Federal, Media, Municipal

Fairness

Leave a comment

I was driving by Tim Felger’s store and looking at the window damage as the radio DJ was speaking of Marc Emery spending 6 – 8 years in an American jail (or serving his sentence in Canada). Arriving home the second item on the 11PM news was about granting an exception to Canadian law for the ex-KGB agent currently taking sanctuary in a church to avoid arrest and deportation.

All of which left me pondering the state of fairness in the Canadian justice system.

It has been a sad fact of life that those with money can, through their ability to hire high priced legal talent, realistically afford a different brand of justice than the average citizen. By the same token the average citizen can afford a different brand of justice than the poor, the homeless, the addicted or the mentally ill who have no money and are far too often entirely at the mercy of chance as to how they fare within the legal system.

Not a perfectly fair reality, but a reality nonetheless and an issue that, while difficult to remedy, has at least the fairness of being in the public awareness.

I am far more concerned with popularity of the party involved becoming the deciding factor as to how the law is or is not applied. Politics is a popularity contest and one only has to take a honest, objective look at our cities, provinces and country to see how badly popularity can be as a basis to make policy or apply policy on.

Worse, it seems to being played out in the media. Contrast the tone of the current reporting on the ex-KGB officer who has taken refuge within a Vancouver church with the reporting that was done when an illegal immigrant from India took shelter in a Sikh temple. While the circumstances are not exactly the same, the principle is.

Marc Emery is not a friend of Stephen Harper or his Conservative party and is not the type of person or character that any of the opposition parties will stand up on a matter of principle over.

Personally I would gladly kick Mr. Emery’s ass over many of his actions and behaviours. But … as a matter of principle he should not have had to cut a deal and serve prison time because the Canadian government (and most Canadians) don’t like him or what he stands for.

Remember what Mr. Emery was doing in Canada was legal for him to be doing in Canada. The failure of the government from the start to say no, under these circumstances we will not extradite him, has far reaching consequences (just ask other Canadians abandoned in foreign jails to foreign legal systems) as well as fairness issues.

I caught an interview with Salman Rushdie on CBC’s The Hour. What would have happened if Iran (or another Islamic country) had asked for his extradition to face charges for writing the Satanic Verses? What do you think the public’s reaction would be and in light of public and world reaction, what would the Canadian government have done? Refused the extradition request.

Fairness?

I have seen no editorial outrage or public outcry at the damage done to Tim Felger’s front store windows or the shooting out of the truck’s and rear store windows. Considering the extremely close watch the police, the city and outraged citizens keep on Mr. Felger and his establishment and the extent of the damage done and the time it would take, it is troubling that someone had that time and that no suspects have been found.

Over the years Mr. Felger has made himself very unpopular in Abbotsford particularly with city council and the police, but in fairness that should not affect the handling of the criminal damage done to his store.

Fairness requires that whether we like or dislike the people, like or dislike the situation, that like or dislike does not affect the outcome.

In suggesting that the law treat the ex-KGB agent differently ‘because he deserves it’; in tolerating the government not refusing to extradite Mr. Emery ‘because he deserves it’; in tolerating the damage done to Mr. Felger’s store and way he is treated ‘because he deserves it’; we increase the unfairness of the system and decrease our own rights and protections.

Fairness does not just protect the Felger’s of the world. Fairness protects us all and we abandon Fairness ‘because he (they) do not deserve it’ at our own peril.

Federal

Character – or lack thereof.

Leave a comment

As a Canadian it pleased me to hear that the CBC had declined to run Stephen Harper’s desperate and contemptible anti-Michael Ignatieff drivel. It appears at least someone in Canadian broadcast television has at least minimal standards.

Although in the case of the media conglomerates, in light of the ‘save local television’ con they are running, they could hardly refuse even as crass and un-Canadian an advertisement as Harper’s odious personal attack on Michael Ignatieff.

Of course one cannot overlook the matter of self interest in the decision by the media conglomerates to accept and run Harper’s sordid attack ad. It is in the best interest of the media conglomerates to curry favour with Harper and the Conservatives as they want them to impose a tax on Canadian’s cable service then give the tax monies raised to the media conglomerates in order to save them from bankruptcy now and to guarantee future corporate profits without the need to bother to do anything about their bad management practices.

