Canada - The Trawler.org
-
MARGARET WENTE: “’More babies, please’—but how?” (Globe and Mail, CA)
165 days ago by Alisha.Arnold
Canadian journalists, particularly our female journalists, spent the latter half of last week responding to a bold cultural analysis published in the New York Times (NYT) by Ross Douthat. Demographic researchers have long been warning much of the developed world of the hysteria surrounding population growth creates disproportionate threats. While developing countries struggle to support rapidly growing populations they were unable to provide for in the first place, the developed countries are no longer maintaining the population rates need to support their elder generation. This ironic dichotomy is essentially connected to economic growth, future innovation, and as a result, our livelihoods.
In “More Babies, Please”, Douthat claims “[t]he retreat from child rearing is, at some level, a symptom of late-modern exhaustion — a decadence that first arose in the West but now haunts rich societies around the globe.” He continues, “It embraces the comforts and pleasures of modernity, while shrugging off the basic sacrifices that built our civilization in the first place.” The NYT Columnist is not wrong to highlight the dilemma which declining birth rates present to more and more of the developed world. In fact, facing this recognition is the only responsible choice for our leaders and youth to make in order to secure not only our futures, but also our parents. However as Chrystia Freeland points out, “[t]his cultural critique—made, not accidentally, mostly by men—misses the central fact about falling birth rates. They are, above all, driven by decisions by women.” Therefore when Douthat uses language that portrays modern populations (or at least the child bearing members) as purely hedonistic, he is dismissing several of the factors that contribute to this trend and reducing the purpose of human life to procreation.
Freeland’s analysis of the population predicament moves on to look at broad historical and economic processes that have taken place since industrialization. Although there is no denying the role of culture, encasing the search for solutions in the cultural blame game will only resurrect patriarchal stereotypes women have worked hard to bury. Margaret Wente offers a more nuanced response to Douthat’s article that uses both age and gender playfully to entice a reaction from Globe and Mail readers. The “cheery little factoid” Wente opens with: “In Japan, sales of adult diapers now exceed sales of baby diapers.” Despite Wente’s lack of critical thinking at times, both female Columnists agree dealing with economic stagnation caused by declining populations will require a solution that moves beyond the current discourse. Population trends will increasingly demand our attention in the next few decades because as Wente responds to these new sales statistics, “[w]ould you want to live in a world like that? Me neither.”
-
TURK: Whose history on displace at new museum? (Toronto Star, CA)
165 days ago by Timothy.Pearson
As a historian, I always appreciate it when historical issues arrive in the mainstream press. Fortunately, the current government in Ottawa is tremendously keen on history. From the celebration of the two hundredth anniversary of the War of 1812 to the recreation of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, Harper and Co. have not been shy about wading into historical issues. As James L. Turk argues in the Toronto Star, however, Conservative interventions into historical storytelling speak to a way of studying history that most historians have left behind, and seem intended not to further historical knowledge, but rather to imprint their own particular political ideology onto the past. Turk is the executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers and a former professor of Canadian Studies at the University of Toronto so presumable he has a vested interest in the kind of critical knowledge-making he accuses the government of attacking in his column.
In short, Turk suggests that replacing the current Canadian Museum of Civilization (CMC) with the proposed Canadian Museum of History will rob Canada of its largest and most popular museum, one that is internationally recognized as a centre of first rate research and forward-looking exhibitions. The mandate of the CMC, established by an act of Parliament, states that the museum’s purpose is to increase critical knowledge of human cultural achievement. The proposed Bill C-49, which would replace the CMC, by contrast, envisages an institution that would fulfill a function more akin to cheer leading a particular point of view. The purpose of the Museum of Canadian History will be to shine light on events, experiences, people and objects that have shaped Canada’s history and identity. This sounds fine on the surface, but it is what’s missing here that counts. The new bill makes no mention of research or of developing collections for future generations to study. Any reference to critical study or knowledge creation is gone. Already the office of research and collections has been eliminated at the museum. Who, then, will decide on exhibitions if there is no independent research, asks Turk. The new mandate seems to clear the way for a kind of “great man” history that focuses only on the deeds and achievements of a few and then casts these as the central elements of Canada’s past and Canada’s identity. Any alternative views, perspectives or understandings are then removed from discussion, clearing the way for the representation of only one position, one ideology, one identity, one truth, to the exclusion of all others.
