“Proportional representation will ensure that a minority will never rule. It also will ensure that no considerable minority will ever be excluded from having a voice Is that not democracy?
"What have the self- appointed protagonists of democracy and majority rule in this House to say about that?
“Now to think that democracy is properly represented when you have elections under a system which gives you a majority of the members from a minority of the electorate is, of course, too absurd for further argument.”
Tomorrow — Monday October 26th, 2020 — is #ElectionDay in two Toronto ridings.
Newly elected Green Party of Canada leader Annamie Paul is running to win the Toronto Centre seat vacated by former Liberal Finance Minister Bill Morneau (amidst WE scandal ethics questions) . Annamie is both a brilliant candidate and an excellent choice to represent this, her home riding.
Photographer Sasha Zavarella is running in York Centre, where another Canadian National Party Leader — this time Peoples Party of Canada’s Maxime Bernier.
Neither of these by-Elections will change the balance of power in Ottawa.
That means voters are free to vote for what they want — they don’t have to worry vote splitting will result in the party they fear winning majority power.
Since by-Elections historically have poor attendance at the best of times (and a pandemic is surely not one of those times!) fewer votes cast means these votes will have more weight. This is a brilliant opportunity for voters in these formerly safe seats whose votes never elect anyone to cast a vote that may be heard. Greens across Canada are rooting for Annamie, because the sooner our leader can take her seat in Parliament the better we’ll be able to hold the government to account.
It is important to remember the other big parties “whip” MP votes, which means their MPs represent their party first, because, if they don’t, they can lose party support which invariably means losing their seat. Whipped votes used to be a rarity, but in recent times they have become the default for NDP, Liberal and Conservative MPs.
Green MPs differ from other major party MPs because first and foremost they represent the constituents of their ridings. If there is a conflict between what is best for their riding or what’s best for the party, the best interest of their constiuents come first. Always.
If you live in either of these two ridings, your vote for Annamie or Sasha will mean something. We’ve seen what an impact Mike Schreiner has made as a single Green MPP. Electing another Liberal will just be more of the same old. But Greens will always make a difference.
And we can give our votes more power if we can convince our friends and families to vote too.
Even in our terribly unrepresentative voting system, voting is incredibly important. Even our vote is unlikely to change the outcome, it puts our choice on the record.
If you live in one of these ridings, please vote tomorrow. (And make sure to wear a mask when you do!) It is so important — and perhaps even more important:
VOTE FOR WHAT YOU WANT.
(Even if you don’t want what I want.)
If enough of us vote for what we want, we might just get it. And Annamie has an excellent chance of winning this one.
Mike Schreiner: “It’s time we started taking seriously our sacred responsibility to leave a livable planet for our children and grandchildren.”
On Wednesday February 20th, 2019, Mike Schreiner made history again when he introduced his first Private Member’s Bill in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
In the face of climate change, resource extraction and sprawl, Mike’s draft legislation seeks to protect the Paris Galt Moraine, an essential water ecologically sensitive recharge area in the Grand River Watershed which naturally purifies water for the citizens of Guelph and the surrounding area. Bill 71 would amend the province’s Planning Act and Development Charges Act to more strictly regulate development that could jeopardize the moraine’s integrity.
“This is about conserving what nature can do for free, so I cannot think of a more fiscally responsible solution. Failure to act could put the government on the hook for hundreds of millions in water infrastructure, like an expensive pipeline from the Great Lakes.”
—Mike Schreiner.
Mike wrote the draft legislation over a period of months where he consulted with water experts and Ontario stakeholders, including First Nations, municipalities, farmers and MPPs from all parties.
With this important legislation, Mike has demonstrated the Green Party’s core commitment to participatory democracy and consensus based governance by building all-party support, which resulted in the bill’s passage at Second Reading on March 7th, 2019. “I’m glad my colleagues unanimously showed their commitment to Ontario’s water today. Safeguarding water and food-growing farmland should not be partisan issues. Let this be a first step towards all-party collaboration to protect the places we love,” said Schreiner.
“I appealed to good progressive conservative thinking from the past. But it took four different bills over two years before the Oak Ridges Moraine was protected by legislation. With climate change on Ontario’s doorstep, and $1.2 billion in damage last year alone, we must act quicker. I look forward to working on this bill at committee, and this legislation returning to the House for a final vote.”
