Only Proportional Representation can make most counts in a diverse nation like ours. My own personal favourite is Single Transferable Vote Proportional Representation, because it is doesn’t give parties as much of an edge.
That said, even a party-centric form of Proportional Representation will far better represent many more Canadian voters (85 - 95% voter satisfaction vs Canada’s 39% satisfaction rating in the last 2 majority governments)
Carbon Tax must be revenue neutral, not a government revenue stream
Money collected as carbon tax must be used to fund the transition to a sustainable future, by mitigating financial burden on citizens and investing in green energy, otherwise climate change will prevail.
Police Chief Charles Bordeleau says an arrest has been made in connection with a series of racist and anti-Semitic incidents that have taken place in Ottawa over the past week.
Bordeleau later told reporters that a young offender had been arrested in the early morning hours of Saturday at the Soloway Jewish Community Centre on Nadolny Sachs Private near Broadview Avenue.
In a release, police said the suspect, whose identity was not released, appeared in court Saturday and faces several charges including uttering threats of a dangerous weapon and mischief to religious buildings.
Police sources said the young offender is believed to be responsible for all of the spray-paint attacks this week. Police said they were helped by video footage from previous attacks and the suspect under surveillance at the time of the Saturday morning attack.
This week there were hate-crime graffiti attacks at Parkdale United Church, at Parkdale and Gladstone Avenues, the Ottawa Mosque on Northwestern Avenue, and three Jewish sites: Kehillat Beth Israel congregation near Carling and Kirkwood Avenues, Congregation Machzikei Hadas in Featherstone Park and a small prayer centre in the Glebe,
Hate is not all around. But haters lurk in the shadows.
Just one kid did this. One kid.
Yay police. Good job.
Yesterday I got on the bus behind a young woman with a tiny baby in a massive stroller.
The priority seating seat was already folded up to the wall, but she asked the people who were sitting on the forward facing seats to move so she could park the stroller there, and they did. After she got the monster stroller tucked in, she sat on that seat herself, with her knees jutting into the aisle. I…
Yesterday I got on the bus behind a young woman with a tiny baby in a massive stroller.
The priority seating seat was already folded up to the wall, but she asked the people who were sitting on the forward facing seats to move so she could park the stroller there, and they did. After she got the monster stroller tucked in, she sat on that seat herself, with her knees jutting into the aisle. I ended up sitting way at the back of the bus, and didn’t really pay attention until glancing up to see why one stop was taking so long.
The bus had knelt to allow an e
lderly woman to board, but she couldn’t get past the mother with the monster stroller. Someone in a wheelchair was sitting in the priority seating spot on the other side of the bus.
I saw the woman with the walker try to get past 3 times, but the device kept catching on something and bouncing back. Finally the young mother seemed to notice there was a problem, so I thought maybe she would move out, but instead she bent down and lifted the front of the walker over so it could get past. The elderly lady struggled to the middle of the bus, where she sank into the seat beside the back door.
I can understand why a driver might not want to intervene but s/he should have.
When the bus arrived at the terminal, the young mother and her stroller got out easily. Meanwhile, the elderly woman had to wait for the people exiting at the rear to get off before she could push her walker back to the front of the bus so she could disembark.
Although my baby is college age, I well remember how much there was to learn with a new baby, so it occurred to me the young mother might not realize she had done anything wrong. So I hurried to catch up with her. I explained she should have moved her stroller to let the elderly woman sit in the priority seating.
She told me:
I do remember the challenges in getting around with a baby in a stroller. Back in the day I had been given an old fashioned baby buggy for my new baby. It would have been fine to take on walks around the neighborhood, excursions to the park, and such, but it was too big to take on a bus. Twenty some odd years ago, buses didn’t kneel, but even if they had, there would have been no place for a baby buggy because back then there were no accommodations for people with mobility challenges in regular buses. I used an umbrella stroller.
I know how important it is for a young mom with a baby to get out and about. But it is just as important for people with mobility challenges. But priority seating areas are not there for strollers.
Priority Seating
The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (2005) S.O. 2005, c. 11″ requires “Priority Seating” at the front of the bus to be reserved for people of all ages with disabilities and mobility challenges.
No 
one minds if a stroller takes that spot if no one with a disability or mobility challenge needs it. But when the space is needed, the able bodied are expected to move. That goes for strollers. If the stroller is too big to fit down the aisle, the only solution I see is that it needs to disembark and wait for the next bus that can accommodate it. GRT buses can only accommodate only 2 wheelchairs. If a bus has 2 passengers in wheel chairs aboard, it can’t pick a third passenger waiting at a stop in a wheelchair. That person would have to wait for a bus that can.
The accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act exists because people the person who needs a walker to walk needs a walker to walk.
A person with a baby has choices. S/he can carry the baby in arms. If s/he can’t manage that for long, there are also baby carriers parents can wear.
And while a monster stroller might cost hundreds of dollars, umbrella strollers are very inexpensive. A quick online search turned up one for $29.97 at Walmart and another on sale right now for $15.99 at Babies R Us.
If large strollers displace the passengers for whom priority seating exists, there are only 2 solutions for Grand River Transit that I can think of.
Public Transit has improved enormously over my lifetime, it is something that ought to work for everyone. But we all need to remember it is a shared space, and there are rules that need to be followed. We need to respect other passengers, so we can all get where we’re going.
Postscript: I just found the bit about strollers in the GRT rules:
Strollers
Strollers must be able to fit through the front doors and down the aisles in order to board the bus. For the safety of all customers, the aisles must not be blocked.
Customers should know the dimensions of their stroller before attempting to board the bus.
Customers with strollers are required to move to the rear of the bus, lock the wheels of the stroller and remain in firm control of it at all times. If possible, strollers are to be folded when standee conditions apply.
Hold on to the stroller at all times to avoid tipping. Position the stroller so passengers can walk freely down the aisle.
“November 16 is a significant date for Métis people and all people in Ontario. On this date in 1885, Métis leader Louis Riel was executed for leading the Northwest Resistance in defence of Métis rights.
Today, Louis Riel is recognized as a statesman, having played a pivotal role in the history of Métis people, as well as the formation of Canada. We commemorate Louis Riel Day annually to honour and celebrate Riel’s contributions, as well as the wide-ranging contributions the Métis people continue to make in Ontario.
Acknowledging Louis Riel’s contributions helps recognize and build respect for the history, culture and identity of Métis people. We will continue working with Métis partners to uphold Riel’s legacy and create new opportunities for Métis people as we continue on the journey of reconciliation together.”
— David Zimmer, Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation
Louis Riel’s life was rather more interesting than that of the average Canadian statesmen. Today is the anniversary of his execution on 16 November, 1885.
Riel’s historical reputation has long been polarized between portrayals as a dangerous half-insane religious fanatic and rebel against the Canadian nation, or by contrast a heroic rebel who fought to protect his Francophone people from the unfair encroachments of an Anglophone national government. He is increasingly celebrated as a proponent of multiculturalism, although that downplays his primary commitment to Métis nationalism and political independence
— Louis Riel, Wikipedia
Read the Metis Nation‘s more complete account of Louis Riel.
Follow @MetisNationON on Twitter
Learn more about the importance of good message building!
If you value the work the Social Development Centre does in the community, come to the first
Advocacy Training Workshop
to learn more about the importance of good message building. In order to support our campaign for support to regain core funding from the City of Kitchener, we invite you to
regarding the social development initiatives you’ve taken part in with the
Social Development Centre over the years!
Hearth Rm., Trinity United Church Annex
74 Frederick St., Kitchener
Please confirm you are coming:
Email spckw@waterlooregion.org
or call 519-579-3800
Materials and refreshments provided—just bring yourself!
Follow the Social Planning Council on Twitter @SPCofKW
We also have a Facebook event page: On The Side Of The Road: Screening and Discussion with Director
We hope to see you there!-Truth Café
Our American friends have an unashamedly two party system. In spite of the fact third parties keep popping up. The two parties relentlessly insist such parties have no chance of winning, a mantra that is repeated over and over in the media. The main stream media helps make this a reality by excluding small parties and their presidential candidates from televised debates and news coverage, except in attack journalism.
When the two parties put forth the two most reviled candidates in history, I imagine many voters had no motivation to vote for either of them. No one has the right to order other people how to vote, and then blame them if they don’t vote as they’ve been told. Not in democracy. And yet I saw that happen over and over on social media. Is Trump as bad as they say? We don’t *know* yet. I can’t imagine anyone whose own water was being destroyed by fracking would vote Clinton. I can’t imagine people whose local economy skipped down to Mexico thanks to Free Trade voting for Mrs. Clinton either. Poor white voters (racist or not) are not the only people who voted for Mr. Trump. The status quo has not been working for much of the 99%, and I think it may be worse there than here.
If the only candidates you are allowed to vote for don’t represent you, why vote? Especially if it meant standing in line for hours surrounded by belligerent voters. (You know the ones I mean, the ones in either party who might end up in the streets afterwards burning the American Flag and chanting #notmypresident.)
Before the election, Democratic supporters were angry and offended by suggestions that Trump supporters wouldn’t accept the result if they lost. But as it happened, their candidate was the one who lost, so now they are in the streets burning effigies of the President elect.
