(Through Rose-Coloured Glasses)

Esteemed constitutional scholar author and University of Toronto professor emeritus Peter Russell has added his name to its list of supporters for the Democracy Project with this important statement.

“This is the most important federal election in my life time. What is at stake is nothing less than parliamentary democracy. If the electorate rewards Mr. Harper with a majority it will mean that he will be able to operate as a presidential prime minister without the check and balance of congress. It will also mean that two out of five Canadians think very little of the need to hold government accountable to parliament. Mr. Harper has reduced parliamentary debate to “bickering” and the role of parliament in the formation of government to irrelevant constitutional stuff. I hope and pray that the parties of parliamentarians win a majority next Monday.”

To hear Peter Russell speak about his grave apprehensions of what a Harper Conservative Government could mean for the future of Canadian parliamentary democracy see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEsXSb_JJSU

Peter H. Russell is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Toronto where he taught from 1958-1997. Considered one of Canada’s most respect political scientists, Russell was Director of Research for the McDonald Commission on the RCMP, a member of the Federal Task Force on Comprehensive Land Claims, and President of the Canadian Political Science Association. He chaired the Research Advisory Committee for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. His recent publications include articles on constitutional politics, judicial independence, and Aboriginal peoples. He is the author of Two Cheers for Minority Government: The Evolution of Canadian Parliamentary Democracy.

(Through Rose-Coloured Glasses)

Folks, this article is by Margaret Atwood, the famous Canadian author. Enjoy.

Margaret Atwood

Being a writer, I write frequently. It’s a nervous habit. The other day I was writing on a paper napkin, having rashly left the house without a notebook. What I was trying to figure out was the kind of country I would like to live in, and thus the kind of party I’d vote for if it were likely to encourage such qualities.

Like many swing voters, I want to vote for values, not for labels. I don’t much care what parties call themselves or what they say they will do. I care about what they really have done, and the values they’ve demonstrated by their actions.

What I was looking for were qualities we swing voters might be able to agree on, no matter what “party” we may have voted for historically. Suppose we had a party called the Common Grounds Party, or maybe the Common Decency Party. It might begin with the list on the paper napkin. Here it is. As you can see, there are pairs of opposites.

And, since you probably can’t read my writing, this is what it says:

Where do you want to live?

Open/closed; leader/dictator; inclusive/excluding; generous/mean; listens/does not listen; takes responsibility about mistakes/it’s always someone else’s fault; humanly imperfect/always right, like God; humility/arrogance; works well with others/one-man band.

There was a second page, which included things like “Fair/unfair (laws and enforcement),” “Allows initiative/control freak,” “Governs for the welfare of all citizens/non-party members are enemies.” But then I ran out of space.

Maybe my paper napkin is more like a description of what you might wish in a prospective roommate or a best friend. Fair enough: I’d agree that a government, as opposed to an individual person, does need additional desirable characteristics. So here are some of the things I might add to the paper napkin.

The ability to count, plus fiscal transparency. Parliament fell on a motion of non-confidence triggered by the Harper government’s failure to disclose the real costs of budget items such as fighter planes and mega-jails. But voters need to be told what things will cost, since they pay for them. It appears that the planes may cost ten times what we were originally told. Why would taxpayers endorse a blank cheque for an astronomical ongoing expense with no ceiling?

Either the government knew the cost and refused to tell us — thus no transparency — or it did not know, and thus cannot count.

On women: plain speaking, no double-talk. This government is deeply traumatized by women’s reproductive organs. At the G20, Harper claimed to be concerned about “maternal and child health,” noting that “500,000 women die each year in pregnancy and 9 million children die before the age of five.” But his government is defunding Planned Parenthood, an international organization that works with the poorest and most marginalized women and children to improve their survival chances. (Yes, I know, Bev Oda says she just hasn’t got around to the Planned Parenthood application for the past 18 months; but as Miss Manners says, no answer is an answer.)

In addition, the Harper government’s Senate appointees effectively squashed Bill C-393 that would have facilitated cheap AIDS drugs to 2 million children in poor countries; which calls to mind the A.H. Clough poem, “The Last Decalogue:” Thou shalt not kill; but need’st not strive/ Officiously to keep alive.”