—Mike Schreiner, First Green legislation passes key vote with all-party support
Nicolás Maduro’s government actually requested that the UN send election observers to monitor the election and ensure a fair and honest vote. It was the faction that Canada and the US now support who opposed having UN observers present.
Backing a coup in Venezuela is a violation of international law. Ask yourself how you would feel if a foreign nation proclaimed that they would decide for you who runs your country and ignore the results of your own elections.
For the sake of the Venezuelan people, the region, and for the principle of national sovereignty, these international actors should instead support negotiations between the Venezuelan government and its opponents.
The following open letter—signed by 70 scholars on Latin America, political science, and history as well as filmmakers, civil society leaders, and other experts—was issued on Thursday, January 24, 2019 in opposition to ongoing intervention by the United States in Venezuela.
The United States government must cease interfering in Venezuela’s internal politics, especially for the purpose of overthrowing the country’s government. Actions by the Trump administration and its allies in the hemisphere are almost certain to make the situation in Venezuela worse, leading to unnecessary human suffering, violence, and instability.
Venezuela’s political polarization is not new; the country has long been divided along racial and socioeconomic lines. But the polarization has deepened in recent years. This is partly due to US support for an opposition strategy aimed at removing the government of Nicolás Maduro through extra-electoral means. While the opposition has been divided on this strategy, US support has backed hardline opposition sectors in their goal of ousting the Maduro government through often violent protests, a military coup d’etat, or other avenues that sidestep the ballot box.
“Actions by the Trump administration and its allies in the hemisphere are almost certain to make the situation in Venezuela worse, leading to unnecessary human suffering, violence, and instability.”
Under the Trump administration, aggressive rhetoric against the Venezuelan government has ratcheted up to a more extreme and threatening level, with Trump administration officials talking of “military action” and condemning Venezuela, along with Cuba and Nicaragua, as part of a “troika of tyranny.” Problems resulting from Venezuelan government policy have been worsened by US economic sanctions, illegal under the Organization of American States and the United Nations ― as well as US law and other international treaties and conventions. These sanctions have cut off the means by which the Venezuelan government could escape from its economic recession, while causing a dramatic falloff in oil production and worsening the economic crisis, and causing many people to die because they can’t get access to life-saving medicines. Meanwhile, the US and other governments continue to blame the Venezuelan government ― solely ― for the economic damage, even that caused by the US sanctions.
Now the US and its allies, including Organization of American States (OAS) Secretary General Luis Almagro and Brazil’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, have pushed Venezuela to the precipice. By recognizing National Assembly President Juan Guaido as the new president of Venezuela ― something illegal under the OAS Charter ― the Trump administration has sharply accelerated Venezuela’s political crisis in the hopes of dividing the Venezuelan military and further polarizing the populace, forcing them to choose sides. The obvious, and sometimes stated goal, is to force Maduro out via a coup d’etat.
The reality is that despite hyperinflation, shortages, and a deep depression, Venezuela remains a politically polarized country. The US and its allies must cease encouraging violence by pushing for violent, extralegal regime change. If the Trump administration and its allies continue to pursue their reckless course in Venezuela, the most likely result will be bloodshed, chaos, and instability. The US should have learned something from its regime change ventures in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and its long, violent history of sponsoring regime change in Latin America.
Neither side in Venezuela can simply vanquish the other. The military, for example, has at least 235,000 frontline members, and there are at least 1.6 million in militias. Many of these people will fight, not only on the basis of a belief in national sovereignty that is widely held in Latin America ― in the face of what increasingly appears to be a US-led intervention ― but also to protect themselves from likely repression if the opposition topples the government by force.
In such situations, the only solution is a negotiated settlement, as has happened in the past in Latin American countries when politically polarized societies were unable to resolve their differences through elections. There have been efforts, such as those led by the Vatican in the fall of 2016, that had potential, but they received no support from Washington and its allies who favored regime change. This strategy must change if there is to be any viable solution to the ongoing crisis in Venezuela.
