What Has Brian Hutchinson of the National Post Been Smoking?

So, here is a letter I sent to the National Post. I don’t know what’s up with my letter kick lately, I wanted to blog about something else (and I am SOOOO behind on shit!), but Brian Hutchinson’s article just boggles my mind.

The only difference between this one and the one I sent: I talk briefly about my own struggle with painkillers. I am open about it (duh, I am posting it on the Internet), but didn’t think it was relevant to the NP argument I raised. Here we go…

Regarding Brian Hutchinson’s article (fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/06/brian-hutchinson-four-mayors-join-the-addled-march-to-legalized-pot/) on the 6^th, obviously I am late to the party in adding my view to those who have already expressed theirs. The pieces you chose to reprint however (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/08/our-readers-hold-strong-views-on-legalized-marijuana/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter) motivated me to add to the fray.

I have no issue with his opinion; rather, I am confused by the logic behind it. While freely agreeing with the four former Vancouver mayors that “prohibition (is) a failed policy, which is fair,” he moves begins his criticizes them for not talking about “physical and mental health, which would seem paramount, in their letter, they gave it barely a mention.”  His further (correct) assertion that “Cannabis products are laden with harmful chemicals; marijuana smoke contains carcinogens and damages respiratory systems” is also mentioned in the same paragraph.

Regarding the first point, perhaps they didn’t discuss it because an increasing number of physicians are understanding that in many (key word) patients, pot helps people suffering with some of these disorders, especially in the area of pain management.  This hardly seems worth defending; it seems that weekly, a new report comes out where a group of physicians defends the use of pot for these purposes. But perhaps Mr. Hutchinson prefers other means of pain management, like for instance oxycodone, which the government licenses to various drug companies to produce, and which generate billions in revenue. Most common amongst these wonderful “sides” are, Constipation, dizziness, headaches, drowsiness, nausea, sleeplessness, vomiting, and weakness. But many users also complain of various allergic reactions (rash, hives, itching, difficulty breathing, and tightness in the chest, swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue), confusion, difficulty urinating, fast or slow heartbeat, seizures, severe dizziness, light-headedness, or fainting, slowed or difficult breathing, tremor, and vision changes.[1] For the sake of brevity, we won’t get into the fact that oxycodone addiction is one of the fastest growing forms of addiction in North America, or that sales—both legal and especially illegal—are growing exponentially, nor the increasing number of deaths related to its abuse.  There is a reason why it’s called “hillbilly heroin.”

This latter point is hits especially close to home with me. I have had to overcome painkiller addiction three times in my life; the first, when I was still in my late teens, and kept breaking my hands and other body parts (largely through fighting), and was given some by a “friend.” The second lasted much longer and was by far the more dangerous, coming during the period of my divorce when my drug and alcohol consumption were off the charts, and I became (literally) deathly ill because of it. And the last, quite by accident, when the wonderful doctors from a former province I resided in kept forgetting to schedule me for the removal of an abscessed tooth, and instead, just kept re-prescribing more magic pills—for a month. This last one was rather mild in comparison to the others, and not self-inflicted; nonetheless, the usual accompaniment of several days of puking, sweating and other fun body functions going wrong reminded me of how far I need to stay from these powerful opioids.  In contrast, and much to the chagrin of everyone who thinks those who are against drug prohibition, I have never been much of a pot-head at all; I can likely count the number of times I have smoked weed on the fingers of my hand and have a few spare ones left.

The “laden with harmful chemicals; marijuana smoke contains carcinogens and damages respiratory systems” argument is possibly even more head-scratching. As opposed to what, Mr. Hutchinson? Tobacco? Of course, being an over $11.0 billion a year business for the government, (minus of course, the healthcare costs associated with the various disease tobacco brings with it), one would deprive the government of serious revenue by removing these products which also seem to possess those woeful “damaging” toxins—albeit in greater concentration.

Regarding the criminal element that would still be involved if weed were legalized, again, Mr. Hutchinson tells just enough truth to sound credible. He hypothesizes that the underground pot market would be comparable to the underground marijuana market that would exist. And so it might. As noted above, the Canadian Government alone—not the tobacco companies themselves—profited some $11.- billion from tobacco sales. Does anyone honestly think that the cigarette smugglers took in this much? If so, we would see greater violence in the black market cigarette trade than we would in the marijuana one we currently have. The irony is that in accusing all the mayors of being ignorant of facts, Mr. Hutchinson is instead ignorant of the most obvious and irrefutable: prohibition has historically been a total failure on every issue it has taken on. 