Harper says he will not allow a debate on abortion. But he should allow it. All aspects of this troublesome question — and it has been troublesome throughout history, as there are no lovely answers — should be thoroughly discussed. There should be clarity on Harper’s attitude to women and children and their well-being. Let them die of malnutrition? Supply adequate diet, public support if there’s no income, protection from rape and enforced prostitution, improved adoption procedures, education, better hospitals and access to drugs, new orphanages, enforced chastity, unwillingly pregnant women locked up in mega-jails, payment per baby if baby-making is service provided to the state, pace Napoleon?

What’s it to be? Spit it out. Let us know what may be coming soon to a neighbourhood near us.

Respect for parliamentary democracy. The Common Grounds and/or Decency Party would, I think, still assume that democracy — for which people in other parts of the world are risking their lives — is a good thing. But it could be that not every other party shares this view. Is Parliament just a fly making a bothersome buzzing noise in the ear of the El Supremo who dictates in secret from within the closed castle of the PMO’s office? (This trend did not begin with the Harper government — it goes back at least to Trudeau — but it has been taken to an extreme under it.)

And if we don’t need Parliament, why not prorogue it indefinitely? Then we wouldn’t have to be troubled by these pesky elections, which Harper assumes Canadian citizens fear as a fate worse than death.

The Common Grounds/Decency Party would think we should have the right to vote in free elections — as often as it takes to get a government that has the confidence of the House.

So there’s my checklist. You probably have items of your own. To qualify for the Paper Napkin, however, they should be things you think we swing voters might mostly agree on. Check the parties off against the common list.

Then vote, and — as they say — cherish the moment. People elsewhere are dying for it.

Margaret Atwood is the author of more than 35 volumes of poetry, fiction and non-fiction. Her most recent novel is The Year of the Flood.

(Through Rose-Coloured Glasses)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XLUafHKsuk

(Through Rose-Coloured Glasses)

Similar to the Democracy Project, Catch 22 is another Anyone-But-Harper movement actively campaigning to defect Harper’s Conservative. The following information is published on their site. For further detail, please visit them at http://catch22campaign.ca/

The Catch 22 Campaign is stepping up its efforts in 15 electoral ridings where defeats for Conservative candidates will help prevent a Conservative majority government.

“While we will keep working hard in the 57 ridings we have identified, we are putting extra efforts into 15 crucial ridings where strong strategic campaigns could result in some serious losses for the Conservatives,” said Gary Shaul, Catch 22 coordinator.

Catch 22 recommends that Canadians residing in their target ridings vote for the opposition candidate with the best chance of winning the seat, even if that candidate is not their first choice.

“The NDP surge has moved the party into second place in the polls,” said Nick Fillmore, a Catch 22 organizer, “but this hasn’t changed the importance of voting strategically in certain ridings to stop a Harper majority.”

“If people don’t vote strategically,” said Fillmore, “the danger is that the New Democrat, Liberal and Green votes will split and the Tories will walk through the middle and win enough seats to go over the top.” Some recent polls show Harper within reach of a majority.

Due to Canada’s outdated electoral system, Harper could win a majority of seats in Parliament with as little as 37 per cent of the popular vote. This is unusual internationally speaking, as most other countries have adopted a Proportional Representation voting system that prevents a party from forming a majority government with such small support.

As part of its stepped-up campaign, Catch 22 is launching a telephone campaign which is expected to reach thousands of voters. It is also advertising in newspapers, and encouraging volunteers in all target ridings to help distribute flyers.

Harper has already begun the transformation of Canada during his five years of minority rule. “He is pleading for a majority government in order to cement his power and implement a right-wing agenda that most Canadians do not support, said Shaul. “We are trying to do everything we can to stop him from institutionalizing the wish list of the National Citizen’s Coalition, Reform Party and the oil industry.”