I do acknowledge that I did find the irony inherent in the tag line accusation “in it for himself” rather amusing. It left me wanting to suggest to Mr. Harper that he should not ascribe his personal motivations to anyone other than himself. Just because Mr. Harper continuously demonstrates, through his behaviour, that he is clearly “in it for himself” does not mean anyone else seeking office is “in it for himself” and not motivated by a desire to rescue Canada and Canadians from Mr. Harper and the Conservatives.

The most disturbing aspect of the ad, other than its demonstration that Stephen Harper has no understanding of what it means to be Canadian, is what it says about Harper and the Conservatives on issues of policy and governance.

The advertisement highlights Mr. Harper’s desperation and fears that the polls showing the Liberals under Ignatieff leading the Conservatives strongly enough to win the majority in parliament that Canadians denied Mr. Harper.

There was no vision, ideas, priorities or integrity revealed in Mr. Harpers attack on Mr. Ignatieff; just the desperation of Mr. Harper to hang onto power in any manner and at any cost.

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power. Abraham Lincoln

Federal

The Blame Game.

Leave a comment

Wednesday June 3, 2009: the day that Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party unveiled their new strategy for denying responsibility for the consequences Canadians are suffering for Harper’s actions, policies and ideology – ‘The Secret of Success is knowing who to Blame for Your Failures.’

Henceforth, rather than have any Conservative MP (or the Prime Minister) accepting accountability for what occurs on their watch and under their direction, failures will be blamed on staff members.

Although … given the issues Canadians as a people and a country face, and in light of Harper and the Conservatives demonstrated inability to comprehend or understand the myriad issues (including what it means to be Canadian) that exist outside their limited ideology, there may not be enough government employees for Harper and the Conservatives to blame their failures on.

The appeal that not taking responsibility for failure has for anyone in the shoes of Harper and the Conservatives is understandable.

An affordable housing crisis in Canada? Increasing homelessness because of the lack of affordable housing? Canadian workers who’s EI has run out ending up homeless? Increasing numbers of Canadians and Canadian children living in poverty and in danger of homelessness? Government policies the transfer wealth to the wealthy while more than 90% of Canadians become less wealthy to fund this transfer of wealth? Problems and complications caused by the denial of the recession and refusal to acknowledge the depth and affects of the recession on the Canadian economy and working Canadians? … …

All staff’s fault; Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are not, in their worldview anyway, in any way responsible for any negative consequences of their polices and actions.

A $50 Billion deficit? Staff should have told/convinced Harper and the Conservatives that cutting the GST when the economy was booming, rather than using the money to reduce the national debt, maintaining the higher cash flow and maintaining the option of using GST cuts as stimulus during a recession, was as poor a decision as fiscally responsible Canadians with common sense pointed out, at the time the GST cuts were announced, it was.

No, for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives a good scapegoat is as welcome (more welcome?) as solutions to the issues.

I suppose it is only a matter of time before Mr Harper and the Conservatives, desperate to find any success to take credit for, create successes out of their sea of failures by simply redefining the meaning of success. ‘Stephen Harper today stated that the Conservatives had been SUCESSFUL at preventing the deficit from ballooning to $100 billion dollars.’

No need to accept responsibility and address the issues – just blame your failures on others and redefine what success is.

Federal, Media

PBS Model – not more Corporate Welfare

Leave a comment

Should the media conglomerates Machiavellian “save local television” campaign manage to con Canadians into demanding their MP’s impose a new tax on Canadians and use the revenue to bailout/save the media conglomerates from the consequences of their own bad decisions and management the federal government should say NO loudly.

Rather than rewarding the duplicitous nature of this campaign by using a new tax on Canadians to provide ongoing corporate welfare for the Canadian media conglomerates, the federal government should tell the media conglomerates to take a lesson from PBS and its pledge drives.

Local PBS stations depend upon donations from local viewers, running pledge drives throughout the year to raise the funds they need to continue broadcasting. Vancouver’s “local” Seattle PBS station receives a significant proportion of its donations from the lower mainland. Proof residents of the lower mainland are willing to support financially television they judge worthy of support.