With near half the electorate abstaining, the reality is approximately 25% of voters voted for Mrs. Clinton— who lost— and approximately 25% of voters voted for Mr. Trump— who won. In what appears to be the final tally, Mrs. Clinton — appears to have won 668,483 more votes than President-elect Trump. When you have a winner take all system, the losers are never happy with the result. Particularly when only a few thousand votes separated the two. Especially if the loser failed to win the popular vote.
Incredibly, the thing isn’t actually over yet. A few states might still challenge the vote count, and something on the order of 4 million Americans are petitioning the Electoral College to overturn the election result in December.
I think there are plenty of things wrong with the American system, just as I think there are plenty of things wrong with ours here in Canada. No electoral system is perfect, but one of the worst things about winner take all politics is the polarization that is bound to occur when you divide citizens into winners and losers.
Haves and have nots.
Us and them.
Although it is hard on the candidates and parties that lose, the real tragedy of First Past The Post is that too many citizens end up without representation in government. Without representation in government, there is no one to speak for the issues that matter to you. I find it hard to believe in any democracy that results in so many second class citizens. Although there is no perfect system, more representative systems are better than winner-take-all systems because they provide representation to more of the population.
And the fact is, far too many voters are disfranchised as a matter of course. Those who’ve been on the outside looking in are now on the inside looking out.
But no matter how undemocratic the system is, no matter how unfair the election result, democracy derives its authority from its citizens. Citizens must accept the election result, even if it doesn’t go your way. You don’t get to call “do-over” when you don’t get the result you want.
Ad Hominem is the name of the logical fallacy in debate; it describes an attack on a person instead of making a valid argument. [Almost always because there isn’t one.] Throughout the election, Ad Hominem attacks weren’t limited to candidates, supporters levelled such attacks at each other throughout the campaign. People were (and still are) being characterized as racist for supporting Mr. Trump; people were (and still are) characterized as corporate pawns or “cry babies” for supporting Mrs. Clinton. But when an election is less about issues and more about personality and character, what else can you expect.
It seems the idea that citizens have the power to have a say in their government — the idea that each citizen has the inviolable right to choose for themselves how they will cast their vote — has been swallowed up in the polarizing hysteria. When the political platforms of big tent parties cover the whole gamut of public policy, there are many reasons people vote for someone they might not like.
I read somewhere that exit polls showed a majority of voters had not actually cast a vote for someone they wanted to elect.
When the two parties put forth the two most reviled candidates in history, I imagine many voters had no motivation to vote for either of them.
No one has the right to order other people how to vote, and then blame them if they don’t vote as they’ve been told. Not in democracy. And yet I saw that happen over and over on social media. Is Trump as bad as they say? We don’t *know* yet. I can’t imagine anyone whose own water was being destroyed by fracking would vote Clinton. I can’t imagine people whose local economy skipped down to Mexico thanks to Free Trade voting for Mrs. Clinton either. Poor white voters (racist or not) are not the only people who voted for Mr. Trump. The status quo has not been working for much of the 99%, and I think it may be worse there than here.
What Canadians call “strategic voting” and Americans call “lesser evilism” is what happens when most people feel they can’t vote for what they actually want. If you are voting against instead of for something, how can they possibly achieve democratic representation?
The freedom to dissent is an important element of any healthy democracy.
Many of us think of the constitutionally protected right to dissent as the right to speak our minds and write and publish what we think. But free speech is only one of three related rights protected by the First Amendment. Not only is Congress prohibited from passing a law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” the amendment also protects “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” and their right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Taken together, the right to free speech, the right of assembly, and the explicit right to express grievances to the government add up to an expansive right to “dissent” enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Beyond written or spoken words, the right to dissent is the right of citizens to organize themselves, to associate, to make themselves heard in order to achieve political and social change and oppose government policies without fear of impediment or reprisal.
But what is happening in the United States is less dissent than the rejection of an unpopular election result. As odious as many people may think Mr. Trump has shown himself to be, at this time he is still only the President-Elect. He has not actually done anything yet. Mr. Trump has made no policy, so this doesn’t constitute opposing government policies. So far his only presidential crime has been winning a contentious and polarizing election.
History has shown over and over that when government is overthrown by force the result is rarely (never?) effective democracy. Even in the best of democracies, the duly constituted authorities are not going to look kindly on mobs of citizens rioting in the streets against the Government.
Even if what is happening now is just masses of citizens letting off steam after two years of never ending messaging as potent as any war time propaganda, it would behoove them to be careful in a world without privacy. Security cameras record much that happens on the streets, and Americans would do to remember they (like we) are living in a surveillance state where eveything done online is monitored and recorded. Facial recognition and lip reading software is not only out there, it is being used.
