Solidarity Forever?

These days, so many right-wing governments are making attempts to take power away from unions, supposedly to save money and give businesses more flexibility in difficult economic climates.  While the political right has never been greatly interested in the rights of workers or the strengthening of the lower middle class, it is interesting that the idea that unions need to be curbed is getting more traction in the general public - even among those who are not wealthy themselves.  Are people simply more gullible or has something actually changed either in society or in the way unions function?  And are unions still important or relevant in today’s society?

Before we get into this, there is an additional matter where I suppose I should have to tread carefully.  I am currently working full time and my workplace is not unionized.  I want to make it clear from the start that anything I say about the benefits of having unions or exploitation at non-union workplaces has nothing to do with my own experiences, as I actually have a very responsible employer that treats employees very well.

Back to the questions, I would actually answer “yes” to every part of those questions.  While I don’t really think people have become stupider or more naive, the news sources upon which people rely have become more partisan and less honest.  Of course the prime example is Fox News.  They have a ridiculously obvious political agenda that influences every thing they broadcast and for some reason some people still trust them as a news source.  How else does one explain that a majority of people claim to be against ObamaCare but are in favour of everything it does?  So in this environment, if a broadcaster such as Fox News says that unions are destroying America people seem to believe them.  Now, they may claim that while their opinion and commentary shows may have a particular political viewpoint, their news is still fair and unbiased as all journalism is supposed to be.  But any serious media watcher will see that the choices of what to cover and the language used in the coverage are clearly designed so that the viewer will draw a particular conclusion.  And that is even more dangerous since the viewer will be more likely to believe the news to be trustworthy and unbiased.  So a news story about a union dispute that puts all the focus on increasing demands from the union against financial hardship of the company may be a very selective reading of the situation but will draw a viewer to an inevitable conclusion of who is right and who is wrong.  This is incredibly dangerous for the credibility of the news and journalism, but that is another topic in its own right.

To the next question, has society and/or unions changed? I believe it has, but that may simply be a matter of time and short memories.  But I think an important factor is the virtual disappearance of employee loyalty to a company.  It used to be a person would work with the same company from graduation until retirement.  During that time they would receive a series of promotions and a secure pension on retirement (often owing much to union involvement).  In exchange for all that expense, the employer would have exclusive access to the skills of that employee.  Now jobs are far more transient.  An additional side effect of this is that very few companies want to put significant time and money into training, especially since those precious resources they invested in will in all likelihood leave in a few years and join their competitor.  There is so much more to this issue, but this will get me too far off track.

Have unions changed?  Once again, yes.  Unions began due to concerns for worker safety and basic compensation and human rights.  Horrific industrial accidents in overcrowded factories were commonplace in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, generating public desire for an organized labour movement.  With the factory collapse in Bangladesh earlier this year, we see this very scenario at work 100 years later in the developing world, that now seems to do all the manual labour for those of us in the west (and that is where all the union jobs went).  It was very hard to get unions going, almost everyone involved was accused of being communist (not that many in the labour movement weren’t in fact communists) and violence and intimidation were incredibly common tactics to discourage unionization.  And about the presence of Communists, a lot of that can be attributed to the intimidation and use of force weeding out all the moderate labour organizers leaving only radicals, many of whom were communists.  But once unions became a reality, things did change a bit.  To safeguard the gains that were so hard-fought, union leadership sought control of the political process, to make sure they had a government champion just like the employers.  By the time a large proportion of workers were unionized, the biggest unions had tremendous amounts of money from union dues.  Of course these are needed in case of large, extended strikes which would need a war chest, but when the reserves get so large, it attracts the interest of big greed, and, more problematically, organized crime.  Even without this issue, there are additional reasons unions have been associated with greed when their initial purpose was to stand up against greed.  It likely again comes down to substantial union dues that are collected as unions merge and become larger.  You now have union presidents and other executives within unions that are extremely rich individuals.  Some even become involved, like executives in other fields, in corruption and greed.  This gives the impression that unions are no longer true to their original purpose.  Furthermore, the “unions” that represent professional athletes that make millions going on strike to get more money from billionaire owners hardly generates sympathy or support for the union movement as a whole.

But now to the final question:  are unions still relevant or useful?  Absolutely.  And this does not only apply if you ascribe to socialist ideals about even distribution of wealth as the benefits of unions are not limited to increased compensation for the working class.  And there are benefits even to those workers who do not work in a unionized environment.  That is because one of the great successes of the labour movement was, as I mentioned above, more progressive and humane labour laws and increased regulation related to worker rights and safety.  After disasters like factory collapses, there have historically been increased demands for union representation, so if there are company-wide issues, a worker can have a group that represents every employee make the complaint, rather than raise it individually at risk of their job.  Often union-based campaigns for better condition extend beyond the immediate company in the form of legislation that affects other workers as well, whether unionized or not.  And of course if a large segment of an industry is unionized and thus likely receiving higher pay, competition will likely push non-union wages higher as well.

Also, when employees have better benefits and working conditions, they are likely to be happier and, as a result, become more productive generating more income for the organization.  Now good employee morale and resulting high productivity can occur outside of a union environment, but such a situation is out of the control of the worker;  the conditions of work are entirely dependent on the goodwill (or lack thereof) of management.  Good management will create a strong company where people are paid well, have benefits and have good morale without needing a union.  An example of such a company is Canada’s second airline, WestJet, where the employees are not unionized.  Instead, all employees receive shares in the company and thus are all part owners.  In contrast, their competition, Air Canada – which was once the national airline – has mainly unionized workers and there has been one labour dispute after another and morale is generally understood to be somewhat lower.  Yet there is little discontent at WestJet.  Another strong, though smaller, non-union company, is the one I work for.  They really seem to care about employees, the benefits are certainly acceptable, and there are opportunities for advancement.  However, in another situation workers may be exploited at every turn if a union is not behind them.  Usually this scenario does not create a strong company, but they can still be successful based on factors other than their workforce.  Walmart is the prime example.  Their mistreatment of workers is legendary by now, yet the company is a remarkable success, mainly due to their supply chain and the low prices they can offer as a result.  I have so many issues with Walmart it could fill another full post (maybe I’ll write it) but in terms of labour, this would seem like a situation where only a strong union could improve things, since management is not inclined to provide anything not required by law (and even then sometimes not).  Also their workforce is so large that only a single organized unit could be an effective influence on the company to actually provide any more to their employees.  If a few workers at a few stores (or even all of one store) were to walk off the job, they could easily be replaced.  But if all of them act together as one, that might bring some concessions.

So where are we?  It seems, unfortunately, that we may almost be back to where we started in some industries, where there is great hostility to unions but a great need out there, due to poor working conditions.  To make matters worse, the unions that are established have in many cases apparently lost touch with their overriding purpose and seem more interested in consolidating power, both financial and political.  Also, as unions have traditionally used seniority as their guiding principle instead of merit, many employers – and workers – see a union workplace as one where inertia and incompetence are rewarded.  When unions get large, the bureaucracy also increases, leaving a situation where some workers feel they can get more effective results by approaching the employer directly than by going through the union, especially since some may actually see the employer as more understanding and responsive than the union!  Clearly something has gone wrong in this scenario – the whole point of a union was supposed to be to look out for the needs of the workers.  When the union is no longer doing that, their perceived usefulness is severely limited.  Even worse, this disinterest in union representation can play right into the hands of greedy business operators who can convince their employees that they don’t want a union and then proceed to cut away pay, benefits, and opportunities to air grievances.