Unfortunately, human impulse trumps human fear of retribution hands down.

And that’s where his most pressing point comes into focus: community safety. Mr. Hutchinson says that no explanation is given for the mayor’s assertion about increased community health and safety; perhaps because this is shockingly easy to defend. In Portugal, the decriminalization of drugs has led to a precipitous decline in both drug use and drug violence; it is not unreasonable to expect a similar result here. However, if Mr. Hutchinson’s real goal is to make our communities safer, if the health of its members is his underlying purpose, he need only consider the following statistic in order to focus his wrath: estimated annual deaths due to tobacco use in Canada—37 000. For alcohol, the figures are more difficult to pinpoint, but in 2007, MADD Canada estimated over 1200 from vehicle accidents alone.  Conversely, in 2005, the FDA released a report in which it listed the number of deaths caused primarily by marijuana use. The number: 0.

For those keeping score, it makes you wonder what Mr. Hutchinson has been smoking.

---

[1] Taken from http://www.drugs.com/sfx/oxycodone-side-effects.html

My Letter to The Hill Times re: CBC and Sheila Copps' Imagination

So, I am totally behind on my blogging, but here is a letter I wrote that was published in an abbreviated form in the Ottawa's Hill Times Online (http://www.hilltimes.com/). Link to the letter that got published is here, although you have to log in to see it http://www.hilltimes.com/letters-to-the-editor/2011/12/05/kicking-over-some-sacred-cows/28978.

I had originally intended this post to be a Letter to The Editor of The Hill Times Online in response to Shelia Copps’ article of Nov. 21^st, and her stirring defence of the CBC in her weekly Copps’ Corner column (http://www.hilltimes.com/copps-corner/2011/11/21/an-attack-on-cbc-is-an-attack-on-canadian-culture/28848). After being advised by one of Canada’s “top 5 political minds” (www.gerrynicholls.com) who generously takes the time to answer my newbie-type questions to keep such a letter to about 250 words, I gave up on the letter idea. There was just no way to do justice to an article of such heroic fiction in so few words.

When I originally saw the title, I wasn’t sure if Ms. Copps was attempting to expand her post-political media endeavors to now include writing fiction (a title like “An Attack On CBC Is An Attack On Canadian Culture” does make one wonder). After reading her piece, which turns Hubert Lacroix, the embattled CBC President, into some media equivalent of Gandhi, one would think that much like the beloved Bapu, Lacroix stands valiantly rallying his countrymen against a flood of Imperialism wishing to crush the culture he so zealously defends.

If I wasn’t convinced she was serious, I would suggest that the piece be nominated for a Governor General’s Award for best fiction, because Ms. Copps’ heroic portrayal of Lacroix does indeed show an imaginative, creative flair that is worthy of distinction. She is, however, indisputably correct in one thing: while Lacroix may well be zealously defending a culture, it’s not the Canadian one; it’s the culture that has allowed a publicly funded broadcaster to be a parasite on the Canadian taxpayers with what can charitably be described as limited accountability.

The CBC has come under fire from both it’s paymaster, the Canadian Government, and their competitors, chiefly the private broadcaster Quebecor. The state funded broadcaster has steadfastly refused to open it’s books to even the Information Commissioner, the Official who supposedly is in place to ensure individual and public rights to information. Bad enough that Lacroix proclaims accountability despite going to great lengths to not disclose how the money is spent; how often does an employer have to get a Federal Court Ruling to find out where his employee has been spending $1.1B put annually in his trust? The fact he does so while simultaneously attacking Quebecor on grounds that they too, receive federal funding and unlike the CBC, have no accountability is laughable. The way that Ms. Copps not only glosses this misrepresentation over, but endorses Lacroix and the CBC in doing so, is completely irresponsible.