This exclusion and single mindedness, the loss of critical perspective, is what bothers Turk about the new Canadian History Museum and leads him to conclude that this initiative is another step in Conservative efforts to suppress knowledge that does not fit with its policies and ideology. Like the muzzle the government has placed on environmental science, and the shuttering of scientific projects like the Experimental Lakes Research Area, the transformation of the CMC into an institution that uncritically reflects a particular narrative of Canadian history is an assault on knowledge. Turk concludes by arguing that national institutions like the CMC should stand apart from government, and should be run according to sound professional and scholarly standards. What he does not say is that this position, too, is a political one. History itself is political. It is always at least as much about the present as it is about the past. At least Turk’s politics, however, make room for critical and experimental knowledge, rather than seek to impose a single view on everyone.
-
NIKIFORUK: “Nexen Cave-in: Chairman Harper’s Economic Desperation” (The Tyee, CA)
167 days ago by Kiefer Van Mulligen
Andrew Nikiforuk’s latest piece in The Tyee argues that a recent article in the Wall Street Journal (inadvertently) explains the logic of Stephen Harper’s approval of the sale of Canadian oil companies to China. The Wall Street Journal suggests that Canadian bitumen may no longer be the hot commodity that it was, and Nikiforuk posits that tar sands developers and the Harper government have realized this and are using Chinese foreign investment to stave off economic stagnation in the tar sands – despite the fact that the Nexen buyout was rubber-stamped against the voice of Canadian public opinion.
Bitumen mining projects are not viable without a global oil price higher than $75 a barrel, states Nikiforuk, and with a decline in this global price, the oil sands will not be able to sustain the level of growth that has been forecasted without the infusion of billions of dollars of investment. It would seem that Chinese foreign investment is the logical answer to this problem.
However, by dealing in this way, Nikiforuk argues, Harper has “seemingly abandoned his own conscience on China.” A new foreign policy document produced by the Foreign Affairs Department posits that “to succeed [Canada] will need to pursue political relationships in tandem with economic interests even where political interests or values may not align,” and whereas several years ago Harper even refused to attend the Beijing Olympics because of China’s human rights record, he is now staking the future of Canada’s bitumen-driven economy on “a corrupt state that employs virtual slaves in its factories, jails dissidents, disparages the United States and flaunts the rule of law.”
-
FREELAND: “Sharing the wealth can create prosperity” (Globe and Mail, CA)
171 days ago by Kiefer Van Mulligen
Chrystia Freeland’s recent column in the Globe and Mail discusses the prevalence of the idea of income inequality in contemporary political discourse. She succinctly highlights some of the implications which this trend is expected to have on contemporary society. Her column focuses primarily on the United States, though the points which are raised are easily applicable and highly relevant to the Canadian economic situation as well.
Freeland argues that – until very recently – the idea of income inequality was a something of a taboo topic in American political discourse. However, she believes that this is changing. She cites the accusations of “class war” in the responses to President Barack Obama’s call for higher taxes on the wealthy, and suggests that Obama’s electoral victory represented a “muted, democratic version of class war,” and one in which the lower classes won.
Higher taxes for the wealthy, such as Obama is recommending, may be “a logical response” to income inequality, says Freeland, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to impose taxes on global capital flows and money tucked away in tax havens. Nevertheless, she argues that “government matters,” and the nation-state is still able to “mute the impact of the invisible hand” as long as it is steered in that direction.
