Category Archives: Federal

Caveat emptor, Federal, Issues, Municipal, Provincial

Society is Our choices.

Leave a comment

A recent e-mail sent me to the Chilliwack Today website to read a column inspired by a Chilliwack Progress story concerning the proposed establishment of the Chilliwack Contact Center * for helping those living on the streets by converting the Days Inn hotel currently operating on Young Road.

*[A facility designed to offer housing and health services and solutions to the homeless that, according to Chilliwack MLA John Les will make a difference in people’s lives and improve our community. Medical care, court advocacy, rental assistance as well as help for those facing mental health or addictions issues.]

The first thought was about how many projects like this and other affordable housing projects have been bypassing, or in the case of the Olympic legacy housing passing right through, Abbotsford on the way to Chilliwack.

While Abbotsford ‘s Mayor and council have been very good at saying the right things and paying lip service to the need for affordable housing, they have failed at providing action based leadership on this issue, as they have on so many other pressing city issues (secure water supply, facilities and road maintenance, etc). Seeming to bury their heads in the sand, as if these issues/problems will disappear on their own.

But I digress.

The column and story were about a major, perhaps the major, problem that has given birth to our current society and that prevents us from addressing the problems and issues Canada and Canadians face – IT IS ALL ABOUT ME!

Which reared its ugly head in opposition to the Chilliwack Contact Centre.

You can recognize the presence of IT IS ALL ABOUT ME syndrome by the use of buzzwords or buzz-statements such as those uttered by area resident Renée Woods: “It’s not that I’m against the project in any way, I think Chilliwack definitely needs it.”

‘Woods main concern is the location, asking why the health contact centre couldn’t be established downtown instead.’

I cannot say whether those suffering from IT IS ALL ABOUT ME are lying to themselves or to the public to excuse their actions and obscure the reality that they are opposing the project they claim not to be against.

A location has been chosen, plans specific to that location have been prepared, a deal to purchase the property has been agreed upon – all that remains is rezoning. If the rezoning is not approved the Centre does not come into existence.

Regardless of how you try to spin it or delude oneself, the reality is that if you oppose the rezoning you oppose the Chilliwack Centre.

A reality more clearly seen in Ms Woods words “I’m worried that they’re just moving the problem from downtown to here. I feel they are taking the lowest socioeconomic group and moving it a block from my house,” she said. “If it changes the dynamic of our neighbourhood, it’s unfair.”

I believe I will let her words speak for, or more accurately against, themselves.

The deep, dark humour/irony here is the existence of neighbourhoods were Ms. Wood is seen as a member of the lower socioeconomic classes whose mere presence would change the dynamic of the neighbourhood.

People speak as though society results for someone else’s actions, is someone else’s fault as though their behaviours have nothing to do with or no effect on society.

Our society has been built and continues to be built by the choices, actions and behaviours of all of us. Every choice we make, every action we take – or don’t take, how we behave creates the society we live in.

In September 2010 I wrote about a business man who, finding a homeless man and his dog camped out under the awning of his building did not have man and dog removed but purchased a garden shed and installed it at the side of the building to provide shelter from the elements for man and dog.

This week the homeless man came down with pneumonia, requiring hospitalization. Once again the businessman stepped up to the plate when nothing compelled him to do so, except his own code of behaviour, and took the homeless dog home with him to make sure he is cared for.

The Society so many deplore is created and shaped by us. Society is us, our choices, actions and behaviours.

Choose which society you want to bring into being – the one that is created by Ms. Woods words, actions and attitudes OR the one that is created by the actions, attitudes and behaviour of the businessman.

Your/Our choices bring into being the Society we choose. If you do not like the Society that we live in – change your behaviour and influence others to change their behaviours until the Society you/we want exists.

Federal, Issues, Media, Municipal, Provincial

Voting age

Leave a comment

How would you know…?

…that the BC Liberals (and NDP) parties are allowing those under the age of 18 to vote for the leader of the Party?

Could the first clue be the fact that the leadership candidates are suggesting, or jumping on the bandwagon, that the voting age be lowered to 16?