Catch 22’s high priority ridings and voting recommendation

[BC] Saanich—Gulf Islands: Elizabeth May (Green)
[BC] Burnaby—Douglas: Kennedy Stewart (NDP)
[BC] Surrey North: Jasbir Sandhu (NDP)
[BC] Vancouver South: Ujjal Dosanjh (Lib)
[AB] Edmonton—Strathcona: Linda Duncan (NDP)
[SK] Saskatoon—Rosetown— Biggar: Nettie Wiebe (NDP)
[ON] Guelph: Frank Valeriote (Lib)
[ON] Kitchener—Waterloo: Andrew Telegdi (Lib)
[ON] Kitchener Centre: Karen Redman (Lib)
[ON] Welland: Malcolm Allen (NDP)
[ON] Mississauga—Erindale: Omar Alghabra (Lib)
[ON] Ottawa—Orléans: David Bertschi (Lib)
[ON] Oak Ridges-Markhan: Lui Temelkovski (Lib)
[NB] Saint John: Stephen Chase (Lib)
[NS] West Nova: Robert Thibault (Lib)

Catch 22’s GTA recommendations

Conservative-held ridings

Opposition-held ridings

Please also check out Swing 33, another ABH group (http://swing33.ca/).

(Thrugh Rose-Coloured Glasses)

Thank you, folks, for bearing with me, this biased and un-official Election observer/agitator.

For the record, I have already voted in a special Advance Poll, in my riding, a few days after the Election was announced. That’s because I have to visit the West Coast (actually staying in Elizabeth May’s territory) for a while, and won’t return to Ontario in time to vote on May 2. (Believe it or not, we were not the first ones to cast the ballot; there was already another couple before us.)

This has been an interesting 4 weeks. The last minute NDP surge is a strong indication of the disillusion and revulsion of ordinary Canadians, with the Harper government. People have to choose now in this last week of campaign. They rose up from their couch and assess the situation, have a hard and serious look at the candidates/parties (i.e. actually we are talking about the leaders here, as broadcasted by the media, daily).

Harper is out, so who are we going to vote for?

Ignatieff is damaged goods; his image is long tarnished by the Conservative attack ads. Iggy has only himself to blame. He did not mount any counter-attack and try to correct the harm done, and to reveal his true passionate self. Now it is a bit too late. With all the town hall meetings every night for the past 4 weeks, he cannot reverse his image as ordinary Canadians see him, as projected on the TV screens, constantly for the past 2 years. Sometime you have to fight back when confronted by a bully; a nice and quiet gentleman usually lose out (time and again, especially in politics). Look at John Turner, Joe Clark, just to name a few. Nowadays, people like nasty personality. Look at Charlie Sheen and his nauseating performances. (Today, the so-called Whiz Kid, a main player in the Conservative campaign, was caught red-handed passing fake photo of Ignatieff to the media, was forced to resign. Another dirty smear campaign of Tory’s tricks exposed. Is this enough to save Ignatieff?)

Layton is the alternative. His performance is quite impressive, especially during the debates. Without doubt, people are having a second look and are leaning towards the NDP. What other choice do we have, anyway?

I have known Jack Layton a long time ago. First met him years ago, when we were launching a Chinese magazine in Toronto, he and Olivia Chow, his then girlfriend (now his wife), attended our banquet. He even brought his two young kids, because he couldn’t find babysit. They are very down to earth and approachable, great leader material. His ambition then was the Mayor of Toronto, now a shot for the Prime Minister. He sure comes a long way.

My only concern is his team. In the election, we are not just voting for the leader, but the team members. As reported in the G&M and the Star, one of his Quebec candidates was from Ottawa and she is taking a vacation in Vegas during mid-campaign. A Star reporter was trying to locate another NDP candidate in Ontario with no luck. She doesn’t even have an address or a campaign headquarter. Are we going to vote for these newbie and expect them to represent us in Parliament? No wonder Harper is sitting tight and smiling.

Still remember Bob Rae? His unexpected win of the race from Peterson’s Liberal. As soon as he became Premier, in the middle of a recession, he poured tons of money into the Ontario economy (actually, Harper did just that too, except Rae did not inherit billions of dollars of surplus from previous government). That didn’t work out. He changed direction, and cut, cut, cut. Even his supporters, the unions were against him. Those were the years of reign of chaos in Ontario, by an inexperience government.

We are in a dilemma.