Freeland suggests that the debate over inequality and what to do about is one that will only become louder in the near future. However, the most noteworthy aspect of Freeland’s column is her suggestion that many economists are being to realize that if inequality is allowed to reach a certain point, it will hinder economic stability and growth. With this, Freeland offers a fresh insight in the debate over inequality. As she puts it: “Worrying about the poor is one thing. To contend that equality is necessary for growth is an altogether different and more radical idea. Three decades later, trickle-down economics has met its antithesis. We are set for one of the great battles of ideas of our time.”
-
SIDDIQUI: “Stephen Harper is not doing Israel any favours” (Toronto Star, CA).
173 days ago by Alisha.Arnold
This week’s historic UN vote to recognize Palestine as “a non-member observer state” was largely welcomed by the international community who hoped this decision may represent a near-future shift towards a more peaceful Middle East. More than two-thirds of member states voted in favour of Palestine’s newfound status, however, the recognition did not pass without any resistance. The UN vote sparked strong debate this week with many either celebrating its accomplishment or dismissing its importance altogether. As David Frum declared this Saturday in the National Post, “It is Israel, not the UN, that will decide when and whether Palestine emerges as a state. It’s Israel, not the UN, that the Palestinians ought to be talking to.”
In contrast, Haroon Siddiqui points out that if this decision was insignificant there would be no panic. Out of all the countries who would predictably be opposed to such a development, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister, John Baird, was heard loud and clear alongside the Czech Republic, Panama, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau. Siddiqui continues to criticize Harper for once again showing resentment towards the UN and using control over much needed aid funding to retaliate. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Conservative government’s reaction, as an editorial for the Globe and Mail argues, “Canada should not penalize the Palestinians”. Withdrawing humanitarian and development aid to make a political point wrongly targets civilians in the same way both Israelis and Palestinians have been consistently targeted throughout this prolonged conflict.
From a North American perspective, many are unwilling to take the unpopular stance of siding with Palestine but Siddiqui bluntly lays out many of the political powers at work; he includes the actions of state and non-state actors, the multilateral organization, and most importantly, both citizens and non-citizens, in a critical effort to question the tactics of Israel as well as some of the nation’s supporters. The result of our Prime Minister’s Foreign Policy according to the Toronto Star columnist: “Harper has isolated Canada as well and undermined Canada’s once-honoured place in the world.”
-
BOUCHARD: Maintenir la recherche d’équilibre au coeur de modèle québécois [Maintain the Search for Balance in the Quebec Model] (Le Devoir, CA)
177 days ago by Timothy.Pearson
In Le Devoir, well-known Quebec historian, sociologist and social commentator Gérard Bouchard (the brother of former premier Lucien Bouchard) reflects on the ongoing public inquiry into municipal corruption in Quebec and what it might mean for the future of what he calls the Quebec model. In Bouchard’s view, the Quebec model is exemplified by a search for balance between public welfare and capitalism, something he believes the Quebec state has been enormously successful at maintaining since the 1960s, contributing to the province’s uniqueness within North America. He fears, however, that these corruption scandals in Montreal, Quebec and Laval that have gripped public attention risk introducing a level of cynicism towards public institutions and government that will only aid those who might wish to dismantle the Quebec model and give free rein to neo-liberalism.
Bouchard pins his fears on a rosy assessment of Quebec’s achievements since the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s placed the state (the provincial government) at the heart of the social and economic system, while other jurisdictions in North America went down the road of unfettered capitalism. In Quebec, the state retained its powers, and resisted giving them away through privatization. As a result, it remained an active player in the economy and society. Salaries rose for everyone, while the gap between rich and poor remained relatively modest. Unionization remained high, access to higher education tripled, and women gained access to labour markets and salaries virtually equal to those of their male colleagues. Moreover, francophone control of the economy grew. What Bouchard sees as ‘spectacular advances’ were gained under both PQ and Liberal governments, pushed by social activists determined to maintain a third way, characterized by a social economy, community organizations and the cooperative movement, and supported by unions and the women’s movement. In other words, the Quebec model as Bouchard describes it was made by society as a whole for society as a whole. The system made room for capitalism, but prevented or limited its worst excesses, turning the private sector into another engine for public good through entrepreneurialism, creativity and intelligence.