Obviously something needs to be done, but what?  Regular readers of my blog should know by now that I’m not one that provides that many answers.  I blog about topics where I have questions myself, so it is a bit much to assume that I can also provide answers to the questions in my own mind!  What I might suggest is that unionization really does need to come back, but I think it has to be a rethought and renewed movement that takes into consideration the priorities and values of modern workers, and also is able to adapt to the present day economy, where there is less manufacturing and more service-type employment.  The trend of more temporary and contract work should also be addressed, perhaps as a union dedicated to those workers or as a force trying to reverse the trend.  Again, I don’t really have answers and even the suggestions are very general and not fully formed, but this is a complex issue.  What do you all think about this?

A Mega-Quarry Update

If you recall, last fall I wrote two posts about the proposal to create a mega-quarry on prime farm land in Dufferin County, not far from where I live, and about Foodstock, a celebrity chef fundraiser to raise money and awareness for the cause.  I had mentioned a pending environmental review, but there was also a revision ordered to the Aggregate Resources Act, that lays out the manner by which quarries are to be set up and operated in the Province.  On Monday, I received an email from the Canadian Chef's Congress Foodstock Committee, saying that they had received word that the review was scheduled to start on that very day.  This is prime planting season, so the affected farmers will not be able to attend these meetings, and the time allotted for public consultation is too small.  Below is the email sent to me.

Foodstock Call to Action   Dearest Friends in Arms, As you know, back on September 1st the government promised that they would undertake a review of the Aggregate Resources Act. We have consistently attempted to get information on the process and when it would start, and just found out that the review will start in Toronto on Monday, May 7, 2012. Not only is the hearing taking place in Toronto (a place from which no aggregate is extracted), it is also taking place during prime planting season (virtually omitting the participation of farmers and others whose livelihoods depend on the preservation of farmland). It feels very tricky and we suspect that it is. The government has set aside just 4 short sessions to gather public input and we'd like to create a groundswell of participation to jam these sessions (there are currently only 12 hours allocated to public comment) so that they have to extend and expand the hearing. This is our chance to be heard and to share input on the future of how aggregate is extracted in this province. People wanting to voice their concerns have been asked to contact Sylvia Przezdziecki and Tamara Pomanski (their email addresses and a sample note are below). Please consider taking the time to write to them to request a chance to speak, or to voice your concerns about the destruction of farmland for aggregate.  Please also consider sending this email along to your friends--our hope is to extend the hearing and to prove to the government that we can't be caught unprepared. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” —Edmund Burke Sincerely, Michael Stadtlander, President Canadian Chefs' Congress and on behalf of the Foodstock Committee members Sample email Subject: Public Participation: Aggregate Resources Act To: sylwia_przezdziecki@ontla.ola.org, tamara_pomanski@ontla.ola.org Dear Sylvia and Tamara, I am an Ontario resident and taxpayer.  I ask that the Government of Ontario, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Standing Committee established to review the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) amend the ARA to address the following values: 1.  Make conservation of aggregate, a non-renewable resource, a priority over approval of new extraction sites.  Conservation can occur through aggregate recycling and use of alternative materials. 2.  Reserve virgin aggregate, a non-renewable resource, for use within Canada. 3. Prohibit aggregate extraction below the water table without a full Environmental Assessment and full understanding of the impact on all areas, near and far. 4. Prohibit aggregate extraction below the water table in drinking water source areas. 5.  Develop a process and guidelines for identifying and designating new Specialty Crop Areas to safeguard unique agricultural land resources.  Prohibit aggregate extraction in Specialty Crop Areas. 6. Conduct a thorough study of all existing aggregate reserves in Ontario.  We cannot know what we need until we know what we have. 7. Develop an “Aggregate Master Plan” and disallow new aggregate mining licenses within the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area, Oak Ridges Moraine and Green Belt until the “Aggregate Master Plan” has been approved by the province. 8.  Provide an assessment of the cumulative affects (dust, noise, air quality, traffic emissions; effects on water) of the “Aggregate Master Plan” on Ontario residents by district. 9.  Require that new quarry proposals demonstrate the need for additional aggregate resource extraction in meeting the demands of the Ontario market. 10.  Mandate that an Environmental Assessment occur for all new or expanding aggregate operations. 11.  Realign the cost of virgin aggregate to reflect reality.  Economically, aggregate is a low-priced, heavy-weight commodity that takes the bulk of its cost from transportation. Today, however, the price of virgin aggregate must include the activism necessary by residents to fight for their best interest despite the elected and public institutions designed to represent and protect the public interest.  As well, the cost must encompass the environmental cost on residents.  In other words the market cost for virgin aggregate is unrealistically cheap. Create a management system that works for residents and price the product accordingly. 12.  Address what will happen to the operators of small aggregate resources if a mega-quarry becomes the sanctioned approach.  What will small operators do when they are subjected to the monopolistic power of the goliath-like mega-quarry? Until such time as the above noted issues are sufficiently addressed, I do not consider the ARA an up-to-date and relevant piece of legislation. Sincerely,

follow on Twitter friend on Facebook forward to a friend  Copyright © 2012 Canadian Chefs' Congress Ltd., All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you attended the Canadian Chefs' Congress's FoodStock in 2011. Our mailing address is: Canadian Chefs' Congress Ltd. 148 Pearson Avenue Toronto, Ontario M6R 1G5 Canada Add us to your address book  unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences

I definitely agree with what is said here and with the importance of making sure this isn't all kept quiet so big business can do whatever they want to cropland, not to mention the watershed.  I will be acting on this.  The email also asks that this email be sent to friends, so here it is.  And I hope those readers who are actually residents of Ontario will also decide they want their voices heard so the government can know the environment and the food supply is at least as important as building materials.

Oh, also as a foodie and former cook, I also consider it cool and a bit of an honour that I have a communication from Chef Michael Statdlander, one of the best chefs in this area.  Sure, it isn't an actual signature and not addressed to me directly, but still...well, I like it.

Pierre Poutine And The Disappearing Democracy

I have written before about the current Canadian governing party doing whatever they can to suppress dissent and undermine democracy. There is now another scandal that strikes very close to home here in Guelph. Actually it is not really news, as this is something that happened during the federal election last May and was reported on locally when it happened. It is only now that the rest of the country has noticed that something is going on.