All the folks who didn’t mind such erosions of privacy and civil rights on Mr. Obama’s watch might want to reconsider their complacency. In the weeks leading up to the election, the NODAPL water protestors went largely ignored by the mainstream media. Even when journalists and documentarians started getting arrested for the crime of committing journalism there was barely a whimper. If Mr. Trump proves to the the autocrat many of his opponents predict, it should be recalled that previous administrations have amply provisioned the American government with the tools to suppress dissent. I can’t speak to the quality of the commercial services recommended in The Intercept’s handy guide to SURVEILLANCE SELF-DEFENSE AGAINST THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. What I can recommend is sticking with Free Software wherever possible. Distributed networks aren’t owned (and controlled by 3rd parties, Free Software has open source code which makes it harder to hide malware, and if you can manage to self host, no one has the keys to your data
Free Software.
Friendica can replace Facebook http://friendica.com/
Quitter can replace Twitter https://quitter.se/main/public
as does GNU Social if you want to host your own https://www.gnu.org/software/social/
Encrypting your email is a really good idea: How to encrypt your email
As is using TOR (The Onion Router) when using the Internet https://www.torproject.org/
Michael Nabert writes:
The most complex surveillance net in history, and its most expensive military, are only two of the tools that will soon be in the hands of Donald Trump, but perhaps the most troubling is the way that America’s last two presidents have persistently stripped away the rights of citizens to the extent that the U.S. claims the power to disappear people without charge or trial. Dissidents, here it comes.
Under the National Defence Authorization Act of 2012, the U.S. government claimed the power to snatch you off the street, hurl you into a military prison, and throw away the key. In 2014 the supreme court refused to hear a lawsuit brought by citizens including Pulitzer prize winning journalist Chris Hedges that tried to challenge the idea that a government can simply decide that it’s perfectly okay to disappear their own citizens illegally without habeas corpus rights or due process of law merely by claiming you’ll be safer if they do it without any oversight.
https://www.rt.com/usa/156172-scotus-ndaa-hedges-obama/
This was, of course, only a part of the complete dismantling of protections and rights for US citizens which began under George W Bush after 9/11, although this particular indignity was heaped on by Barack Obama, who also pursued whistleblowers far more aggressively than any president before him while continuing down the same path.
American citizens are already the most monitored, photographed, and eavesdropped on population in all of human history. The fact that the U.S. government has provided itself with all of the personal data, militarized police, and illegal powers necessary to create the largest most domineering police state in human history on a whole new level seems likely to make the next few years particularly challenging.
http://www.theglobalist.com/trump-inherits-the-surveillance-state/
Let’s remember as well that it has become normal for America to hurl death from above fairly indiscriminately using drone bombings under Obama as well. In targeting 41 different individuals, drones killed 1,147 people.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147
Weaponized drones are already being used on U.S. soil as well.
So I ask you, America, after spending $574 per taxpayer to take away your own privacy,
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/nsa-cost-spying-taxpayer/
Do you feel safer?
Right now, it may be that the problem the United States of America faces has less to do with government and more to do with a polarized population unable to look past the rhetoric and set aside the hatred. Glenn Beck wrote: Don’t Move to Canada. Talk to the Other Side. but neither side seems to be listening. There is no quick fix, but reforming the political system to one less divisive, something more democratic and accountable for all Americans all the time would certainly be a big help.
I very much hope our American friends can put aside their team allegiances and decide to work together for the good of all the people.
This is the twenty-sixth article in the Whoa!Canada: Proportional Representation Series
Electoral System with Majority Support
Mixed Member Proportional Representation
# of Votes 19,418
% of Votes 52.42
Total Valid Votes 37,040
Total number of votes required to achieve threshold 18,521Eligible Electors 102,464
Voter Turnout 36.46%
— Elections Prince Edward Island Plebiscite Results
I have no doubt that good media coverage helped the process along. The PEI Guardian endorsed Dual Member Proportional, the made in Canada system proposed by Sean Graham. I was able to include Sean’s system in my Electoral System Roundup, and I know Sean made a presentation to the federal ERRE Committee. His system may be a real solution for the wide open spaces problem faced when looking at Federal Electoral Reform.
Unlike previous electoral reform referenda in Canada, the PEI process did a pretty good job of informing voters. If you watch the video below and those that follow, you’ll see the array of very nice explainer videos put out by Elections PEI
• Proportional Representation for CanadaImage Credit:
iconic Public Domain Prince Edward Island Lighthouse photo by Brigitte Werner has been dedicated to the Public Domain via CC0