Bouchard admits that his brief survey is incomplete and perhaps overly optimistic, but in the aggregate it describes a series of choices, values and institutions that have set Quebec off as socially, ideologically and structurally (as well as culturally) different from much of anglophone North America. In his view, it is a model that has served Quebecers well, but can only continue to do so if public trust in government is restored and maintained at the same time that corruption is rooted out. If a few bad actors are allowed to erode the search for balance that lies at the heart of the Quebec model, those who would dismantle the system in favour of neoliberalism will take advantage as they have done elsewhere. Whatever one thinks of the Quebec model as Bouchard describes it here, his commentary is insightful for what it suggests about the process involved in the erosion of public space. If American and English Canadian politics over the past decade have made anything clear, it is that the neoliberal assault on the credibility of government itself, on government programs, and the size and expense of government, can be devastatingly effective in times of crisis. Noami Klein calls the strategy ‘disaster capitalism.’ When progressives lose the willingness or ability to ably defend their position, a rump neoliberal right successfully exploits disillusionment to dominate and redefine political discourse and, indeed, politics itself. Presumably, it is this sort of politics Bouchard aims to forestall in Quebec.
-
BOLEN: “Liberal Leadership Online Voting Could Lead To Major Pwnage” (Huffington Post, CA)
179 days ago by Adam.Kingsmith
According to Huffington Post correspondent Michael Bolen, The Liberal Party of Canada’s latest attempt to regain some semblance of their former popularity amongst Canadian voters, could backfire on the party in rather hilarious fashion.
At their annual convention in January, the Liberals introduced a new “supporter” category aimed at widening the base of participants involved in the Liberal leadership vote. In something that is in the vain of a US-style primary, any Canadian that is interested in the party can sign up online and vote for a new leader with the same privileges, and in the same way, as a full card-carrying member.
But why then, in Bolen’s opinion, does this decision have such uproarious potential? Well, judging by the history of “trolling” on the Internet, online votes have the tendency to go hilariously wrong. Look at the Chuck Norris bridges. Attempts by regional authorities to organize populous polls on the Web in order to establish the names of their respective bridges in Slovakia and Hungry, both resulted in American action star and cult legend Chuck Norris being designated the winner.
Authorities insisted on a second poll, this time requiring voters to register beforehand. However, instead of a local hero winning the day, American satirist Stephen Colbert ended up winning the second Hungarian poll by roughly ten million more votes than the population of the country. Pwned indeed. Unsurprisingly, authorities in both countries ended up ignoring the polls and choosing different names for their bridges.
The Liberal Party has until March 17th to iron out the details of their new system, but similar shenanigans could plague the leadership vote. In an attempt to combat such irregularities, newly registered supporters will have to disclose details such as one’s address and party loyalty. However, the Conservative Party creating its own sign-up system in order to influence the vote, trolls from the website Reddit, or hackers from Anonymous are all serious concerns which threaten the integrity of the project.
And while the debates are not scheduled until early in the New Year, if a cyber-attack such as the one that spoiled the NDP convention last March is any indication, the decision to conduct a vote online is indeed a risky one. Than again, perhaps it is a testament to the changing Canadian political climate that the once great Liberal Party is forced to take such a great risk in an attempt to rediscover their relevance.
In the end, perhaps getting “pwned” might not be the worst thing for the Liberal Party anyways. Everyone loves a good “hacktivism” story, and the press might give the leadership race a much-needed spark that could deter from the fact the Trudeau the Jr. already has the contest all but locked up. Besides, Chuck Norris would probably give Justin a better run for his money than any of the other apathetic candidates in the Liberal leadership race.