For the sake of the Venezuelan people, the region, and for the principle of national sovereignty, these international actors should instead support negotiations between the Venezuelan government and its opponents that will allow the country to finally emerge from its political and economic crisis.
Signed:
Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus, MIT and Laureate Professor, University of Arizona Laura Carlsen, Director, Americas Program, Center for International Policy Greg Grandin, Professor of History, New York University Miguel Tinker Salas, Professor of Latin American History and Chicano/a Latino/a Studies at Pomona College Sujatha Fernandes, Professor of Political Economy and Sociology, University of Sydney Steve Ellner, Associate Managing Editor of Latin American Perspectives Alfred de Zayas, former UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order and only UN rapporteur to have visited Venezuela in 21 years Boots Riley, Writer/Director of Sorry to Bother You, Musician John Pilger, Journalist & Film-Maker Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research Jared Abbott, PhD Candidate, Department of Government, Harvard University Dr. Tim Anderson, Director, Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies Elisabeth Armstrong, Professor of the Study of Women and Gender, Smith College Alexander Aviña, PhD, Associate Professor of History, Arizona State University Marc Becker, Professor of History, Truman State University Medea Benjamin, Cofounder, CODEPINK Phyllis Bennis, Program Director, New Internationalism, Institute for Policy Studies Dr. Robert E. Birt, Professor of Philosophy, Bowie State University Aviva Chomsky, Professor of History, Salem State University James Cohen, University of Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, Associate Professor, George Mason University Benjamin Dangl, PhD, Editor of Toward Freedom Dr. Francisco Dominguez, Faculty of Professional and Social Sciences, Middlesex University, UK Alex Dupuy, John E. Andrus Professor of Sociology Emeritus, Wesleyan University Jodie Evans, Cofounder, CODEPINK Vanessa Freije, Assistant Professor of International Studies, University of Washington Gavin Fridell, Canada Research Chair and Associate Professor in International Development Studies, St. Mary’s University Evelyn Gonzalez, Counselor, Montgomery College Jeffrey L. Gould, Rudy Professor of History, Indiana University Bret Gustafson, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis Peter Hallward, Professor of Philosophy, Kingston University John L. Hammond, Professor of Sociology, CUNY Mark Healey, Associate Professor of History, University of Connecticut Gabriel Hetland, Assistant Professor of Latin American, Caribbean and U.S. Latino Studies, University of Albany Forrest Hylton, Associate Professor of History, Universidad Nacional de Colombia-Medellín Daniel James, Bernardo Mendel Chair of Latin American History Chuck Kaufman, National Co-Coordinator, Alliance for Global Justice Daniel Kovalik, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh Winnie Lem, Professor, International Development Studies, Trent University Dr. Gilberto López y Rivas, Professor-Researcher, National University of Anthropology and History, Morelos, Mexico Mary Ann Mahony, Professor of History, Central Connecticut State University Jorge Mancini, Vice President, Foundation for Latin American Integration (FILA) Luís Martin-Cabrera, Associate Professor of Literature and Latin American Studies, University of California San Diego Teresa A. Meade, Florence B. Sherwood Professor of History and Culture, Union College Frederick Mills, Professor of Philosophy, Bowie State University Stephen Morris, Professor of Political Science and International Relations, Middle Tennessee State University Liisa L. North, Professor Emeritus, York University Paul Ortiz, Associate Professor of History, University of Florida Christian Parenti, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, John Jay College CUNY Nicole Phillips, Law Professor at the Université de la Foundation Dr. Aristide Faculté des Sciences Juridiques et Politiques and Adjunct Law Professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law Beatrice Pita, Lecturer, Department of Literature, University of California San Diego Margaret Power, Professor of History, Illinois Institute of Technology Vijay Prashad, Editor, The TriContinental Eleanora Quijada Cervoni FHEA, Staff Education Facilitator & EFS Mentor, Centre for Higher Education, Learning & Teaching at The Australian National University Walter Riley, Attorney and Activist William I. Robinson, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara Mary Roldan, Dorothy Epstein Professor of Latin American History, Hunter College/ CUNY Graduate Center Karin Rosemblatt, Professor of History, University of Maryland Emir Sader, Professor of Sociology, University of the State of Rio de Janeiro Rosaura Sanchez, Professor of Latin American Literature and Chicano Literature, University of California, San Diego T.M. Scruggs Jr., Professor Emeritus, University of Iowa Victor Silverman, Professor of History, Pomona College Brad Simpson, Associate Professor of History, University of Connecticut Jeb Sprague, Lecturer, University of Virginia Kent Spriggs, International human rights lawyer Christy Thornton, Assistant Professor of History, Johns Hopkins University Sinclair S. Thomson, Associate Professor of History, New York University Steven Topik, Professor of History, University of California, Irvine Stephen Volk, Professor of History Emeritus, Oberlin College Kirsten Weld, John. L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Social Sciences, Department of History, Harvard University Kevin Young, Assistant Professor of History, University of Massachusetts Amherst Patricio Zamorano, Academic of Latin American Studies; Executive Director, InfoAmericas
For context, we can look at all of the other relevant examples of this sort of thing in the region, which have harmed democracy and cost many thousands of lives just to support corporate imperialism. Pretending that this time will be different is ludicrous.
