Harper's Dropped Balls: mentally ill, First Nations, environment, asbestos, TRUTH

By Kim Mackrael, Globe and Mail, December 6, 2011
Canada’s prisons are facing a growing crisis as they become the “institutions of last resort” for people with mental illnesses, the Canadian Psychiatric Association says.

“Corrections [Canada] is not geared to deal with some of the needs of a vast population of people with major mental illnesses,” CPA board member Gary Chaimowitz told The Globe and Mail.
Dr. Chaimowitz will be on Parliament Hill Wednesday morning to ask the federal government to improve prison services for mentally ill offenders.

More than one in 10 men and nearly one in three women held in federal prisons have mental-health problems, according to 2009 figures from the Correctional Service of Canada. Those numbers represent a near-doubling in the total proportion of inmates with mental illnesses between 1997 and 2009.
“Psychiatric institutions have been closing over the years, and the mentally ill … have now found that the correctional system has become the institution of last resort,” Dr. Chaimowitz said.
He said those prisoners often end up in segregation units and without adequate treatment because the prisons don’t have the staff or resources to properly care for them.
The problem could intensify once the omnibus crime bill becomes law, Dr. Chaimowitz added. The legislation, which includes new provisions for mandatory minimum sentences, is expected to significantly increase the number of people in prison.
The Conservative government says it is expanding prison space and staff to accommodate the anticipated growth.

But some mental health advocates had hoped to see specific provisions in the legislation to deal with treatment for mentally ill inmates. The Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers asked MPs to change the bill to allow judges to exempt some mentally ill offenders from mandatory minimum sentences.
Liberal justice critic Irwin Cotler suggested the amendment during a clause-by-clause review of the bill last month, but his proposal was rejected by the Conservative-dominated committee.
Warehousing individuals for minor offences with longer sentences, without providing appropriate mental health services, because "that is a provincial responsibility" is another way for this government to off-load its duty, without sharing the fiscal and the ethical responsibility for those services, while in the process, creating banner headlines about being "tough on crime" for its political base.
Power, and the addiction to power, for its own sake, is at the core of this government's complete operation. People with talking points, rehearsed in private, including the "I am trying to answer your question" impertinence when a reporter or interviewer interrupts because the member is NOT answering the question but merely reciting the rehearsed talking points, is no substitute for a democratic government. Cotler's appropriate recommendation in committee to permit judges to exempt some mentally ill offenders from mandatory minimum sentences is just one of many examples of professional, responsible and even visionary proposals to which this government turns a deaf ear.
This government is, in a word, without compassion, without a human touch, without a long-range vision that is serving the country's best interests; rather, it is obsessed with its own pursuit of power, the percs of power, the status and appearance of power, the maintenance of its own power and they will do anything to manipulate the opposition, the truth, the fourth estate, and thereby the electorate to achieve that end.
When the Chief of the Attawapiskat First Nations Band declares a state of emergency, after months of inaction by the government, the Harper gang changes the story to "where is the $90 million we spent there?" over the last six years for all of the band's expenses including housing, education, health, and social services. And then they attempt to appoint a "third party manager" as if their indignation will strike a chord of resonance with their political base.
There is a growing and legitimate perception that Harper and his gang have no interest in the people of this country, except when it comes time to place an "X" on a ballot.
They tell the Coptic Christians in one riding that they will establish an "Office of Religious Freedom"" to mollify that group, but then they struggle, as they should, with the purpose of such an office, and its public perception, as indicated by, once again, talking points obtained by CBC and displayed on Power and Politics on Monday, this week. We all thought and believed that Canada was well known and honoured for its historic commitment to religious freedom so we are confused when that freedom needs an office as proof of the tradition.
They turn the human crisis in First Nations reservations into a "where is the money?" chase and agree to meet with the band chiefs for the first time in six years only after a public outcry.
They seek to incarcerate the mentally ill, as their way to depict themselves as "tough on crime".
They buy large numbers of fighter jets, ships both armed and unarmed, as their props for the theatre of "nationalistic pride" so they can beat the drum for patriotism.
They turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the pleas of the UN and its climate conference, hiding under the veil of deception that "only when all countries join" will Canada come on board, thereby demonstrating their allegiance to their corporate buddies in the oil and gas sector.
They tell us the new border deal with the U.S. is to enhance trade with that country, when it will also surrender a chunk of Canadian autonomy to the U.S. in intelligence and security.
They tell parliament they want $50 million to beef up border security and then spend that money on gazebos and cosmetics for the Clement riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, without providing a paper trail for the Auditor General.
They tell the voters in Mount Royal that Irwin Cotler, the respected Liberal member there, that he may not be running in the next election, and that there may be a by-election, when they are doing "voter identification" only to undermine the respected member's credibility with his constituents.
They tell parliament that they will support the export of a deadly substance, mined in Canada, asbestos, when the substance has been banned by all other countries thereby demonstrating their blind and excessive addiction to the power of "trade" and the talking points that accompany that file.
They turn a deaf ear to the respected and responsible pleas from hundreds of the country's best minds to retain the long-form census, as the best way to provide data for long-range planning in various sectors, using the lame and dumb excuse that "it is too invasive" into the private lives of Canadians, where there had been few, if any, complaints on that score.
They turn the Grey Cup game into another "campaign moment" with fly-pasts of military planes, as they do the "pin-the-medal-on-the-general ceremony" in the Senate after withdrawing from Libya.
And they must think or believe that Canadians are either not watching and listening, or really don't care. Neither is the case. We are both watching and listening, and we really do care what this gang of power-addicted ego-maniacs is doing to the long and honoured traditions of the country...in truth-telling, in compassion, in peace-keeping, in honourable hosting of world leaders, in listening to the opinions of the opposition, bringing down crime rates through a balanced approach of judicial discretion, rehabilitation and incarceration, in bringing the country together rather than dividing for the narrow interests of the government's retention of power.
And then to watch Harper and his gang attempt to "own" both the crown and the Arctic as their own political/national symbol is like watching a grade two child tell his parents they don't know what they are talking about when they tell him it's bedtime.