MARGARET WENTE: “’More babies, please’—but how?” (Globe and Mail, CA)
165 days ago by Alisha.ArnoldCanadian journalists, particularly our female journalists, spent the latter half of last week responding to a bold cultural analysis published in the New York Times (NYT) by Ross Douthat. Demographic researchers have long been warning much of the developed world of the hysteria surrounding population growth creates disproportionate threats. While developing countries struggle to support rapidly growing populations they were unable to provide for in the first place, the developed countries are no longer maintaining the population rates need to support their elder generation. This ironic dichotomy is essentially connected to economic growth, future innovation, and as a result, our livelihoods.
In “More Babies, Please”, Douthat claims “[t]he retreat from child rearing is, at some level, a symptom of late-modern exhaustion — a decadence that first arose in the West but now haunts rich societies around the globe.” He continues, “It embraces the comforts and pleasures of modernity, while shrugging off the basic sacrifices that built our civilization in the first place.” The NYT Columnist is not wrong to highlight the dilemma which declining birth rates present to more and more of the developed world. In fact, facing this recognition is the only responsible choice for our leaders and youth to make in order to secure not only our futures, but also our parents. However as Chrystia Freeland points out, “[t]his cultural critique—made, not accidentally, mostly by men—misses the central fact about falling birth rates. They are, above all, driven by decisions by women.” Therefore when Douthat uses language that portrays modern populations (or at least the child bearing members) as purely hedonistic, he is dismissing several of the factors that contribute to this trend and reducing the purpose of human life to procreation.
Freeland’s analysis of the population predicament moves on to look at broad historical and economic processes that have taken place since industrialization. Although there is no denying the role of culture, encasing the search for solutions in the cultural blame game will only resurrect patriarchal stereotypes women have worked hard to bury. Margaret Wente offers a more nuanced response to Douthat’s article that uses both age and gender playfully to entice a reaction from Globe and Mail readers. The “cheery little factoid” Wente opens with: “In Japan, sales of adult diapers now exceed sales of baby diapers.” Despite Wente’s lack of critical thinking at times, both female Columnists agree dealing with economic stagnation caused by declining populations will require a solution that moves beyond the current discourse. Population trends will increasingly demand our attention in the next few decades because as Wente responds to these new sales statistics, “[w]ould you want to live in a world like that? Me neither.”
TURK: Whose history on displace at new museum? (Toronto Star, CA)
165 days ago by Timothy.PearsonAs a historian, I always appreciate it when historical issues arrive in the mainstream press. Fortunately, the current government in Ottawa is tremendously keen on history. From the celebration of the two hundredth anniversary of the War of 1812 to the recreation of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, Harper and Co. have not been shy about wading into historical issues. As James L. Turk argues in the Toronto Star, however, Conservative interventions into historical storytelling speak to a way of studying history that most historians have left behind, and seem intended not to further historical knowledge, but rather to imprint their own particular political ideology onto the past. Turk is the executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers and a former professor of Canadian Studies at the University of Toronto so presumable he has a vested interest in the kind of critical knowledge-making he accuses the government of attacking in his column.
In short, Turk suggests that replacing the current Canadian Museum of Civilization (CMC) with the proposed Canadian Museum of History will rob Canada of its largest and most popular museum, one that is internationally recognized as a centre of first rate research and forward-looking exhibitions. The mandate of the CMC, established by an act of Parliament, states that the museum’s purpose is to increase critical knowledge of human cultural achievement. The proposed Bill C-49, which would replace the CMC, by contrast, envisages an institution that would fulfill a function more akin to cheer leading a particular point of view. The purpose of the Museum of Canadian History will be to shine light on events, experiences, people and objects that have shaped Canada’s history and identity. This sounds fine on the surface, but it is what’s missing here that counts. The new bill makes no mention of research or of developing collections for future generations to study. Any reference to critical study or knowledge creation is gone. Already the office of research and collections has been eliminated at the museum. Who, then, will decide on exhibitions if there is no independent research, asks Turk. The new mandate seems to clear the way for a kind of “great man” history that focuses only on the deeds and achievements of a few and then casts these as the central elements of Canada’s past and Canada’s identity. Any alternative views, perspectives or understandings are then removed from discussion, clearing the way for the representation of only one position, one ideology, one identity, one truth, to the exclusion of all others.