I highly recommend making time to watch John Pilger’s excellent documentary about decades of US assaults on democracy in South America, “The War on Democracy” which can be watched for free on Vimeo here: https://vimeo.com/16724719
By restricting Venezuelans in Canada from casting their votes through the Venezuelan embassy, the Canadian government effectively deemed Venezuelan elections fraudulent before they even took place. This is not how international law works.
“Guatemala’s President, Jimmy Morales, dismantled a United Nations anti-corruption group and barred its head from entering the country.
“Honduras’s President, Juan Orlando Hernandez, took power in 2014 after a dubious election and violent crackdown on dissent, then ignored his country’s constitution to win re-election in 2017.
“Brazil’s new President, Jair Bolsonaro, has not only publicly attacked women, gay people, immigrants and people of colour, he has also expressed support for torture and his country’s military dictatorship.
“Colombia has witnessed the execution of 120 human-rights leaders in the past two years.
“Is Ms. Freeland promoting democracy in those countries?”
During the election, Mr Ford categorically promised not to touch the Greenbelt.
Not only is the Greenbelt home to 5,500 farms, 78 species at risk and 102 million tonnes of carbon storage, the reason it was protected in the first place was to protect a great deal of Ontario’s water.
Because it was introduced quietly going into Christmas, and the Ford Government has since made no secret of its intention to push Bill 66 through quickly, I don’t know if anyone has yet managed a thorough examination of all the ramifications of Bill 66.
It may only be 35 pages long, but it’s an omnibus bill, which means everything you need to know isn’t contained in this draft legislation. You’d have to read through every one of the 22 laws it will change:
Some of the changes it makes may be good things, but bad things thoroughly outweigh any good that might be there. That’s the thing about Omnibus Bills: many different things are bundled together in a package too big to be adequately considered in a democracy.
There is no reason Bill 66 couldn’t be stopped, and the good parts could be reintroduced as ordinary laws that can be properly understood and debated in the Legislature.
Our unrepresentative voting system has gifted Mr Ford’s government with 100% power to pass any law it wants, even though it was elected by only 40% of the votes cast (a mere twentysomething percent of eligible votes).
So what’s the rush?
There is nothing stopping them from allowing citizens and the MPPs in the legislature to know what it is they are passing, and allow adequate parliamentary debate of all aspects. That’s how our system is supposed to work. In a majority government, even though the party with all the power can pass any law it wants, the reason we have an opposition parties is to ensure that our legislators make sure the laws they pass stand up to scrutiny. If there are bad unintended consequences, or even if the legislation is too broad or unclear, the opposition parties can be trusted to point these things out so they can be dealt with before they become law.
The only reason for pushing something like this through fast is to keep us from knowing what they’re doing until it’s too late. Keeping the people in the dark is not how a Government for the people would operate.
In the Region of Waterloo discussion of Bill 66, Waterloo Mayor Jaworsky said, “No one asked for this.” Mr Ford keeps talking about making Ontario “Open For Business.” But what does that mean? They say this law is supposed to “cut red tape” that prevents development.
But the fact is that development isn’t being prevented. There is plenty of room in Ontario, plenty of land available and open for development without going anywhere near the protected lands of the Green Belt. There is no need to endanger our water or anything else. That’s why municipalities across Ontario are passing resolutions saying they don’t want or need this.