Lack of accountability has long been the major beef that those of us who call for the privatisation of the CBC hold. In her article, Ms. Copps makes passing reference to another former CBC president who was on hand for the hearings, Tony Manera. You may recall, Mr. Manera quit his two-year stint as President of the state owned broadcaster when the Chretien government of 1995—of which, Ms. Copps served as Deputy PM—realizing it was near a massive financial crisis, announced sweeping reductions in government spending, which of course, effected the CBC, no doubt making Mr. Manera’s job appreciably more challenging. What Ms. Copps fails to mention, is that somehow, despite the Chretien’s Scrooge-like treatment of the Holy Grail of Canadian Culture (you know, the one that under the aforementioned St. Lacroix’s watch hired a former leader of a party who’s sole purpose was to separate Quebec from that Canadian Culture), the CBC has somehow managed to survive and apparently thrive (if that figure of generating $3.70 for every dollar invested is to be believed) some 16 years later. What she also chooses to ignore, is that the cuts in government spending that extended well beyond the CBC have been the biggest factor in partially shielding—for now at least—Canada from much of the current global economic crisis. (I find this particularly odd; rather than taking credit for being a key member of the government that helped avert much of the worst of a global meltdown, one wonders if Ms. Copps regrets the decisions that were made to keep us from default. Perhaps I should find this more “telling” then “odd”).

I am no Quebecor apologist; I am however, an unapologetic lover of fair, free markets and open competition, which benefits not only consumers, but encourages producers of goods to produce the highest quality they can at reasonable prices. Because of a protectionist government policy, the CBC has never had to endure the demands of doing either.

While it is true that like the CBC, Quebecor’s TVA network receives millions from the Canadian Media Fund, the private company’s Videotron arm pays more into it than TVA gets back. In other words, the Canadian Government picks Quebecor’s right pocket, counts out a rather large sum of the company’s earned cash, and then, as an act of sheer benevolence, puts some—but not quite all—of it back in the left pocket, and likely waits for the thank you card from the company it plundered. In contrast to Quebecor, the CBC pays nothing to the CMF, however it does receive the same benefits.

Of course, a far too simple solution would be to stop taking the money in the first place, and then there would be no need for the subsidy later. However, this may do something horrific, like level the playing field and encourage an open market, where any company that wishes to compete must do what all companies do: be accountable to those who invested in them. And it is painfully obvious that this is a result the CBC, it’s steward Mr. Lacroix, and evangelical apologists like Ms. Copps desperately wish to avoid.

To suggest that the citizens who fund the CBC—many of us, against our will—are against Canadian Culture for demanding accountability is insulting. Shamefully for Ms. Copps, it’s the same tactic her hated enemies, the Conservatives, employ as they proclaim that those of us opposed to their Draconian Crime Bill (otherwise known as C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Act), are somehow silently cheering for your kids to become crack-addicts. The strands can be found around the world; opposition to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan meant that those who opposed such actions clearly were in favour of the despots and terrorists that ruled the nations we were engaging. No Ms. Copps, we are not anti-Canadian. Just the opposite; we seek to make a country we love a better place, and unless governments and the offices they sponsor become accountable, that will never happen.

If Ms. Copps is truly serious about reviving her almost dead political party as it’s next President, perhaps she should kick over some sacred cows that politicians of every persuasion, not just Liberal, have disguised as “Canadian Institutions” and have the courage and integrity to speak out against the waste they previously birthed and raised, whose consequences we now see.

Now that would be an attack on Canadian Culture, at least as we have come to know it in the political sphere.

Vincente Fox's Opinion On Drug Prohibition, Now That He's Free From the American Emperor

Amazing how people speak when they are free from worrying about what the Empire thinks:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15379360

Your Community Is About To Become Safer; Just Ask A Pedophile (or Justice Minister)

Not content to rest on the laurels of his sweeping majority, Prime Minister Harper has decided to raise Canada's profile and become involved in the Institution Industry. This Industry, led by the Big Three of Russia, South Africa, and the undisputed king, America (I guess it's still good to be #1 at something?) seeks to throw as many people in jail as is possible. This of course is never the stated goal, especially with our esteemed Southern neighbours; no, the stated goal is the "safety" of it's citizens. The fact that there is an almost inestimable drain on society in so many different areas is irrelevant; you are safer, whether you know it or not (in the US, they likely don't for some strange reason; as their incarceration rates go up, crime seems to as well, and in case we haven't noticed from the woeful decline of American literacy rates--especially amongst inner-city children--society seems to be decaying at a mortifying rate. I guess they just don't get it down there). We in Canada have started to take notice of the great American Prison Institution, and the Government that has sought to protect you from all manner of evil with it's increased phone and internet surveillance is now about to bring you it's take on public safety: the Safe Street and Communities Act.