This exclusion and single mindedness, the loss of critical perspective, is what bothers Turk about the new Canadian History Museum and leads him to conclude that this initiative is another step in Conservative efforts to suppress knowledge that does not fit with its policies and ideology. Like the muzzle the government has placed on environmental science, and the shuttering of scientific projects like the Experimental Lakes Research Area, the transformation of the CMC into an institution that uncritically reflects a particular narrative of Canadian history is an assault on knowledge. Turk concludes by arguing that national institutions like the CMC should stand apart from government, and should be run according to sound professional and scholarly standards. What he does not say is that this position, too, is a political one. History itself is political. It is always at least as much about the present as it is about the past. At least Turk’s politics, however, make room for critical and experimental knowledge, rather than seek to impose a single view on everyone.
NIKIFORUK: “Nexen Cave-in: Chairman Harper’s Economic Desperation” (The Tyee, CA)
167 days ago by Kiefer Van MulligenAndrew Nikiforuk’s latest piece in The Tyee argues that a recent article in the Wall Street Journal (inadvertently) explains the logic of Stephen Harper’s approval of the sale of Canadian oil companies to China. The Wall Street Journal suggests that Canadian bitumen may no longer be the hot commodity that it was, and Nikiforuk posits that tar sands developers and the Harper government have realized this and are using Chinese foreign investment to stave off economic stagnation in the tar sands – despite the fact that the Nexen buyout was rubber-stamped against the voice of Canadian public opinion.
Bitumen mining projects are not viable without a global oil price higher than $75 a barrel, states Nikiforuk, and with a decline in this global price, the oil sands will not be able to sustain the level of growth that has been forecasted without the infusion of billions of dollars of investment. It would seem that Chinese foreign investment is the logical answer to this problem.
However, by dealing in this way, Nikiforuk argues, Harper has “seemingly abandoned his own conscience on China.” A new foreign policy document produced by the Foreign Affairs Department posits that “to succeed [Canada] will need to pursue political relationships in tandem with economic interests even where political interests or values may not align,” and whereas several years ago Harper even refused to attend the Beijing Olympics because of China’s human rights record, he is now staking the future of Canada’s bitumen-driven economy on “a corrupt state that employs virtual slaves in its factories, jails dissidents, disparages the United States and flaunts the rule of law.”
FREELAND: “Sharing the wealth can create prosperity” (Globe and Mail, CA)
171 days ago by Kiefer Van MulligenChrystia Freeland’s recent column in the Globe and Mail discusses the prevalence of the idea of income inequality in contemporary political discourse. She succinctly highlights some of the implications which this trend is expected to have on contemporary society. Her column focuses primarily on the United States, though the points which are raised are easily applicable and highly relevant to the Canadian economic situation as well.
Freeland argues that – until very recently – the idea of income inequality was a something of a taboo topic in American political discourse. However, she believes that this is changing. She cites the accusations of “class war” in the responses to President Barack Obama’s call for higher taxes on the wealthy, and suggests that Obama’s electoral victory represented a “muted, democratic version of class war,” and one in which the lower classes won.
Higher taxes for the wealthy, such as Obama is recommending, may be “a logical response” to income inequality, says Freeland, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to impose taxes on global capital flows and money tucked away in tax havens. Nevertheless, she argues that “government matters,” and the nation-state is still able to “mute the impact of the invisible hand” as long as it is steered in that direction.