What originally happened is that on the day of the election, many Guelph residents received an automated phone call (known as a robocall) with a prerecorded voice claiming to be from Elections Canada and that the call was to inform you that your polling station had changed. For those who are knowledgeable, this is obviously not a legitimate call. First of all, Elections Canada never conducts robocalls, they do not give notice of poll location changes by telephone, and they do not even have lists of voter phone numbers. If a poll location changes, they will send out a revised voter information card or, if there is not enough time to do that, they will have officials staff the former location as well, and direct people to the new location. For most people who received this call, the new location they were given was downtown, which is not where these people lived. Most often mentioned was Old Quebec Street Mall, which to my knowledge has never been used as a voting location. Generally churches, schools, retirement homes, or community centres are used as poll locations. Recently there has also been some claims that similar calls have occurred other places in the country, including in some ridings (districts) where the election was decided by fewer than 50 votes.

On further investigation, the phone that made the suspicious calls in Guelph turned out to be what is referred to as a “burner” cellphone - a phone that is acquired, often under an assumed name, used for a short while then abandoned. This phone was registered to “Pierre Poutine” living on “Separatist Street” in Joliette, Quebec. Aside from the obvious fakery, the story takes a couple more interesting terms at this point. There is in fact a restaurant in Guelph that is called Pierre’s Poutine which, interestingly enough, is located in the vicinity of Old Quebec Street. Now this is not the same restaurant I reviewed a few months ago that also was in downtown Guelph and serves poutine. It seems that Guelph is becoming a regional poutine capital. Well, at least it may give Guelph some kind of food identity because it was known for absolutely nothing culinary before now. The owner of the restaurant of course has no connection to the scandal, but he is nonetheless enjoying the notoriety.

Next came a suspiciously coincidental resignation from a Conservative party aide who had extensive involvement in the election campaign in Guelph. Michael Sona was a communications director for the local Conservative candidate during the election and until recently was an aide for a Mississauga area MP. During the Guelph campaign he was involved in another mini-scandal. There was special early balloting on the University of Guelph campus because the election would have come immediately after the end of term so the poll was set up to allow Guelph students to vote in Guelph. Apparently the Conservatives had some concerns with how the polling stations were set up but Sona’s inexplicable form of protest was to attempt to grab the ballot box. I still don’t really understand why there were no charges laid in the incident and everything was kind of ignored. Now once the robocall story becomes national news, Sona suddenly resigns from his current position in the Conservative party. Again, we don’t know if he actually was involved in this exercise, but let’s just say it looks suspicious.

Then reports from other ridings across the country began coming in. Some calls were automated but others used live voices; some claimed to be from Elections Canada and some claimed to be from the Conservative Party and others may have claimed to be from one of the other parties. There were also calls from people claiming to be from the Liberal Party that called Liberal supporters at inappropriate times and were harassing or otherwise rude to voters. In many of these cases the calls have been tracked back to Conservative Party callers. Other ridings also had calls about supposed changes in polling station locations, some hours away from where the voter lived. It seems that the majority of ridings affected were heavily contested ridings and many had slim margins of victory. Thousands of complaints have been made with Elections Canada and they are now undertaking an investigation more comprehensive than they have ever done before.

Recently, another “interesting” situation has come to light. In a Toronto area riding, a high profile Liberal MP was defeated by about 4000 votes in a closely watched race, and the Conservative victor was rewarded with a position in Cabinet. This riding also received reports of Liberal supporters receiving harassing phone calls. Now we have found out that nearly 3000 late voter registrations were filed. In Canada, even if you are not on the voters list, if you are eligible to vote and you have a residence in the appropriate riding you can go to the polls on Election Day and fill out a form, including your address, show ID, and you can still vote. Since I have moved several times in the last few years I have had to go through this process more than once. But in this case, it seems many of those late registration form showed irregularities: in particular on many of these forms the address was left blank. In others, the address given was either phony or for a business. As the address is needed as proof you live in the riding, it must be a residential address. Despite lacking this critical information these forms were signed by election officials so these people were able to vote. We don’t yet know how many of those late registration forms contained irregularities, but reports now are saying there could be at least a couple thousand. When you consider the margin of victory was only 4000, this combined with the voter suppression tactics, begins to call the result into doubt. And if these registrations were apparently allowed from people without giving a valid address, is it possible they may even have voted twice? Do we need the purple ink in Canada too now?

While it is certainly possible that rogue Conservative Party sympathizers did this on their own without approval from leadership or the official campaign (apparently it is disturbingly easy and cheap to set up an account to send out robocalls to a given list of phone numbers - any one can do it with a few minutes, a few dollars, and instructions from the Internet), the number of ridings involved, the slight differences in tactics used, and the overwhelming pattern of which places and which voters were targeted suggests the party probably has something to do with this. And when we put this together with their general approach to governance and integrity, it seems downright plausible this was orchestrated by someone higher up. Also, as this seems to have been a tactic for voter suppression, mainly targeting those who had previously told the conservatives that they would not vote for them, it is consistent with previous government tactics remove the part of government that has to do with representing the people. They are forcing through a regressive crime bill that will establish tons of mandatory minimum sentences for broad ranges of crimes, removing a judge’s discretion in sentencing, and are trying to form a very intrusive bill very similar to the SOPA bill that was proposed in the US. There are all kinds of other things they are doing to ignore public or government opposition or to keep everything secret, but I won’t go into all that here. I just hope people won’t just forget about this like they have all the other scandals this government has been involved in. But that seems to be what is happening and meanwhile this party remains in government and even gains more power. I suppose it could be worse though. I don’t think there are many Canadians who take Rick Santorum seriously.

The Separate School Board

Recently, there was yet another gay teen who was bullied and took his own life. Jamie Hubley was 15 year old student at an Ottawa, Ontario high school. I firmly believe that the schools need to do a far better job to combat bullying and discrimination, but that is not really the topic of this post. What caught my attention was one detail of Jamie Hubley's story that connects with other problems in Ontario. The detail was that Hubley originally went to a Catholic school, where he experienced some very severe bullying. His parents did what they could; they offered support and moved him into a public school, but bullying continued there. Many people outside of Ontario may not know this, but a great many catholic schools in Ontario are not private schools, as would be the case for any other religious school. In Ontario we have two separate publically funded school boards; the regular public board and a catholic school board. Residents indicate on their property tax bills whether they wish their tax funds support either the public board or the catholic board. To me, this arrangement flies in the face both of the separation of church and state and of the very principles of public education.

It should be pointed out that the separation of church and state is not quite as sacrosanct in Canada as it is in the United States and, less than a century ago, most schools had a religious affiliation. My parents grew up in Montreal and, when they went to school, there were two school boards: one protestant and one catholic (actually there were four - protestant and catholic each had an English and French board). Now my parents are anglophone and Jewish, so any school board was affiliated to a religion not their own. Some time ago, the system was overhauled and the church was taken out of the public school system. The Catholic board became the French school board, while the protestant board became the English school board (English catholic and French protestant had little enrolment and were merged into the larger boards). So Quebec has removed the church from their public schools, as has most of the rest of Canada. Yet Ontario continues to maintain the catholic school board as a publicly funded entity. No other religious group is granted this distinct privilege of having their religious schools funded by taxpayer dollars. In fact, in 2007 the opposition Conservative party of Ontario proposed a plan to, if elected, institute a voucher system by which people who send their children to private religious schools would be able to receive tax write-offs, essentially giving all religious schools a partial subsidy. This idea was quite unpopular with the voters and the Conservatives lost an early advantage in the polls to lose the election that year to the Liberals. I actually would have been conditionally in support of this idea were it not for the fact the Catholic schools would continue to be fully funded, thus leaving all religious schools still at a disadvantage. However, if the Catholic board were abolished I would support their schools being able to take advantage of a voucher program, as long as all other religious schools could partake as well.