First, a bit about the cost:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-cost-of-one-conservative-crime-bill-for-one-year-458-million/article2181685/
(I have read various estimates on cost; this seemed the lowest of them. After all, I want to give my leaders the benefit of the doubt).

How will Canadians afford this? Easy...as the new prisons get built, more jobs in Corrections surface. And of course, in order to justify those prisons and jobs, more people will be incarcerated than ever. Of course, this is just the start:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/sweeping-conservative-crime-bill-only-the-beginning/article2173915/

Which, of course will lead to even more of this for those who work in the justice system:
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Federal+crime+legislation+strain+burdened+courts/5428399/story.html
and then this for those who live and work inside the walls:

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Overcrowding+gangs+causing+increase+Canadian+prison+violence+report/5133695/story.html

Odd, even the people who stand to profit nicely from this can see the stupidity of it:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lawyers-attack-harpers-tough-on-crime-agenda/article2129321/
Perhaps because of his recent stay in some of America's finest institutions, His Lordship even understands the futility of it:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/19/conrad-black-the-case-against-being-dumb-on-crime/

Now, I am not one to often tout "International Observers." but when someone is right, they are right:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/time-to-lead-archives/canadas-youth-crime-plans-bewilder-international-observers/article2102822/
Add to this: get used to it kiddies. Mr. Nicholson clearly has stated that he is wanting to go after youth crime especially.

And of course, my 2 favourites:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/crime-falls-to-1973-levels-as-tories-push-for-sentencing-reform/article2104745/
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/growers+face+more+jail+than+rapists/5445669/story.html
That's right folks, despite an acknowledged almost 40 year low in crime, the Conservative Government has decided--at an estimated minimum cost of $2.1 B over the next 4 years--to make you safer from a pot-head hippie then a pedophile (hence the inspiration for my title).

In their attempt to leave no stone unturned as they race to incarcerate as many non-violent offenders as possible, The Harper Government has taken the enlightened step of relieving judges of the tedium of reviewing cases with any kind of vigour or diligence, hence the inclusion of minimum mandatory sentencing. Now of course, a judge who has no doubt been appointed to do just that--judge--need not strain himself too much in deciding the difference between an individual who may be growing some 7 (seven!) pot plants in their basement to combat the onset of pain for cancer, and a first time offender who happened to get caught trafficking crack cocaine. The cancer patient gets 6 months; the crack dealer 1 year. Read that again: if you haven't taken the time to get a license (from of course, the government), there is a 6 month difference between getting caught with a drug that studies show helps decrease chronic pain in many patients suffering from a wide variety of illnesses, and selling crack. (For a run-down of the new mandatory sentencing see: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/nr-cp/2009/doc_32339.html).

Unfortunately, despite their zeal to incarcerate as many people as possible, the overburdened judicial system will only be able to do so much; and this is where the real tragedies will start. The trends will undoubtedly shift to an even greater incarceration rate amongst those with mental health issues:
http://www.cmha.bc.ca/files/2-criminalization.pdf

http://www.ontario.cmha.ca/justice.asp
Many drug users have mental issues of some sort that have led to their addictions; as this bill especially targets non-violent drug users, there can be little doubt that the greatest number of new prisoners will come from this segment of society. In other words, as both CMHA documents show, an even more unbearable burden will be placed on a prison system that is already incapable of handling those who are least likely to hurt anyone but themselves.

Welcome to the Brave New Crime-Free Canada, courtesy of Stephen Harper, Rob Nicholson and of course, the Safe Streets And Communities Act.

Toronto's Finest, Serving and Protecting

I realize this is going to be short, still in the process of moving, but I couldn't leave this one...watch the video.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1056278--video-police-fire-taser-man-falls-off-balcony?bn=1

Can anyone please explain to me what the police were thinking? So, let's see...you have a "domestic incident"--which any cop will tell you are the most volatile ones possible--combined with a clearly agitated, irrational guy.  In the course of your 4 hour "negotiation" with him, amongst other things, he stands on the edge of his balcony, obviously acting a wee bit unstable to say the least. So naturally, the logical thing to do is...taser him?

This is beyond unreal.

"Why I Protest"

In the absence of a full blog for right now, I thought I would quote Ron Paul’s reference in Liberty Defined to Elie Wiesels’s One Generation After. It’s called “Why I Protest.”