Freeland suggests that the debate over inequality and what to do about is one that will only become louder in the near future. However, the most noteworthy aspect of Freeland’s column is her suggestion that many economists are being to realize that if inequality is allowed to reach a certain point, it will hinder economic stability and growth. With this, Freeland offers a fresh insight in the debate over inequality. As she puts it: “Worrying about the poor is one thing. To contend that equality is necessary for growth is an altogether different and more radical idea. Three decades later, trickle-down economics has met its antithesis. We are set for one of the great battles of ideas of our time.”
SIDDIQUI: “Stephen Harper is not doing Israel any favours” (Toronto Star, CA).
173 days ago by Alisha.ArnoldThis week’s historic UN vote to recognize Palestine as “a non-member observer state” was largely welcomed by the international community who hoped this decision may represent a near-future shift towards a more peaceful Middle East. More than two-thirds of member states voted in favour of Palestine’s newfound status, however, the recognition did not pass without any resistance. The UN vote sparked strong debate this week with many either celebrating its accomplishment or dismissing its importance altogether. As David Frum declared this Saturday in the National Post, “It is Israel, not the UN, that will decide when and whether Palestine emerges as a state. It’s Israel, not the UN, that the Palestinians ought to be talking to.”
In contrast, Haroon Siddiqui points out that if this decision was insignificant there would be no panic. Out of all the countries who would predictably be opposed to such a development, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister, John Baird, was heard loud and clear alongside the Czech Republic, Panama, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau. Siddiqui continues to criticize Harper for once again showing resentment towards the UN and using control over much needed aid funding to retaliate. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Conservative government’s reaction, as an editorial for the Globe and Mail argues, “Canada should not penalize the Palestinians”. Withdrawing humanitarian and development aid to make a political point wrongly targets civilians in the same way both Israelis and Palestinians have been consistently targeted throughout this prolonged conflict.
From a North American perspective, many are unwilling to take the unpopular stance of siding with Palestine but Siddiqui bluntly lays out many of the political powers at work; he includes the actions of state and non-state actors, the multilateral organization, and most importantly, both citizens and non-citizens, in a critical effort to question the tactics of Israel as well as some of the nation’s supporters. The result of our Prime Minister’s Foreign Policy according to the Toronto Star columnist: “Harper has isolated Canada as well and undermined Canada’s once-honoured place in the world.”
BOUCHARD: Maintenir la recherche d’équilibre au coeur de modèle québécois [Maintain the Search for Balance in the Quebec Model] (Le Devoir, CA)
177 days ago by Timothy.PearsonIn Le Devoir, well-known Quebec historian, sociologist and social commentator Gérard Bouchard (the brother of former premier Lucien Bouchard) reflects on the ongoing public inquiry into municipal corruption in Quebec and what it might mean for the future of what he calls the Quebec model. In Bouchard’s view, the Quebec model is exemplified by a search for balance between public welfare and capitalism, something he believes the Quebec state has been enormously successful at maintaining since the 1960s, contributing to the province’s uniqueness within North America. He fears, however, that these corruption scandals in Montreal, Quebec and Laval that have gripped public attention risk introducing a level of cynicism towards public institutions and government that will only aid those who might wish to dismantle the Quebec model and give free rein to neo-liberalism.
Bouchard pins his fears on a rosy assessment of Quebec’s achievements since the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s placed the state (the provincial government) at the heart of the social and economic system, while other jurisdictions in North America went down the road of unfettered capitalism. In Quebec, the state retained its powers, and resisted giving them away through privatization. As a result, it remained an active player in the economy and society. Salaries rose for everyone, while the gap between rich and poor remained relatively modest. Unionization remained high, access to higher education tripled, and women gained access to labour markets and salaries virtually equal to those of their male colleagues. Moreover, francophone control of the economy grew. What Bouchard sees as ‘spectacular advances’ were gained under both PQ and Liberal governments, pushed by social activists determined to maintain a third way, characterized by a social economy, community organizations and the cooperative movement, and supported by unions and the women’s movement. In other words, the Quebec model as Bouchard describes it was made by society as a whole for society as a whole. The system made room for capitalism, but prevented or limited its worst excesses, turning the private sector into another engine for public good through entrepreneurialism, creativity and intelligence.