Talk about putting a whole new spin on the tradition of kissing babies for votes…

We have graduated drivers licensing for young drivers, those under 18 (the current voting age) are not allowed to purchase alcohol and the legal age of majority is 18.

So are the leadership candidates saying that voting is a less important or requires less judgment and maturity than driving a vehicle, buying alcohol or being considered to be legally an adult?

“Liberal leadership contender Mike de Jong says he wants to lower the voting age in B.C. from 18 to 16 in a bid to attract more voters to polls.”

Since the polls are in schools it would certainly be easy and convenient for students to vote which may well lead to a higher turnout percentage among this new group of voters – at least as long as they are in school and it is easy and convenient – artificially inflating the voter turnout numbers.

If the goal is simply to increase voter turnout why don’t we move the polls to more convenient locations? Malls, grocery stores, bars etc. Making the polls more conveniently located so that people do not have to make an effort to go and vote will also raise voter turnout.

Of course moving the polls out of the schools, thus reducing the ease and convenience for the new voters to vote will undoubtedly significantly reduce turnout among the proposed new voters to levels more in keeping with the turnout in the rest of the population.

Besides, does not a ‘fair’ election require that no group of voters have a significant advantage in the opportunity to vote? In the interest of fairness and not conferring an advantage should not voting be equally inconvenient for all voting populations?

If someone cannot go 5 or 10 minutes out of their way to vote – do we really want them voting?

If the goal is to increase voter turnout might I make a suggestion? Instead of lowering the voting age or moving polls to convenient locations we might want to try a truly radical solution – giving voters something (someone) to vote for.

I keep myself informed on what is happening in BC, Canada and around the world; keep informed on what the issues are and the events effecting the issues; give thought to what information experience/history provides on the issues; think about the future and what actions we need to take.

I am a person engaged and prepared to give informed consent on how I want the city. the province and the country to be governed.

Unfortunately (for the province, country and world) I also have nothing and/or no one I want to cast my vote for.

Being interested and engaged in the issues of government and governance I often ‘talk politics’ with others who keep themselves informed who complain of being in the same position – being informed and engaged they also find they to have no one they consider deserving of their vote.

Those among this group who feel they have to vote, having nothing and no one to vote for, find themselves condemned to holding their noses and voting for the lesser of evils. Political discussion on the ‘Net and comments made to the media by voters suggest that a significant percentage of those who do vote in provincial or federal elections are confronted by the dilemma that if/when they vote they are not voting for the direction or the policies they want the province or country to be pursuing but either 1) voting to prevent something (i.e. a Conservative majority government) or 2) voting for the lesser of evils (i.e. a minority government).

I am old enough that I can remember when elections were about issues, not about spin, mudslinging, saying as little as possible and telling the voting public what it wants to hear.

On the flipside I can remember a time when voters applied thought to the policies and politicians they voted for – not just whether they hear (or think they hear) what they want to hear.

While giving the above collection of voters something to vote for would help to stop the decline in the percentage of voters, in order to significantly increase the number of voters it is necessary to re-enfranchise the more than 50% of voters who are currently disenfranchised.

Disenfranchised? What else would you call it when the votes of these voters have no effect on government behaviours and policies that impact their lives. When voting is pointless – you have seen that your vote makes no difference to what happens to you – why would you bother to vote?

Since the number of disenfranchised voters continues to grow every election, basic mathematics tells you that voter turnout will continue to decline every election.

Governments, politicians and pundits prefer to use the term apathy to explain the decrease in voter turnout. As in ‘the voters don’t vote because they are apathetic’, an explanation politicians, pundits and the public find more palatable than the harsh truth: that the majority of voters don’t vote because nobody speaks or will speak for them.

If you are wealthy, well to do, a businessman, a corporation etcetera – the BC Liberal party (Conservatives federally) will act to advance your interests.

If you are big labour/union or one of a number of special interest organizations/groups that contribute to the political interests of the NDP, the BC NDP (federal NDP) will act to advance your interests.