“Author Elie Wiesel tells the story of the one righteous man of Sodom, who walked the streets protesting against the injustice of this city. People made fun of him, derided him. Finally, a young person aksed: “Why do you continue your protest against evil; can’t you see no one is paying attention to you?” He answered, I’ll tell you why I continue. In the beginning, I thought I would change people. Today, I know I cannot. Yet, if I continue in my protest, at least I will prevent others from changing me.”

“Dude if it wasn’t for government, who would provide our roads?” The Myth of Government Infrastructure

I owe the title of this entry to one friend in particular who blurted the above quote out to me while we were having a discussion on government in general. In reality however, I owe the whole idea for it to several people, and numerous discussions; I have to admit that I get great amusement from friends who know some of my views on minimal government. Unfortunately however, I quickly move from amusement to sadness.

It’s starts off amusing because although I cannot find one of them who doesn’t agree with me that we far, far too much government and need to reel it in, and above all, demand from them greater accountability and responsibility (which clearly we have next to none of currently), invariably they all reach a quick state of panic that by minimizing government, we will quickly threaten the very foundations not just of society, but our own well-being. And this is where it goes from amusing to sad. Canadians have become so government dependent that we have no realization that the majority of what we depend on government for, we could do better ourselves as individuals within communities. It’s not that the thought escapes us; the very notion has simply never occurred to us.

And this is where government has done some of it’s most outstanding work in spreading our consuming dependency on it: it has convinced otherwise intelligent people that without their benevolent supervision and control, the whole infrastructure of society would quickly collapse. 

Of all of our entrenched myths, this one should be one of the more easy to dispel and see through. Like most however, our greatest hindrance is that we neglect the obvious answers to this problem, and search for the more complicated ones.

The myth of benevolent, government provided infrastructure takes many practical daily forms (we could use hospitals for example), but for the sake of simplicity, let’s stick to my friend’s argument: without government, how would one have roads?

Currently, roads are constructed when the provincial government takes your money (i.e., tax), then allocates those funds to different cities\communities. In other words, the government generously decides what portion of your money which it has already taken from you, it wishes to return in the form of something you possibly see no use for, and as such, obviously wouldn’t want to pay for.

In order to refute this theory, let’s imagine a typical community.  The people of this community want to build some new roads; however, without this wonderful, wise institution to oversee and micromanage every detail, they are left with a daunting reality: they have to come up with a solution themselves.

The first thing to address is the issue of funding. The common objection people raise is that government provides the funding for the roads in the first place. We first must stop treating government like it is a person or a business (although it is run like a mafia-style corporation in it’s current state). Government produces no goods or services which it may sell or trade on the free market. One immediately needs to understand that “government” has no money except that which it has already taken from citizens via taxation. In other words, the money that government has, it has taken from you, whether you like it or not. Thus, removing government from the process doesn’t affect how much money there is to build roads (in fact, as we will see, it actually increases it). Put it like this: let’s say that through taxation, every citizen pays $100 yearly of their salary currently for the building and maintenance of the roads in their community. You do not suddenly have less of your salary for those roads just because there is no government taxing your income for it. Your salary, as well of the others in your community remains the same.

Since the funds are clearly already available, the next obstacle we face in our road building would be the collection of those funds. This however, should be the easiest to thing to do; people within our community already clearly see the need we have for our roads. Getting reasonable people to participate in the funding of something that they see as useful will be easy. What if some within the community don’t see the use for a road? Equally simple: they clearly see no value in them; so therefore, they are free not to use them. They should not be forced to participate in the funding for them, and obviously, they see no value in them, so there is no reason to believe that they would want to use them. If, in the future they see they change their minds, then an issue of user fees may come into place. That, however, deals with the future use of the roads; at this point, we will concern ourselves only with their construction.

So our next issue: what of organization for overseeing the funds? History has shown that time and again, when people are faced with a crisis whether it is large or small, they find a way to band together to overcome the problems that face them. Obstacles tend to motivate individuals, families, and communities to set aside whatever differences they might have, and find a way to bond together to overcome. This is true of large scale problems; certainly, it’s not difficult to envision a community selecting some leaders from within it that can be mutually agreed upon to bring about a solution to the problem before it, in this case, the construction of roads.