Bouchard admits that his brief survey is incomplete and perhaps overly optimistic, but in the aggregate it describes a series of choices, values and institutions that have set Quebec off as socially, ideologically and structurally (as well as culturally) different from much of anglophone North America. In his view, it is a model that has served Quebecers well, but can only continue to do so if public trust in government is restored and maintained at the same time that corruption is rooted out. If a few bad actors are allowed to erode the search for balance that lies at the heart of the Quebec model, those who would dismantle the system in favour of neoliberalism will take advantage as they have done elsewhere. Whatever one thinks of the Quebec model as Bouchard describes it here, his commentary is insightful for what it suggests about the process involved in the erosion of public space. If American and English Canadian politics over the past decade have made anything clear, it is that the neoliberal assault on the credibility of government itself, on government programs, and the size and expense of government, can be devastatingly effective in times of crisis. Noami Klein calls the strategy ‘disaster capitalism.’ When progressives lose the willingness or ability to ably defend their position, a rump neoliberal right successfully exploits disillusionment to dominate and redefine political discourse and, indeed, politics itself. Presumably, it is this sort of politics Bouchard aims to forestall in Quebec.
BOLEN: “Liberal Leadership Online Voting Could Lead To Major Pwnage” (Huffington Post, CA)
179 days ago by Adam.KingsmithAccording to Huffington Post correspondent Michael Bolen, The Liberal Party of Canada’s latest attempt to regain some semblance of their former popularity amongst Canadian voters, could backfire on the party in rather hilarious fashion.
At their annual convention in January, the Liberals introduced a new “supporter” category aimed at widening the base of participants involved in the Liberal leadership vote. In something that is in the vain of a US-style primary, any Canadian that is interested in the party can sign up online and vote for a new leader with the same privileges, and in the same way, as a full card-carrying member.
But why then, in Bolen’s opinion, does this decision have such uproarious potential? Well, judging by the history of “trolling” on the Internet, online votes have the tendency to go hilariously wrong. Look at the Chuck Norris bridges. Attempts by regional authorities to organize populous polls on the Web in order to establish the names of their respective bridges in Slovakia and Hungry, both resulted in American action star and cult legend Chuck Norris being designated the winner.
Authorities insisted on a second poll, this time requiring voters to register beforehand. However, instead of a local hero winning the day, American satirist Stephen Colbert ended up winning the second Hungarian poll by roughly ten million more votes than the population of the country. Pwned indeed. Unsurprisingly, authorities in both countries ended up ignoring the polls and choosing different names for their bridges.
The Liberal Party has until March 17th to iron out the details of their new system, but similar shenanigans could plague the leadership vote. In an attempt to combat such irregularities, newly registered supporters will have to disclose details such as one’s address and party loyalty. However, the Conservative Party creating its own sign-up system in order to influence the vote, trolls from the website Reddit, or hackers from Anonymous are all serious concerns which threaten the integrity of the project.
And while the debates are not scheduled until early in the New Year, if a cyber-attack such as the one that spoiled the NDP convention last March is any indication, the decision to conduct a vote online is indeed a risky one. Than again, perhaps it is a testament to the changing Canadian political climate that the once great Liberal Party is forced to take such a great risk in an attempt to rediscover their relevance.
In the end, perhaps getting “pwned” might not be the worst thing for the Liberal Party anyways. Everyone loves a good “hacktivism” story, and the press might give the leadership race a much-needed spark that could deter from the fact the Trudeau the Jr. already has the contest all but locked up. Besides, Chuck Norris would probably give Justin a better run for his money than any of the other apathetic candidates in the Liberal leadership race.
Argentina
Canada
China
Colombia
Cuba
East Africa
Germany
Global Commons
India
Italy
Mexico
United Kingdom
USA
Zimbabwe