Why does all this matter? Well, since public schools are funded and run by the government, they must abide by official government curriculum and fully conform with all provincial human rights and non-discrimination policies. As homophobia in the public schools will not (or at least should not) be tolerated, most schools have Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) or similar programs, at least if there is a desire for one. If a school principal or local school board tried to block it, the ministry would intervene as that would be against policy. Apparently, the Catholic board does not have to play by the same rules. The Catholic schools are allowed to include religious instruction in the curriculum and it seems they are not required to fully follow provincial guidelines if they are “contrary to religious principles”. Over the past year, there has been a push in the Catholic school boards in Halton region and Toronto to start a GSA, which the catholic board has been consistently blocking. There has been a great deal of overheated rhetoric and some rather disgusting comments, but the real point is that the Catholic board is apparently able to flout provincial law because tolerance of homosexuality is supposedly “contrary to Catholic teaching”. What the boards finally seem to be settling on, only after pressure from the education ministry, is to allow “diversity clubs” or “tolerance” groups - but they can't have “gay” anywhere in the name, and in one case they were not even allowed to use the rainbow symbol. Now, let me think, what is the original symbolism of a rainbow... oh that's right, in the story of Noah's Ark. So the ultimate religious symbol of peace and harmony is too contentious and symbolic of “the gays” and can not have a place in a “religious” school.

Now I am sure that intolerance in the name of religion takes place in other religious schools. The difference is these are private schools - entirely self-funded through student tuition, church or other religious association sponsorship, and private donors. So as long as they are not actively violating the province's human rights code they may teach whatever religious doctrine they please, even if many of us may not agree with it or if it is intolerant. But when a school receives public funding, whatever it does ought to be in the public interest. While you can choose to have your personal tax dollars go toward the public rather than catholic school board, this obviously splits the total available revenues. That means whatever goes to the catholic board is money that could have gone to the public board, so whichever option you select you are still subsidizing both school boards. Despite this public funding, the catholic schools are still permitted to include religious instruction in the curriculum and they are currently insisting that they not be required to teach anything that contravenes their religious principles. If their religious teachings state that being gay is unacceptable, then they can claim that not only do they not have to teach anything about gay issues (if that ever becomes part of the curriculum) but they can refuse to allow students to form a Gay-Straight Alliance. So how does a gay Ontario resident feel, having their tax dollars go (indirectly) to support a school system that will teach kids that you are sinful and ought not to exist? It would serve us well to remember that so much of the most vitriolic homophobia out there today uses the pretext of religion to justify the hatred.

Unfortunately, I don’t really see any prospect of this arrangement changing any time in the near future. There is simply no political will to undo an arrangement that benefits the Catholic Church, which represents a very large number of voters and wields considerable political clout. In the recent election, only the green party was saying anything about disbanding the catholic board, all the parties with any significant vote share are not contemplating any such thing. But if we are serious about equality in education, we cannot continue to support a school system that allows inequality.

An Article Worth Reading

This is not really a full post, but one is coming very soon, probably tomorrow. I just wanted to share a very interesting editorial piece that appeared in the Toronto Star this weekend. Back in April, I wrote about how people want to maintain the rights inherent in citizenship without fulfilling any of the duties. Read my post here. The opinion piece, by Edmund Pries, centres on the trend of transforming “citizens” into “taxpayers”. He says it better than I could - this is exactly what I was talking about.

Read the article here: “Taxpayers vs. Citizens”

Justice Not Vengeance

You may have noticed I do not link to very many sites on my sidebar. When I began blogging there was a lot of concern about sites being nuked for “questionable content” or even linking to such sites. Even though I knew none of my material would stray into that problem area, I worried that linking to certain sites might attract problems. Therefore I decided that, if I was going to put a link in my sidebar I had to be 100% comfortable with that site’s content and could feel comfortable recommending it to anyone who happens to read my blog. With that in mind, I am introducing two new links today. First is something new for me. While I am affiliated with two food websites that have blog listings, I have not linked to any food blogs. Recently though, I have found one that is well-written, diverse and even has something of an intellectual side to it. If you like what I write about food, pay a visit to Down Home Foodie, I think you will like her writing too. The other site I have been familiar with for a while, and I think some of my regular readers know it too. This site has an adult content warning in front of it, but I can assure you the site is clean. You may see a nude picture once in a great while but is not at all a porn site and there is nothing I would consider at all offensive. Because this is registered as an “adult” site, and also because at one time I was unsure about some of his previous content, I have been reluctant to link to Randy’s blog in the past but lately I am getting to really like this blog - he is one of my favourites. Like me, he seems to have a background in psychology/behaviour or something in that line, so we have been having some interesting discussions as of late. He is a regular at Scottie’s Toy Box and does visit here on occasion. Visit Randy’s blog at Or Words To That Effect...


Lately, I have noticed in this blog community there is much focus on the justice system and what it is doing or not doing. I have also waded into this discussion, as I find it quite interesting. I believe that part of the difficulty is that “justice” can mean different things to different people, and while it is supposed to officially be free from emotional response, most peoples’ concept of justice is heavily based on emotions.

And there lies the problem. I believe the motivation for many people who “seek justice” are not really after justice but revenge. Now revenge encompasses more than what you probably consider it to be, like vigilantism and multi-generation family grudges that usually involve a great deal of bloodshed. Revenge in a more mundane form is actually a desire to have the perpetrator of a crime suffer as much as the victim, because of the anger and/or hurt that the victim feels. Here is where vengeance get entangled with the concept of justice. Obviously as a society we consider it unacceptable that someone who has committed a crime should be able to avoid facing any consequences for their actions. It would also be heartless to disregard the suffering or damages inflicted on the victim(s) of such actions.