Why is this happening?
When the laws protecting Ontario’s water and the Greenbelt were put in place, land prices in the Greenbelt stayed low. When farmland can’t be turned into a factory or subdivision, it stays viable as farmland. But because of the low prices, some developers bought land in the Greenbelt, speculating that in time they would elect a government willing to undo the Greenbelt protections. And so they did.
In spite of all-party approved changes to Ontario’s election financing law preventing political parties from accepting corporate donations, the changes didn’t go far enough. To skirt the law, developers like Mattamy Homes were allowed to contribute ridiculous sums of money to Partisan third party advertiser Ontario Proud, specializing in attack ads against Mr Ford’s opponents. (And Mr Ford is undoing that election financing law because the people he is for have lots of money to spend to ensure the governments they want get elected. But that’s another story.)
The only reason the Ford Government is trying so hard to carve up the green spaces of our province with factories and subdivisions is because their rich supporters want to make a profit.
Ontario has been doing a pretty good job of long term planning, protecting sensitive environments, our water and our food supplies. Once farmland is paved, its gone.
Once farmland is developed, it’s not farm land anymore.
The best we can hope for from Bill 66 is that decades of careful land management will be messed up. Much of the law protecting our water dates back to the previous PC Government, and were put in place to protect Ontario from another Walkerton. Or another Elmira.
If that’s not bad enough, Bill 66 does away with any requirement for public notice or consultation or meetings, and no matter what problems are caused, we won’t even be able to appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. So called “Open For Business” by-laws passed behind closed doors will trump laws, policies and municipal official plans developed through extensive and open public consultation. Communities would have no recourse to influence or challenge them.
And even if your Council doesn’t do any of these things, the Council next door might, and endanger the environment we all share.
January 20th is the deadline for comments to Bill 66 on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (EBR).
Be sure that you and others that you know speak up and let your concerns be known. It would be fantastic if your group or organization can make an official response or submission. There is plenty of information in the Bill 66 Recent Articles linked below. There are a myriad of issues and concerns, but you can say as little or as much as you like in your comment. Don’t be shy about making comments personally – even if it is just a short sentence or two. I would suggest making it clear right at the top that you don’t want Bill 66. I am afraid to say that at this point they are not likely to listen to what we say, but they will certainly tally up how many comments support or oppose the bill.
Please take two minutes to send a message to the Ontario Government to stop Bill 66:
You can also visit the Green Party of Ontario’s Defend The Greenbelt website. If you feel you need assistance in using the comment process, the GPO advises you to Click here for step-by-step instructions to participate in the government consultation.
And of course we can always contact our Member of Provincial Parliament:
Michael Harris Jr, Kitchener-Conestoga, Progressive Conservative Party
Rm 434, Main Legislative Bldg,
Queen’s Park M7A 1A8
Toronto: tel 416 326-6945, fax 416 326-6942
Constituency office:
Unit 3 and 4, 63 Arthur St. S., Elmira, N3B 2M6 Mike.harrisco@pc.ola.org
Tel 519 669-2090, fax 519 669-0476
Constituency Office:
498 Eagle St. N., Cambridge N3H 1C2 Belinda.karahalios@pc.ola.org
Tel 519 650-2770, fax 519 650-3918
And you can also call the Premier’s Office directly!
Call 416 325-1941 and leave a short message for Premier Doug Ford re your concerns about Bill 66
Catherine Fife, Waterloo, New Democratic Party
Room 154, Main Legislative Building,
Queen’s Park, Toronto M7A 1A5
Tel 416 325-6913, fax 416 325-6942
Constituency Office:
Suite 220 100 Regina St. S, Waterloo N2J 4P9 (office is in City Hall Bldg)
For legislative issues: Cfife-QP@ndp.on.ca
For community issues: cfife-co@ndp.on.ca
Tel 519 725-3477, fax 519 725-3667
Laura Mae Lindo, Kitchener Centre, New Democratic Party
Room 170, Main Legislative Building,
Queen’s Park, Toronto, M7A 1A5
Tel 416 326-7221, fax 416 326-7217
Constituency Office:
Suite 212, 25 Frederick St., Kitchener, N2H 6M8
For legislative issues: LLindo-QP@ndp.on.ca
For community issues: LLindo@ndp.on.ca
Tel 519 579-5460, fax 519 579-2121
Mike Schreiner, Guelph, Green Party
Room 451, Main Legislative Building,
Queen’s Park, Toronto M7A 1A2
Tel 416 325-4664, fax 416 325-4666 Mschreiner@ola.org
Last year saw a wave of teachers’ strikes
across America, but mostly in red states where public education has
been starved of funds, putting teachers on starvation wages, subjecting
kids to dangerous conditions, and stripping schools of resources and
even putting schools on four-day weeks.