And now is where it gets really interesting to see how much more, not less, efficient these communities will be than a large scale, centralized government. The funds are in place, we have selected some temporary leaders to oversee the project, yet they are people who not only are accountable to us on a more intimate level—after all, they are your neighbours—but they also have a personal interest in the efficiency of the project: the roads are in their community too. As a further bonus, they have but one agenda, and it’s that of good roads. They are not seeking election for any office, nor are they under the illusion that they will have further power past the short-term responsibility of building the roads. So, quick now, think of your own neighbourhood: who is more likely to want to ensure that the roads that you paid for are both of good quality, and reasonable price? You and those around you, or some autocrat in a far off capital city? The answer is obvious, and here is where a decentralized system destroys the current model.

As the roads are in your own community, you and your neighbours are likely to take the time to make sure you get the best quality for your hard-earned dollars; you will not dole out your cash to those with party affiliations, nor prior patronage appointments. The waste I had blogged about previously (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/firms-with-bc-liberal-ties-awarded-secret-contracts-in-pro-hst-campaign/article2109375/) is unlikely to happen, and even if somehow through an unscrupulous community member tried to do something similar, enough other members of the community could quickly reel it in. In it’s worse case possibility, it can’t approach the waste we find daily in larger government.

Which brings us to the true bottom line: assuming our previous example of every person in the community who is already being taxed by the government is losing a $100 yearly for those roads, how much of that actual $100 do you think is going to the road vs. the amount that is going to support the bureaucratic process that ultimately has little or nothing at all to do with your road? Much of the money that we think goes to the building of the roads and other infrastructure is obviously wasted in epic proportions by people who have absolutely no interest in your personal prosperity. And, tragically, you are paying them to waste it.

The reality is that there is very little, if anything, that a large, centralized government can do that a group of people within their own communities can’t do better, and with far less waste. We are so ingrained with our dependency on government that we have been brainwashed into thinking that absent it, the world would fall apart. Nothing could be further from the truth; it’s time for us to realize that as a concerned and dedicated community of individuals working together for common goals, we have the ability to achieve far greater things than any monopolistic state can. We have bought into the propaganda that we need our government to breastfeed us, nurse us and then change our diapers which we will never grow out of, because they keep us in a cycle of continual dependency to repeat the process. The only way it can stop is for us as individuals to realize the answer to my friends’ question:  Who would provide roads for us if there was no government? The same people who already do provide them.

Only, we would do it infinitely better. 

The Bastardisation of Privilege

I had wanted originally planned on my first post being something different. However, I woke up one morning last week, and an article in The Globe And Mail one morning last week practically reached out and grabbed me. As I have re-read the article several times, I realized I couldn’t let it go. The link is below.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/firms-with-bc-liberal-ties-awarded-secret-contracts-in-pro-hst-campaign/article2109375/

Upon reading the article, it becomes obvious why anyone who believes that governments have abandoned any pretense of accountability in our country would be deeply troubled by these revelations. The more frightening issue after reading it is that this probably represents a very small portion of the abuse practiced on a regular basis by every level of Canadian government. 

The issues of financial mismanagement are troubling enough. While I have never had my own series of Town Hall Meetings, I am left to wonder how they merit a firm being paid well over $150,000 of taxpayers’ livelihood simply to put them on. As to a website that dipped into your pockets for a further $50,000, well, one wonders what amazing technology was needed to the tune of $50k, or what proofreading and writing were needed  that would take yet another $40k from the public (i.e., you).

The rest of the ludicrous economic waste is clearly laid out in the article. The removal of any bidding process for these lucrative contracts ensures that your money was spent without a moment’s thought of getting any form of value for them, something that any manager in a private industry would be promptly and correctly fired for. While the combination of fund wasting absent of a competitive process for the contracts is infuriating by itself, this is simply typical government behaviour; it is difficult to believe that if we ever had an accurate breakdown on government fiscal mismanagement, we would not think ourselves fortunate to “only” be relieved of some $250,000 on a regular basis. The figures would be staggering, and a few hundred thousand dollars of taxpayer income a mere drop in the bucket.

Several other issues raised my ire in this article, some financial, for instance, the “purely logistical” (whatever that means in the context of an HST document) work given to a man who just happened to be an ex-aide (who’s “purely logistical” consulting fees subsequently not-so-purely doubled), to ethical (question: how many of these non-competing contracts were given to those not affiliated with the Liberal Party? Or better yet, having no real political ties at all? Take your time; the math is easy on this).