The desire for vengeance is deeply ingrained in us. As a social species, we rely on a set of communal laws to ensure we can continue to thrive as a collective. Therefore, if someone violates these laws, it threatens everyone and undermines confidence in the ability of one’s society to function. That is why fear and anger often rule and there is a desire for harsh punishments that inflict suffering. Over time, most societies try to implement a fair and effective justice system to ensure that the consequences meted out are appropriate. One of the earlier forms of justice is the biblical standard of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life”. The purpose was to set a punishment that was equal to the offense. Today this standard, especially when interpreted literally, is seen as barbaric and, in the New Testament, Christian tradition moves beyond his standard, in keeping with Christ’s teachings of love and forgiveness. It should be noted though that “an eye for an eye” was never considered by Jewish scholars to be a literal requirement. There are a couple reasons for this. First, this rule was actually a limitation as other contemporary nations punished minor offenses with disfigurement or death and the Israelites determined that the punishment can never be more severe than the crime. Second, due to the implications of this limitation, it is not actually commensurate to literally take out someone’s eye or knock out one’s teeth as punishment for doing these things. If you did these things, the accused might suffer additional harm as a result, rendering the punishment excessive. So instead, the practice was to require the offender to pay the monetary value of an eye, a tooth, etc. The exception was “a life for a life” since murder is a crime that can never be undone and it is completely impossible to place a value on a human life, the sages determined that the literal penalty of death is still appropriate. After all, there is no way in this case that the penalty can be exceeded as death is terminal. It should also be noted though, the Jewish high court in the days of the temple were extremely reluctant to impose any death penalties. Because such a penalty is irreversible, they put so many constraints and such a high burden of proof it was almost impossible have a case strong enough to merit the death penalty and a lesser punishment was used instead. Still, starting from the base principle of an eye for an eye still seems like unthinking retribution, albeit somewhat tempered, which is probably why in the New Testament, different standards were espoused.

So if we do not want our justice system to be based on seeking revenge, then what is the purpose? The best I can tell, the ideals of justice would entail that any wrong or illegal behaviour is met with appropriate consequences, the victims are protected, and an opportunity is provided for rehabilitation. The efficacy of the court systems of providing this ideal is not really my focus here as I am more concerned with personal ethics. Although justice is primarily considered a legal construct, we generally believe that “justice must be done” even in matters of ethical or moral violations that do not violate a governmental law. In any event, in discussions of ethics, civil laws are not constructed based on ideals but on consensus, so you take what you can get.

In my teens, one person whose life and writings greatly influenced me was Simon Wiesenthal, a man who was commonly known as a “Nazi Hunter”. He was a survivor of the Holocaust and the concentration camps and after liberation he dedicated his life to seeking out and putting escaped Nazis on trial for their crimes. With the passage of time, more people criticized him for doing this, as they felt that there was no good to be served in prosecuting old men decades after the crimes and surmising that Wiesenthal’s motivation for this continuing quest was revenge for what was done to him, his family, and his fellow Jews. He took great pains to explain how this was not at all the case, especially in his memoir published in the late 1980's, entitled Justice Not Vengeance. After the camps were liberated and Simon had recovered most of his physical strength, he went to work helping the allied tribunals set up to try Nazi war criminals. Over the next few years, he found that many former Nazis, who had committed some horrific offenses were living quite comfortably in many other countries, as close as Switzerland and some even seemed proud of what they had done. Many other survivors he talked to considered the only appropriate punishment to kill them - in other words getting revenge. This seemed wrong to Wiesenthal, like one was sinking to their level and being just as inhuman as their tormentors. By contrast, the Nuremberg trials were fair and sober proceedings, allowing those accused to defend themselves, and making judgements based on the evidence, even acquitting a few. To Simon, this was proper justice: outside judges who were not biased by being directly victimized judged the accused’s guilt and the severity of the crimes and set an appropriate punishment. Meanwhile, the process itself would ensure that the people do not forget about what happened and prevent such a tragedy from happening again. As for those who say it does not serve justice to prosecute men in their 80's and 90's in frail health whose crimes took place decades ago? To me, letting this go sends the message that there are no consequences for the crimes, as long as you hide away or lie about your past for long enough.

Contrast this to the current mess that goes by the name of the U.S. Justice System. I was particularly disturbed by the media circus that surrounded the recent Casey Anthony trial. Now it seems pretty clear that Ms. Anthony is no model citizen and certainly, as confirmed pathological liar, should not be trusted in any way, shape or form. And given the available evidence I would say that it is quite possible she did in fact kill her child. But considering the charges laid, the evidence presented, and the principle of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not guilty seemed to be the only responsible verdict. Of course this infuriated everyone. I won’t even get into the appalling behaviour of the so-called “experts” on TV, and especially Nancy Grace, except to say that she actually is a lawyer, and as such ought to maintain some professional standards. But what really caught my attention was the insistence that she ought to be punished, despite the lack of proof, because the kid is dead. While they present this as justice, this is what I would consider vengeance. They start with the fact that a little girl is dead, quite likely murdered (but again, not proven). Therefore someone has to “pay” for this crime. But here the judgement of guilt has been made in the court of public opinion rather than law. With law you actually have to prove the case and the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. With public opinion it is the reverse except without the “until proven” part. And how does the public opinion form? Well, from the media reports, just about always sensationalist. This is why I can’t watch HLN for more than a few seconds without feeling like puking.

Another related concept that is quite interesting is perhaps more sensitive. We have just past the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks this past weekend. How do you see justice done here? For one thing, all the actual hijackers died while carrying out their evil. And can any of the other actions taken since be considered to be even some measure of justice? What if, for instance, the U.S. had been able to capture Bin Laden alive and try him, as was done with many top Nazis such as Hermann Goring, Rudolf Hess, and eventually, Adolf Eichmann? And currently, former Yugoslav dictator Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for crimes against humanity for his role in the massacres in Bosnia. First of all, a fair trial for such a hated individual on U.S. soil and abiding by the rules of US law would be highly unlikely. But even if that were to happen by some miracle or if he could have been prosecuted at the International Criminal Court like Milosevic, would it even then be possible for justice to proceed? When other suspected Al-Qaeda members have gone on trial, they have turned it into a spectacle to continue their hatred and vitriol. Given the messages Bin Laden released in the past, such a scenario would be likely. So you would have the American people on one side howling for blood, and Bin Laden on the other issuing a rallying cry to all the other terrorists. The pursuit for justice dissolves into a tangled mess with no good outcomes. And the way it actually did end, there is certainly no justice but only a small element of revenge. But perhaps in such cases you can’t really do any better.

I think what we ought to strive for is not perfection, but to do the best we can, while remaining aware of our own natures, whether in policy or our personal lives. When it comes to the justice system, it is much more difficult as we have to weigh the priorities of all a country’s citizens, some of whom have no interest in the ideals of justice. Also, since our written laws must stand up in all circumstances and be fair to everyone, there is a certain lack of flexibility built into the system. But when we have been personally victimized, it might be helpful to remember that there is a natural tendency to seek revenge, but this urge is not good for society as a whole. Take a step back and think about what rules/laws were violated and what a fair and appropriate penalty would be. Note that I am not discussing forgiveness here. Forgiveness is something that comes later and is different in nature. It is also frequently misunderstood and I will discuss my thoughts on it in an upcoming post. That post will come together with a review of a book written by Simon Wiesenthal that poses some fascinating and difficult questions.

And one last thing before I close. A Happy 16th Birthday wish goes out to a special online friend. Thanks Amar, for being such a great inspiration and example to all.

A Moral Panic

Today’s topic may be a little more controversial than what I typically write, but I believe this topic is important. In the past couple weeks, a fellow blogger I respect a great deal, has been posting many stories and opinions regarding the way in which convicted sex offenders are treated in the United States. The reason for the interest is that there are recent laws coming into effect across the United States intended to create a uniform system and procedure for maintaining sex offender registries in all states. The original law is a federal law and states need to make new laws to be compliant with the federal regulations. The difficulty is that being on the registry makes it extremely difficult to get a job and the law also creates additional restrictions beyond those that already existed on where those on the registry may live (ie not near schools, playgrounds, etc.) The reason of course is to keep the public safe from potential predators, and to ensure that offenders continue to be monitored. To read a good selection of articles surrounding this issue visit Scottie’s Toy Box and scroll through. I have a link to his site on my sidebar or click here.