If voters are fed up and stay home, just like in 2008, we are running the chance of handing out a majority to Harper. Voter Suppression, this is what he was hoping for in the beginning of campaign, telling us this is an un-necessary election. Why vote? If you stay home, he wins.

On the other hand, he is also smiling, with this in-fighting. Liberal, NDP and the Bloc grabbing vote from each other, and the Conservative will squeak through the middle. Again a majority.

That is why Harper is fighting so hard against a Coalition, the banding together of the opposition parties, and made it sounds like some evil act. That is the tactic of divide and conquer. That is why he is so afraid of Strategic Voting (http://www.projectdemocracy.ca/ , http://catch22campaign.ca/ ), the only way to prevent a Harper majority, or even a minority and the only way to vote him out of office.

Vote Swapping (Vote Pairing) is also a movement growing fast during this federal election. It is a variation of Strategic Voting. Go to their sites to find out more.

http://www.votepair.ca/

http://voteswap.ca/Main_Page

(Through Rose-Coloured Glasses)

A 500-page dossier of potentially damaging remarks by Stephen Harper has hit the election campaign, but don’t blame the opposition parties — it was prepared by the Conservatives.

The thick binder of material, obtained by the Liberals, is a treasure trove of controversial Harper quotes, listed alphabetically by subject matter. It covers everything from abortion to western alienation and dates as far back as the 1980s.

But why do the Conservatives collected such a damning treasure for us to see?

The only reason I can think of, Harper is a secret admirer of Chairman Mao, of his dictatorship and one party rule, of his absolute power, simply by waving the little red book, and his opponents would be defected and vanished.

Now he has already compiled his own little red book — “Quotations from Chairman Harper”, all ready to go to press, as soon as he gets his majority.

For the full version of this exciting publication, please go to

https://www.webcargo.net/webcargo/d.php?x=2071066-1eWL8ThJQUssSh5bkP

You have to register with Webcargo first.

(Through Rose-Coloured Glasses)

Iggy, surprise, someone actualy listened, and rose up, to the occasion, from six feet under. Is this a sign ?

As reported in the newspapers (the G&M and the Toronto Star).

The children of a Toronto man known for his sense of humour and love of politics has penned a death notice of a different sort.

“In lieu of flowers, please vote Liberal” read the notice for John Bolan that appeared in the Star and the Globe and Mail.

Bolan, 78, worked as a civil servant for the province for more than two decades and was never involved in politics. But he was passionate about the Liberal party, his family says.

So when he died unexpectedly last Thursday after undergoing surgery for a herniated bowel, his four children decided to give him a send-off in keeping with his personality.

“His love of Canada and love of the Liberals were such a huge part of his belief system that they (his children) wanted to somehow incorporate that in his obituary,” said his wife Bernice, 71.

She added: “A number of people told us that — just this once — they’ll be voting Liberal.’’

(Through Rose-Coloured Glasses)

(A Song For Canada’s 2011 Federal Election)

(Through Rose-Coloured Glasses)

Strategic Voting for the Anyone But Harper (ABH) force.

More than 60 percent of Canadians do not support Harper and his government’s contempt for democracy. Yet, he could win a majority with as little as 35 percent of the popular vote. Especially now, when Jack Layton’s NDP is soaring in popularity in Quebec and BC, the Liberal and NDP can very well split the anti-Harper votes, and Harper can squeak through and win his majority.

Scary thought.

Drastic time for drastic measure.

A group of “democratic” activists is advising voters in contested ridings not to vote along party lines but rather to back whichever candidate has the best chance of defeating the local Conservative.

Project Democracy (http://www.projectdemocracy.ca/), as the group calls itself, isn’t so much an advocacy group for democratic principles as it is a collaborative online effort to promote strategic voting to block a Conservative majority by whatever means necessary.

The group’s method: to persuade voters in the country’s “contested ridings” to strategically abandon weaker candidates at the local level and throw their support behind whichever non-Conservative candidate the group deems most able to win — even if that means voting for the Bloc Québécois in some cases.

Go to the Project Democracy website and punch in your Postal Code, immediately it will spit out their analysis and recommendations of your riding.

May the force be with you.