However, it is the reason that government is able to engage in such unchecked pillaging at the public’s expense that I find considerably more distressing; in many ways, it is the reason why I started this blog in the first place, and perhaps is it no better encapsulated than in the following quote:

‘Finance Ministry communications director Matt Gordon said that justification was used because the “information, strategies and discussions” disclosed during such a competition would have been of a “privileged” nature.’

(This comes from the same man who later in the article comfortingly reassures us that the fact that former Liberal caucus director’s $25,000 contract was given based on reputation, not affiliation. In case you needed reassuring that it was sheer coincidence she just happened to have her former position within the party that handed her your cash).

What is supposed to be true “parliamentary privilege” has not changed in it’s definition for close to 150 years.  The Canadian concept of privilege comes from the British one which preceded and is derived from Erskine May's Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament. Briefly, it was defined thusly:

Individual parliamentary privileges include:

1. Freedom of speech
2. Freedom from arrest in civil action
3. Exemption from jury duty
4. Exemption from appearing as a witness
5. Freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation

Collective parliamentary privileges include:

1. Power to discipline
2. Regulation of the House’s internal affairs
3. Management of Employees
4. Authority to maintain the attendance and service of Members
5. Right to institute inquiries and to call witnesses and demand papers
6. Right to administer oaths to witnesses
7. Right to publish papers containing defamatory material

While there have been some amendments over the course of time, the basic premise of “privilege” was as clear in 1800’s as it is supposed to be today: privilege is extended to members of an assembly to ensure freedom of speech, especially as it regards performance of their civic responsibilities, and their ability to express without fear of consequence their opinions on the matters before them. (Note: for an excellent summary of this, see http://www.parl.gc.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Language=E&Print=2&Sec=Ch03&Seq=2.)

The link I refer to above is prefaced by a quote from The Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, the former Speaker of The House, where he offers his very succinct and accurate observation on privilege: “In my view, parliamentary privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House of Commons and the right of a member to discharge his duties in the House as a member of the House of Commons.” Not even the smallest doubt can exist: privilege was to guard freedom of speech, and things that pertained to it. In other words, in absolutely no conceivable way was the honourable concept of privilege meant to become the impregnable veil of secrecy that shrouds government from being accountable to the very people it derives its existence from.

Unfortunately, the arrogance exhibited by Mr. Gordon is well-earned. They play us for idiots. Sadly though, he knows, as do most politicians, that few Canadians have a concept of what privilege is, much less what it was originally meant to be. So off they lead us; and in our ignorance, off we go.

Calling the government into account for it’s own unethical behaviour is useless; few politicians have a desire to be accountable if they can avoid doing so. The only way this will be accomplished is when the public themselves view that accountability as their right from every level of those they have elected to govern over them, and demand it accordingly. 

Simply put: if we don’t shake off our apathy, we can expect not more of the same, but much worse, and eventually see the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson’s assertion that “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”

My Little Voice, And Why I Needed To Use It...

Welcome to True North Strong&Free, my Canadian Liberty Blog.

I had been wrestling with the idea of starting a project like this for several months, when an event that garnered unwanted world-wide attention for the City of Vancouver started a series of events that finally pushed me to begin it. The events themselves were fairly innocuous compared to the ones that led to the final birth of this blog; they were proverbial icing on a cake that had been baked already by events far worse than the ones that finally got me writing. In reality, this final straw was rather a minor affair compared to the several events preceding it.

The event mentioned that brought unwanted attention was of course, the riots which came after the Vancouver Canucks were defeated by the Boston Bruins in the Final of the Stanley Cup. Shortly after the riots, the Vancouver Courier published a story which was carried by the two larger Vancouver papers, The Sun and the Province, which revealed that the mayor of Vancouver lied about the use of surveillance cameras during the ensuing riots.  The link to the original article can be found here:

http://www.vancourier.com/Surveillance+cameras+deployed+Vancouver+despite+mayor+denial/5018403/story.html

At first brush, this is just another example of typical Vancouver incompetence, or worse, cover-up. The mayor is quoted on May the 31^st saying that “there’s no plan to use surveillance cameras.” The riots however, would occur 15 days later. Having to shift positions within two weeks—the riots were June 15, clearly the request to use them had to have been made prior to that—at worst shows poor foresight on the part of Vancouver’s City Hall (something that no one who follows Vancouver politics can find even slightly surprising), or, a willful deception on the part of the mayor. This in and of itself was disturbing (given the ensuing riots, whatever justification the VPD felt for calling for the use of the cameras is surely questionable; obviously, they did nothing to prevent the lunacy which followed). Clearly, the mayor was either a) incompetent for not anticipating at least the possibility of riots (given the past riots in Vancouver as well as other Canadian cities during their Stanley Cup runs), or b) if he did have a clue, he was dishonest.