The point Scottie has been making is that this is extreme overkill and unnecessarily stigmatizes convicted sex offenders, making rehabilitation less likely. Also, many on the registry are either victims themselves or are not actually pedophiles or other sexual predators. He also claims that the public and the authorities seem to be putting more emphasis and severity of punishment on sexual abuse, than on other forms of abuse that can be just as damaging, if not more so. The post where he sets out his position on the issue can be found here (http://scottiestoybox.com/2011/07/03/injustice-for-all/) Scottie recently asked me for my opinion on this issue and I decided than, rather than spend lots of time composing a response to him that he would be able to post on his site, I thought that I should at least get a post of my own out of it. Scottie, you may reblog this post in the Toy Box if you wish, with a credit to me and a link back. While I must acknowledge I am not very familiar with the exact nature of the US laws on this issue, I would say that I mostly agree with the statement that the sex offender laws are not well thought out and, in some cases, seem to be overly punitive. Still there are some differences of opinion I will address later.

The biggest objection I have with what is happening is that all criminal offenses that are sexual in nature seem to require being placed on the registry. While the new rules do create tiers of offender depending on the severity of the crime, the only difference seems to be the length of time they must remain on the registry. Most people think sex offenders are pedophiles and rapists. The reality is that a surprisingly large percentage is people on the registry are youth, who may have been having sex while underage and the partner’s parents pressed charges. Or, since there is no allowance for young couples who are close in age, it is considered statutory rape if anyone over 18 has sex with someone under 18. This is a predicament that can potentially face anyone who is sexually active and does not share the same birthday as their partner (that would be most people). While I imagine that making laws uniform is intended to change this, people have ended up on a sex offender registry for public urination. Scottie has recently posted a story about 2 14-year old boys that pulled down their pants and sat on another boy’s face. While this is obviously bullying and unacceptable behaviour, possibly befitting criminal charges, an appeals court ruled that this was a sexual offense and as such, the boys would have to be placed on the sex offender registry for life. The point is that the judges seemed to indicate that this was overly harsh but the law gave them no alternative. On what planet does this make sense?

Another big problem I have is that placement on the registry seems to be allowed to factor into employment decisions. Honestly, unless the job is as a school teacher or child care worker, I don’t see how this is relevant in any way. And I can also understand that a job that requires an employee to be bondable would entail that the employee could not have a criminal record (usually), so there would be a problem in those instances as well. But there are so many industries that don’t require contact with children or other vulnerable people or require security clearances that this shouldn’t be an insurmountable barrier to employment. Yet employers won’t hire sex offenders and so many in the public seem to agree with this. But if society rejects you on a permanent basis, what incentive is there to obey the law and get on with your life?

This issue brings to mind a paper I wrote in a first-year university sociology class about moral panics. This is the short paragraph, exactly as I wrote it in that paper, that defines what a moral panic is - I think you will see how well it applies to the situation with sex offenders.

British sociologist Stanley Cohen, an acknowledged authority on moral panic, is credited with coining the phrase, although it actually made its first appearance in a colleague’s paper (Burns & Crawford, 1999; Thompson, 1999). Despite this technicality, it was Cohen who fully defined the term. In the classic definition, someone identifies an issue as a problem; it is reported in the media so as to influence the general public; the public develops an outrage against the issue; the authorities respond in some way; and the issue will finally either fade in importance or corrective action will be taken (Thompson, 1999). More recently, sociologists have attempted to specify the conditions that give rise to a moral panic (DeYoung, 1998). There has to be a pre-existing worry about the issue (DeYoung, 1998), and it must have the ability to create hostility among the public (Burns & Crawford, 1999). The media must be able to identify what Cohen calls a “folk devil”, a scapegoat upon which the public can easily place blame. These folk devils are very often marginalised members of the community (DeYoung, 1998).

One of the examples I had mentioned, though it was not central to the paper, was the allegation of satanic ritual sexual abuse in day care centres in the United States. In the 1980's there were claims that at least one (and later others) day care centre was sexually abusing children in their care using satanic symbolism. The only evidence was the claims of the children, many of whom were under 4 years old at the time and, even when questioned years later, were still young children. It later came out that these stories were all pure invention, but a large number of day care centres had come under suspicion and were shut down in the interim and forever casting suspicion upon their operators.

But looking at that definition above, I’m sure you can see how well our current hysteria regarding sex offenders fits the pattern. The pre-existing issue is obviously those cases of child abduction and molestation that make the news, everyone is outraged and demands horrendous penalties for the perpetrators and there has been a large quantity of legislative response, mostly ill-considered. This building of a moral panic is why you see so much of a push to have a public registry of sex offenders. While anyone who looks carefully will know that most registered sex offenders are not accused of a crime stemming from pedophilia, this is the offense most people imagine when discussing sex offenders. The actual occurrence of child abduction is very rare (although child sexual abuse is not - it is more often perpetrated by family and/or friends) but a whole variety of sexual indiscretions can result in mandatory registration, from brutal, violent rapes, to in some places, indecent exposure. Also, the part about the folk devils being marginalised members of the community is especially obvious here: the focus is exclusively on pedophiles, since adults having sexual desire for children is considered so revolting and incomprehensible to most people. These people also tend to have histories that involve abuse and neglect, meaning they are even further marginalised. Putting them on a “list” underscores this separateness from society and makes it easier to create laws that would be considered excessive and cruel for any member of the “normal” society. For this reason, I am strongly opposed to the way in which congress develops these laws. The laws are supposedly about all sexual offenses, yet they name these laws invariably after victims of child abduction (Adam Walsh, Megan Kanka, etc.) The way I see it, if there are so few victims of a particular crime you know all the names of the victims, is so much social and legal change really needed? In Ontario in the early 1990's there was a serial killer on the loose, raping women and abducting, abusing and killing girls. Eventually the perpetrator was found to be Paul Bernardo and his wife/girlfriend Karla Homolka. While some may argue that Homolka was not sufficiently punished (she testified against him, striking a deal for 12 years in prison and has already served the full sentence), Bernardo was rightly identified as a dangerous menace, was convicted of many charges. He received life in prison and was declared a dangerous offender, rendering him ineligible for parole. Because we have dangerous offender status and a somewhat lesser status of high risk offender, this means that if an individual is too dangerous and at too much risk to re-offend, we have methods to keep such people off the streets but only on a case by case basis, and it is not an easy designation to get. We also do have a sex offender registry, but it is not generally available to the public but only to the police. Maybe this is a better way to go, as there is still monitoring and tracking of potentially dangerous people, but does not have the high potential for vigilante justice as in the US where the registry is available to any member of the general public, some of whom have questionable motives.