Citizens should be permitted to clearly indicate whether they support the giant media conglomerates that control Canadian media or whether they would prefer the return of local media to local ownership,

Indeed, given the ethically questionable nature of the “save local television”, and that the media has chosen to beguile local charities into endorsing this disguised political campaign, the CRTC needs to impose sanctions on those who formulated and implemented this hustle.

Caveat emptor, Issues

Caveat Emptor

Leave a comment

Machiavellian, manipulative flimflam and devious are a few of the words that came to mind as I watched the slick media campaign commercial seeking to convince Canadians to urge their MP’s to impose a special tax on Canadians in order to fund corporate welfare to save the media conglomerates from their own bad management and decision making.

A glib campaign camouflaged as “save local television” since Canadians are very unlikely to support another corporate bailout; especially one funded by the imposition of a new tax.

It appears that the media conglomerates learned a lesson from the cold reception their earlier attempt to sell a new tax on the internet to fund a bailout of their newspaper assets from bad management and decisions received.

This time around they are running a slick media campaign to hoodwink Canadians into demanding the federal government “save local television” through the imposition of a new tax to fund the proposed corporate welfare.

Stephen Harper has demonstrated that he is quite happy to provide $billions$ in corporate welfare or welfare for the rich while denying help to the working poor, those living in poverty and other Canadians at the lower end of the wealth spectrum. However, given the number of unemployed and working poor who find themselves facing the real possibility of joining the ranks of the homeless and the financial strains the recession is imposing on many other ordinary Canadians imposing a new tax on Canadians to bailout media conglomerates would be politically unwise.

Unless somehow Canadians could be persuaded to demand a new tax be imposed to fund corporate welfare to save Media from its own mismanagement.

So it is we find ourselves assailed by the slick “save local television” campaign.

This campaign is not about “save local television” but about saving the media conglomerates from the consequences of their decisions.

Unlike the conglomerates or that pseudo-capitalist Mr. Harper I see no reason to save businesses from the consequences of their own bad decision making and bad management practices.

Despite the fear mongering attempts to panic the public neither local television or local newspapers will disappear if the media conglomerates go under. What will disappear are the conglomerates, so it is hardly surprising that the conglomerates are desperate for corporate welfare to bail them out.

With the bankruptcy of the conglomerates their assets will be sold off in order for the lenders recover as much of the monies owed as possible.

The most likely outcome of this process is to return control of local television and newspapers to local ownership rather than continuing to have local television and newspapers answer to distant corporate interests and policies.

An outcome I consider to be highly desirable since it is my opinion that the interests of Canadians have been badly served by the creation of media conglomerates where local television and newspapers are driven to maximize profits to benefit corporate headquarters and answer to said corporate headquarters.

It is this “in the best interests of the conglomerate” that leads to questionable editorial and ethical standards; standards that would benefit substantially from local ownership.

It is not the deceptive nature of the “save local television” campaign and its hidden agenda to save the conglomerates through the imposition of a new tax burden on Canadians that causes me to state ethical standards would benefit from local ownership.

It is the misuse of local charities to endorse the campaign and the apparent disregard concerning the consequences misusing local charities to endorse this campaign could have on the charities that I find unacceptable.

It was quite disappointing to see charities such as the United Way, the Salvation Army, the Vancouver Food Bank and others endorsing a campaign to benefit media conglomerates via a new tax on Canadians.

Especially since the nature of their involvement could easily raise questions about the motivation of these charities for their endorsements.

Moreover I was rather shocked that these charities would jeopardize their charitable status through involvement in a political campaign; an action specifically prohibited under by the legislation governing the granting AND revoking of charitable status (the ability to issue tax receipts for donations received).

That it is a political campaign is evidenced by the call for people to put pressure on federal politicians to impose a this new tax and bailout the media conglomerates.

All of the charitable organizations involved need to rethink their endorsement and involvement while seriously considering adopting AA’s 6th tradition “An A.A. group ought never endorse, finance or lend the A.A. name to any related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money, property and prestige divert us from our primary purpose.”

In light of these facts Canadians should be contacting federal politicians to make it very clear they have no interest in being taxed to benefit media companies or save them from the consequences of their own actions and decisions.

Canadians should also make it clear to those running this campaign of misinformation that they find this behaviour unacceptable and have no interest in bailing out media companies.

Tell your federal politicians you say no to these new taxes and corporate welfare.