While there have been far worse government and police scandals than this one, what I found especially disturbing was the reaction of several people I talked to about the issue of their government—an institution which in (utopian it seems) theory is supposedly accountable to them—being deceitful towards them. In discussing this with several friends—most of whom are educated professionals—the typical response was a collective shrug of the shoulders that spoke of resignation to governmental deceit, and worse, the complete acceptance of it. There was a unanimous feeling in everyone that I talked to that this was just business as usual. Perhaps the saddest response I got was from what may have also been the most thoughtful answer I heard or read. A friend informed me that you couldn’t really use the term “lie” to describe the mayor’s initial statement, because he was only using the “double-speak” that the majority of the politicians use.

This apathy and acceptance has been the fuel which the ever-turning engine of government has used to erode of our civil liberty, or what has passed for it here in Canada. We have gradually accepted that governments lie to us; and while we find it disagreeable, we seldom do anything much about it, in fact, much like my friend, we explain it away as expected behaviour.

I have come to think that there are two reasons for this. The first is that it is likely because we think it irrelevant who or which party governs us, the outcome will be the same: government lies, and there is nothing to be done. We likely haven’t yet subscribed in theory to Plato’s Noble Lie inasmuch as we understand that politicians are not lying for our good as Plato glamorized, but rather to benefit themselves and their own images; yet, for all practical purposes, we have allowed ourselves to be governed by those who practice it without holding them into account.

The second is more troubling to me. Governments rarely do things in monumental leaps. This is especially true if they fear that what they are doing may be unpopular, and they would inevitably face large backlash from their constituents. I am concerned that what has happened in our country has been a long, gradual process that has seen every generation lose some of the freedom that the one previous to it possessed.

The government goes about this by first informing us that our safety is at risk if we don’t allow them to do whatever it is that they are currently about to undertake. I can think of no better recent example of this than the recent push by the Federal Government to expand it’s telecommunication and internet surveillance laws (for more info, go to OpenMedia.ca). The government has wrapped this assault of our privacy using the most time-honed technique it has ever drawn upon: mass fear propagation. If we don’t pass this bill, terrorists are lurking at our doorsteps; the Canadian equivalent of 9-11 awaits us. And of course, your children are the ones most at risk: internet snooping will surely find the pedophiles in your neighbourhood…that’s right, YOUR neighbourhood! If this bill doesn’t become law QUICKLY, then your children are at risk…it’s only by the grace of God that they haven’t been duly abducted and raped already.

The absurdity of this ploy should be easy to spot; unfortunately, the only thing that can be easily surmised is that this Orwellian tactic has been astonishingly successful, and even recently sold wonderfully by our current Prime Minister when he gave us his own spin on Benjamin Franklin’s timeless quote on liberty and freedom by asserting that Canadians would “rather give up a little freedom for more safety.” (Franklin: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”). The problem is, Mr. Harper—like each of his predecessors, regardless of political affiliation—never really stops to let us know what his evermore authoritarian government is saving us from in any credible way. We know there are bogeymen out there and they are coming for us; the fact that they have not yet consumed us is only because we have heeded the call to be protected. The problem is, the more we “get protected” the more one tends to fear that the “protectors” are the real bogeymen themselves.

It’s my conviction that as Canadians, we have a limited concept of liberty—and therefore, aren’t even aware of our lack of it—despite in theory being a “free country.” And I believe that one of the main reasons is that too often people like me have seen our potential contributions as being too insignificant to make a difference. I have no delusions of grandeur; just the opposite actually. I may just be writing to appease my own conscience. However, I feel compelled to say something, if only for that conscience’s sake. Whenever I read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, despite any points on which I may disagree, I feel I am reading one of the great documents of a free society; whenever I read the news or observe current events in Canada, I am sickened by the contrast. And when I discuss it with my friends, I am ultimately saddened by the defeatist apathy.

I want it to change. Welcome to my blog.