Then there are the issues over which I disagree with my friend. First there is the nature of the crime and the prospects for rehabilitation. While it may be true that sex offenders, as a group, are the second least likely class of offenders to reoffend, I think this has a lot to do with grouping all kinds of tenuously related offences together, from child abuse, to young love, to rape, to a domestic dispute. Age of consent issues will of course not result in a re-offence, since once the “criminal” ages a bit, the crime can no longer be committed. For some who use force in sexual situations, therapy and rehabilitation is possible and effective. The same can be true when the crime happened as a result of substance abuse. So why is there an impression that sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated? Because some - those that get most of the press but make up a very small percentage of the offender population - commit crimes that are usually the result of a very serious compulsion for which an effective rehabilitation has not been found. Pedophiles are extremely likely to re-offend, as are some serial rapists. But even though they are a small percentage of all sex offenders, these are the most serious crimes in the category, and the fact that treatment and rehab is highly unlikely in these cases is a concern we need to take seriously. This is why the strict conditions, reporting requirements, and tight restrictions are in place. These people are known to be dangers and in all likelihood will remain so unless carefully monitored. Now, why every other sex offender is subject to all the same restrictions is beyond me, but that does not mean that we throw out the baby with the bathwater (is it inappropriate to use that phrase here? Oh, well). While this means convicted pedophiles are going to have a hard time finding a place to live and a good job, safety is a very real concern, and no they should not be working with kids if they have molested children before. And if they live near playgrounds and such, they will be too hard to keep track of and they will be too close to temptation. But for other sex offences that have no relation to children, especially for those who can be rehabilitated, I do agree that all those restrictions are draconian, not to mention pointless.

Finally, there is the issue of damage caused by sexual abuse as compared to other forms of abuse. I think the key thing to remember here is that everyone is their own individual and reacts to the events of their lives in different ways. Also, having not been abused myself, I don’t really have a frame of reference. Although from what little Scottie has shared with the reading public on his blog, I get the impression that the sexual abuse he suffered was not as extensive or painful. Also, something that I believe makes a bit of difference, he seems to suggest that those who abused him physically were more direct family members than those who committed the sexual abuse. I apologize if I got this wrong, and if it is, just take this as a theoretical example of someone else for whom this was the case. If someone very close, such as a parent, abuses you in ANY way, I would think that this abuse would have longer-lasting psychological effects, as there is also a deep betrayal of trust that goes along with the physical pain, guilt and/or shame suffered. For others, the sexual abuse could be worse. And while physical abuse may be more likely to cause long term health effects, the same thing can happen if a sexually transmitted disease is contracted as a result of a molestation. Several months ago I was following the blog of a young man who had been sexually abused by the father of one of his friends. Because of this, he contracted Hepatitis and HIV and died last winter. Sexual abuse can have horrific consequences as well, it is just a matter of what happened in each individual case.

To summarize, I think that the biggest problem with the manner in which sex crimes are dealt with in the United States is the failure to separate the more serious crimes from the less serious ones.

Do We Really Want Democracy?

Currently, Western countries are giving armed support to countries in the Arab World with the aim to create democracies desired by many people in these countries. Now, whether these countries will actually become democratic is yet to be seen but the message we are sending is that democracy is such an important institution we are willing to make great efforts to help others achieve this goal. Yet when we look at what is occurring in North America one has to ask if democracy is really that important to us and do we even approach democratic ideals.

A federal election has just been called in Canada, where Prime Minister Stephen Harper, leader of a minority government has been judged in contempt of parliament and defeated in a vote of non-confidence, triggering a new election. Harper claims this election was irresponsible and unwanted by Canadians. The media promotes this idea taking as fact the notion that Canadians have had too many elections in recent years. It should be noted though, that the last election was 3 years ago, only a year earlier than a normal election cycle and our new fixed election date. This makes Harper’s claim that things are too unstable to have an election and government change now even more disturbing as one wonders, if he had a majority government than cannot be voted down, if he would try to delay an election if his prospects did not look good? The sadder fact is that the public is either buying the line or is actually of that opinion. Harper’s other scare tactic is the fact that, a year ago, the three opposition parties attempted to form a coalition government that would constitute a majority of the seats in parliament. This would allow them to defeat the Harper government without having another election. Many people, mainly conservatives, considered this a perversion of democracy and the constitution, despite the fact it has been done many times before, is fully constitutional, and would actually represent the views of a majority of voters, unlike the current situation. As it happened, Harper arranged to dissolve parliament to prevent the government from being voted down, and the coalition ended up falling apart before parliament resumed. Now he has pulled the idea out of nowhere that the opposition has a secret plan to form a coalition after this election. Never mind that when his party was the opposition in a minority government he is on record attempting to form a coalition of his own with the same smaller parties for the exact same purpose.

If people really believe a coalition is bad for democracy, I think they need to review elementary school math. The conservatives had 40% of the vote in the last election. 8% of voters are excluded because they voted for the Green party which did not get any seats in parliament because no individual candidate was able to win a race. That leaves 52% of voters who voted for the 3 parties involved in the coalition. Now, do you think it is more consistent with democratic values to have policy decided by 40% of the population or by 52% of the population (hint: 52 is more than 40)?

Then there is the issue of being in contempt of parliament. Harper refused to provide parliament with information detailing the cost of several major government spending plans, including the purchase of new top-of-the line fighter jets, building many additional prisons, and a program of corporate tax cuts. Aside from whether these are good ideas, it can’t be denied that these are evidently going to cost large amounts of money. Therefore one would assume that it should be necessary to show exactly how much this will cost before deciding whether this should be done. The speaker of the house, a parliamentary committee and the full parliament all ruled the government in contempt and Harper’s response is that this is all political games and “you win some, you lose some”. That is an actual quote. This goes along with an increasing trend of extreme secrecy in government decisions, adding a level of political control to the civil service and a great unwillingness to have any meaningful negotiations with the opposition. Yet according to a recent poll, only 14% of Canadians believe that ethics and accountability is the main election issue. Do we really not care that democracy is eroding away? It is understandable the economy is still a pressing concern but this disinterest, combined with the apparent unwillingness of Canadians to have an election, seems to suggest that Canadians just don’t care about government or having their voice heard. Meanwhile people are risking their lives to get a say in their political lives. Now one reason frequently cited is that people don’t like any of the candidates. Unfortunately, this cynicism reinforces itself within the political process. Anyone who might be an able and likeable politician would have no desire to take part, and even if they did would probably be shut down by party insiders that have a very complex system of internal politics that can get very nasty.