[The federal Liberals, due to a lack of leadership and ideas, have become the: ‘I don’t want a Conservative government; I don’t want a NDP government; that leaves the Liberals’ party.]

The majority of Canadians and BC residents have no party, no politician or candidate for office that will advance their interests.

Disenfranchise: 1. to deprive of the right to vote or other rights of citizenship 2. to deprive of the right to send representatives to an elected body 3. to deprive of some privilege or right 4. to deprive of any franchise or right.

Represent:: 1. to stand or act in the place of, as a substitute, proxy, or agent does; 2. to act for or in behalf of (a constituency) by deputed right in exercising a voice in legislation or government.

Politicians, pundits and the enfranchised public will no doubt deny this uncomfortable reality as the current state of affairs is to their advantage. Especially in light of the fact that if those who are currently disenfranchised and do not vote were to found a party and recruit candidates to represent them, the politicians, pundits and currently enfranchised public would suddenly find themselves suffering the consequences of their interests and needs being disregarded.

Clearly a situation politicians. pundits and the enfranchised public have no desire to find themselves in.

Think about it: when experienced politicians in the BC Liberal party addressed the question of increasing voter turnout they avoided addressing increasing turnout by re-engaging the non-voting voters and turned to finding new voters and that the NDP have shown no interest in addressing voter turnout.

The disenfranchised majority needs leadership and representation to emerge and give voice to their best interests.

Addiction, Caveat emptor, Federal, Provincial

Seek an Understanding, not an Enabling Abettor.

Leave a comment

The fact a judge, or retired judge, tells a forum what those in attendance want to hear does not make what is said factual, useful, informed or reflective of reality. They can be as misinformed as anyone. A fact Judge Craig demonstrated repeatedly as he spoke at October’s crime forum in Abbotsford.

Craig said the concept of rehabilitation has replaced the idea of penal consequence when it comes to sentencing, and described it as an abstract process where judges try to transform evil into docility and tractability.

Those who deal with the human cost resulting from the actions (and inactions) of the legal system can tell you that, other than paying lip service to the concept, the legal system is NOT about rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation may be the buzzword currently in vogue in the legal system but the legal system fails to provide anywhere near the levels of housing, programs, services and supports that are needed for recovery and rehabilitation. This failure to provide what is a needed to grant a person a significant opportunity for, or probability of, recovery and rehabilitation reflects the systems lack of an actual commitment or interest in rehabilitation.

An actual commitment to rehabilitation would see increased funding to the corrections branches, not cuts as were made at the federal level.

What the legal system is actually about, as defined by its actions not its words, is cost control.

The system is currently operating at or beyond its capacity. Increasing the level of capacity would require major ($billions$) capital investment in physical plant and significant ($billions$) yearly increases in operating expenditures.

Since this would require either yearly tax increases or large reductions in funding for popular programs such as healthcare, governments have so far talked the talk but failed to provide the needed funding.

The legal system is forced to operate within the constraints imposed by capacity and economic reality and so has become about cost control rather than either rehabilitation (the least costly policy over the long term) or incarceration (a prohibitively costly policy over the long term). These constraints have made cost control the operational imperative of the legal system.

The ‘revolving door’ cited in levelling criticism at the legal system results from cost management – there is no money in the system for incarceration of an ever increasing number of people for longer periods of time.

Judge Craig also said any ideas of legalizing marijuana as a way to stem the tide of money to gangs was ludicrous, and cited the horrific burden on Canadians from alcohol consumption.

This statement leads one to conclude that Judge Craig is sadly lacking an ability for logical analysis and/or that Judge Craig believes that illegal marijuana imposes no cost or burden on Canadians.

If one is to use the costs/burden of marijuana on Canadians as the basis for making the legalization/keep illegal decision you need to be comparing oranges (marijuana) to oranges (marijuana) not oranges (marijuana) to apples (alcohol).

The important burden/cost comparison is what the costs/burdens of having marijuana illegal (which would include the cost of gangs, legal system, incarceration etc) versus the cost/burdens that would result from marijuana if marijuana was legal.

