This week we’ve seen Harper running scared. Instead of losing his minority government he first delayed a non-confidence vote that would have toppled him, then prorogued the House of Commons.

This is not how our Parliament is intended to work. When a politician knows their time is at an end, they should gracefully step aside, regroup, and attempt a come-back. Not take their ball and go home.

From my perspective, it looks like Harper values power more than anything else. He’s hoping that a two month break will be long enough for him to gather enough popular support (by demonizing Quebec) that he will get a majority in a mid-winter election.

In the background, our economy is slowly grinding to a halt as the Canadian dollar falls, tens of thousands of jobs are lost, and the government hemorrhages money due to fiscal mismanagement.

Photo credit: harperdictatorship.ca.