Another thing to consider. We are all very adamant about our rights as citizens and have every reason to insist that our rights are respected. But when it comes to responsibilities, whether it be taxes, jury duty, volunteering or even voting, everyone starts to complain and do everything they can to avoid fulfilling these responsibilities. You cannot have one without the other, because whenever you have a right, it becomes the responsibility of someone else to ensure that you have that right. What do you have if you remove all your responsibilities? You have anarchy, because in a society without law or government there is nothing you are required to do. But this means there is also no requirement to provide any rights to anyone else so you will not have any rights in an anarchy either. In dictatorships you also have few responsibilities, but also few rights, because the dictator has pretty much taken on all rights and responsibilities and only gives any to the people at his/her pleasure. It follows then that there must always be a balance between rights and responsibilities. If we have more rights, there will be more responsibilities we need to take on. When you complain about having to pay taxes or when you do not want to vote, you are contributing to a situation where you will have fewer rights. The United States right now serves as a great example. Republicans and the Tea Party gained a great deal of support by promoting the idea that Americans have too many taxes and too much government. And what has happened since then? Both the federal House and Republican controlled state governments are trying to take rights away from unions, gays, women, the poor and everyone they can think of who is not part of a privileged class. They are willing to cut the most basic of services but not ask a very lightly taxed populace to pay even a tiny bit more. This shows that when the government decides that neither they nor private individuals or corporations have to be held to responsibilities, everybody’s rights tend to disappear.

So what can we do about all this. This most important thing that I can suggest is to gladly accept one’s responsibilities as a citizen. This means taking part in the democratic process, accept that we pay taxes for an important and necessary reason and appreciate that these sometimes annoying tasks are necessary to maintain a just and free society. And if you feel that the government does not represent you, do what you can to get more involved. This doesn’t necessarily mean going into politics yourself, but attending debates and forums, communicating directly with your politicians or supporting candidates who are trying to improve things. It may be frustrating since sometimes you can do all these things and nothing changes, but at least you have done your best - maybe if more people do the same things might actually start to change. But letting political leaders do whatever they want with no oversight and increasing secrecy as long as they don’t ask you to do anything is not beneficial to a democracy.

Multi-Party Politics

Recently, a friend in the United States has expressed frustration with the political situation and has been seeking information about the pros and cons of multi-party government systems. I would like to discuss this issue, with a focus on the US and Canada, about which I know the most, and some discussion of what little I know about some European governments.

The obvious advantage of a 2-party system is that it is easier to get a majority in the legislature, which should make laws easier to pass. It also ensures the country’s leader is endorsed by a majority of the population.

In general however, I believe multi-party systems are a better option. If you do not happen to agree with the position of either party in the United States, you have no options. In Canada there are three parties that run everywhere in the country (and an additional very powerful party in Quebec only) and have significant representation in parliament with a fourth party beginning to emerge with significant vote totals, though they do not yet have any representation in government. As a result, we have not had any one party with majority control since 2004. Despite this, things still get done and they have gotten done with minority governments in the past. In fact, Canada’s most significant piece of legislation was created by a coalition government. This was the Canada Health Act, which guaranteed our universal health care. This measure was promoted by the New Democratic Party (NDP), Canada’s “third party”, which leans to the left and was supported by the larger, centrist, Liberal Party, led by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. On a side note, I firmly believe Pierre Trudeau was Canada’s best prime minister. In addition to bringing about universal health care, it was during his leadership that Canada received its own constitution, finally achieving complete independence from England. Included in the constitution was the Charter of Rights, which I already posted about some time ago (see the post titled Rights and Freedoms, posted September 29). Trudeau was also a key figure for gay rights in Canada. It was Trudeau that removed homosexuality from the criminal code. In explaining his reasoning, he used a line that has become very famous: “The government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation”.

The obvious drawback of a multi-party system is the threat of repeated, frequent elections when no majority can be reached. To try to avoid this, coalitions are often formed, as has happened recently with the British government. It seems to be going very well there, as the Conservatives are being tempered by the Liberal Democrats. Then again coalitions can bring their own problems too. An example of this is Israel. In addition to the 2 largest parties, there are numerous small parties with representation in the Knesset, some representing radical elements of society, especially the religious right. To hold power, one of the main parties usually requires coalition support from these fringe groups, and I believe that these compromises hurt possibilities for peace with their neighbours, as these parties tend to insist on growing the settlements and promoting other contentious issues. A method some countries use to get around the issue is to require a minimum percentage of the national vote to be able to get seats in their parliament. Germany is an example of this and Italy has apparently recently done this as part of a plan to reform their notoriously messy political setup.

Part of the blame for Italy’s political troubles derived from the multitude of small political parties that made up their parliament. To get anything done, many behind the scenes deals would have to be made. That would seem to be a recipe for corruption, and that is what they got. Their system also does not have the people directly elect individual representatives but rather vote for parties, a system called proportional representation. When used in a small country like Israel, it is the only way that makes sense, but in larger countries that have distinct regional differences throughout the country, this method poses problems. Germany has used a mix of direct regional representatives with at-large politicians chosen from party lists. Canada and the UK take a different approach, simply choosing all members of parliament individually in their local districts, called ridings. While I believe our system would work a little better with a mixed system, and I would like to see Canada move to some semblance of a mixed proportional system, the current system is a little more similar to what happens in the United States.

This is where the possible benefits of two party systems return. Most elections are understood by the people as a choice between the current governing party and making a change. When there are many small parties, they can split the total vote opposed to the current government, thus ensuring the incumbent wins again, even though a majority of the voters did not want to continue with the status quo. We see a lot of this in Canada. Our current prime minister, conservative Stephen Harper is liked by about 35% of the population, and despised by most of the rest, myself included. However, this opposition is split between the Liberals, the NDP and the Green Party. This scenario often allows the Conservatives to continue to win elections, albeit without a majority of seats (I fully realize there are other dividing issues that influence how votes are split, but this will get me too far off track). Americans seem to prefer a binary, either/or solution. When an exception appeared in 2000, the response was telling. Ralph Nader entered the presidential race as a third-party candidate and did succeed in attracting more votes than a third party candidate ordinarily would. Since the race between the two leaders, Bush and Gore, was so close, even the relatively small number of votes cast for Nader greatly influenced the final results. It is widely believed that Nader’s votes came from people who would otherwise have voted for Gore, allowing Bush to win (of course this analysis sets aside the controversy over electoral college votes and the general weirdness of what happened in Florida). During the next presidential election, in 2004, many people wanted Nader not to run. He ran anyway, but he received far fewer votes this time around. Of course by then it was clear that the American people were divided more or less 50-50, with very strong convictions over which leader to choose. The people clearly did not want a third option that might risk easing the way for the candidate they opposed.

So what options are there for those who might like to have a choice other than the obvious two in the US. Perhaps if a third party can find a way to get candidates elected to the house, it will become genuinely impossible to get any legislation enacted without some form of compromise, something that is generally avoided in the current situation. You would not expect the politicians to be less partisan, as that does not happen even in multi-party systems, but at least the government will have to find some way to incorporate diverse opinions and policies rather than the current obstinacy. But whether the desire for representation is more important for enough Americans than the preference for clear black and white solutions is an open question. Furthermore, there is an attitude among some people that every new idea that comes from outside America, especially from Europe, is evil and dangerous, while the American solutions are always the best. With this in mind, we will probably never see any dramatic changes to the political model there.

Finally, for those of my readers from European countries, I want to say that my research on European governments has been minimal so, if I got things wrong, feel free to let me know. I would also like to know your thoughts on this issue, wherever you may live.