The cost/burden of alcohol has no bearing on the cost/burden of marijuana analysis and therefore should have no bearing on whether marijuana is legal or illegal.

Judge Craig’s statement assumes that the costs/burden of legal marijuana would be higher that the costs/burdens associated with marijuana when it is illegal; a highly questionable conclusion.

Given Judge Craig’s statement that “Alcohol is already a madness on society,” one is left wondering why Judge Craig is not calling for alcohol to be made illegal as marijuana currently is?

If, as Judge Craig asserts, alcohol is a costly burden on Canadians and keeping (making) something illegal (marijuana) results in a lower cost/burden shouldn’t Judge Craig be seeking to add alcohol to the list of illegal drugs?

Of course US prohibition demonstrated clearly the high cost of making a widely used popular product, for which there is a strong high demand, illegal – gangs, gang wars and creation of a highly profitable criminal business.

The high cost being paid by Canadians in dealing with addiction and illegal (or legal) substance use is a direct result of trying to use the legal system to address what is a health issue by criminalizing the human weakness of addiction.

We might as well try to solve obesity and the burden the growing epidemic of obesity imposes on society by making being overweight a crime.

Since the legal system was never designed to address health issues the high costs and failure to make headway should be no surprise to anyone.

There is no such thing as ‘criminal’s rights’. There are ‘Canadian’s rights’ set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that all in Canada are entitled to – rich or poor, male or female, young or old, Anglo-Saxon or other ethnicity, law-abiding or law-breaker, Canadian born or immigrant, citizen or visitor – these rights belong to all.

Before you tell yourself that you are not a criminal and don’t need your rights protected consider those released from prison, after years or decades, when it was found they were wrongly imprisoned. Consider incidents such as the lower mainland resident who was assaulted by police when they went to the wrong door and had the wrong person. With all the inquiries into police and government behaviours, with the changes in technology it is ever more important to have OUR rights protected.

The rights that are being protected are OUR rights, the rights of all Canadians. Equal Rights were created for everyone, which includes those accused (and those guilty) of wrongdoing.

To paraphrase Carl Sagan “with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit that stands between us and the enveloping darkness.”

I say darkness because when the rights of the victim, the victim’s family or society are evoked it is not rights that are being spoken of but vengeance.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Gandhi

Vengeance speaks to the darkness inside us, is rooted in destruction and is a very unhealthy, unwise choice to use as one of the basis of a society.

I have a friend who is so focused on vengeance that this friend wants to bring back the death penalty so Clifford Olson and others can be put to death. When I pointed out that what happened to Guy Paul Morin and others clearly demonstrated that if we had the death penalty innocent people would have been put to death by us (the government on our behalf) this person said it was an acceptable price to pay so Clifford Olson could be executed.

This person goes to church and considers themselves to be a good Christian and feels that killing innocent people is fine if that is what it takes be able to kill Clifford Olson and others like him.

Christian as in Jesus Christ who when asked said to turn the other cheek, who preached forgiveness and love your enemy as thyself.

Focused on vengeance on Clifford Olson and others who have committed heinous crimes this person, and many other Canadians, are willing, even eager, to accept the death of innocent victims as an acceptable price to pay in order to put Clifford Olson and his ilk to death.

To execute Clifford Olson (a killer of innocent victims) they are willing to become killers of innocent victims; in essence to gain vengeance on Clifford Olson et al, they are willing to become Olson – killers innocent victims.

Vengeance is a poison that destroys from within whether it be a person or a society.

Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves. Confucius

What we need to know, to the core of our being, is that what we need to base the discussion on is not the addicts, the criminals and crime but on ourselves.

Talking about what ‘they deserve’ is merely a way to justify our inaction; a justification to let ourselves off the hook for doing what is needed to aid rehabilitation, recovery and wellness.

The decisions we make and the actions we take in dealing with these issues is not about Them, but about Us and the society we want to create, live in and pass to the next generation. The real question is whether we will base our society on the worst in ourselves or the best in ourselves.