But on January 10th, the teachers who educate the 694,000 students of
the LA Unified School District (comparable to the entire student
population of the state of Oklahoma) are heading on strike, in a deep
blue city in a deep blue state. Their cause reveals the true, underlying
issue of the national teachers’ strikes: privatization.
The project to use public funds to pay for private schools has been a
darling of racists and religious cultists since Brown v Board of
Education, when the idea of “charter schools” was floated as a way to
legally exclude black children from publicly funded education. The
racist project found allies in among the grifters of Christian
fundamentalism, who perceived a way to merge state and church and
receive public funding for parochial schools where evolution could be
denied in favor of Bibilical superstition and the 5,000-year-old Earth
(this force also drove the British “academy” school movement). It was
the same devastating alliance that put Reagan in the White House: rich
crooks exploiting the fears of religious fundamentalists to seize power
and funnel millions in public funds into their own pockets.
The Democratic Party establishment fucking lovesRonald Reagan and firmly embraces the doctrine that says that state functions should be shifted to for-profit private hands – the main difference being that Democrats want a diverse oligarchy
where the makeup of the 150 people who own the world is representative
of the global population’s genders, skin colors, and origins
(Republicans want those 150 people to be white, Christian men).
Handing public money to underperforming, for-profit charter schools with
unqualified and underpaid teachers is the one issue that Democrats and
Betsy DeVos agree on. Why not? Merill-Lynch, speaking for the bipartisan
donor class has spent decades
trumpeting the investment possibilities in an education sector “that
views families as customers, schools as ‘retail outlets’ where
educational services are received, and the school board as a customer
service department that hears and addresses parental concerns.”
The philanthropic money laundry
has allowed billionaire ideologues to style their anti-public-education
crusade as an act of charity, turning poor, predominantly black areas
(Detroit, Louisiana) into laboratories where junk-science experiments
are carried out on racialized children, creating a wave of segregated, underperforming schools.
For grifters, these separate-but-equal schools represent a major
improvement over the Jim Crow of old: they produce shareholder
dividends.
The new leadership of the LA teachers union campaigned explicitly on
pushing back against the privatization of public education, helped by money laundering/election fraud scandals where dark money networks were caught hijacking control over the massive LA Unified School District.
Red state or blue, the issues that have galvanized LA teachers are the
same ones that sent teachers out last year from West Virginia to Arizona
and beyond.
Privatization of public utilities and services is always a bad idea.
If big corporations and the .01% actually paid their share of taxes, there could be adequately funded universal public education (not dependent on corporate gift$)
“I think it’s absolutely wrong that the Green Party Leader can not be part of the debates.”
Mayor Cam Guthrie Guelph, Ontario
Can you please take five minutes to help Mike Schreiner be invited to the CityNews Toronto televised provincial leaders’ debate this Monday?
If the Greens participate in the televised debates, it would significantly increase our exposure and popular vote.
PHONE: 416-599-CITY (2489) * press “4” for the general mailbox and leave a message (unfortunately their “Viewer Relations Dept” mailbox doesn’t seem to be working)
Have you ever wanted to protest anything? The first protest I went to at Queen’s Park was to protest Ontario eliminating provincial OSAP grants for post secondary education. Later, when I was a young mom when I took my toddler to the next protest when Mike Harris was cutting social services and dismantling public education.
Not only is the Greenbelt home to 5,500 farms, 78 species at risk and 102 million tonnes of carbon storage, the reason it was protected in the first place was to protect a great deal of Ontario’s water.
Your civil rights are in danger.