"Honour killings" behind four murders in trial in Kingston, Canada

By Timothy Appleby, Globe and Mail, December 5, 2011
So-called “honour killings” are rooted in an ancient patriarchal need to control women’s sexuality, and sometimes immigrants from regions that embrace such a code cherish it more dearly than those who stay home, a murder trial has heard.

The keenly anticipated testimony came from Shahrzad Mojab, an Iranian-born University of Toronto professor of women’s studies who has lectured and written on the topic for many years. She told the trial of three Afghan-Canadians charged with murder that in some cultures, family honour is prized more highly than life.
In traditional, male-dominated societies where honour killings take place as a means of “cleansing” a family from disgrace, honour resides within the female body, and that translates into a ruthless control system that polices and constrains women’s every move, Dr. Mojab told the packed courtroom on Monday. And women often participate, she added.

Dr. Mojab was the final prosecution witness in the murder trial of Afghan-Canadian businessman Mohammad Shafia, 58, his second wife, Tooba Mohammad Yahya, 41, and their son Hamed, who turns 21 this month...
Honour killings – of which there are thousands worldwide each year, the United Nations has reported – don’t need be prefaced by actual deeds, Dr. Mojab told the trial as the three defendants stared at her stone-faced.

“Even the assumption [of non-marital relations] is seen as a huge violation of the family honour,” she told the jury. “It doesn’t need to be actual. Even a rumour can cause the killing of a young woman.”
But it is wrong to blame religion, Dr. Mojab testified, because honour killings predate all the great faiths.
The practice “doesn’t have any definite connection with religion at all,” she said, listing Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity among the major religions, along with Islam, that have provided a rationale for such murder.
This murder trial, currently being held in the court house in the city of Kingston, is the result of investigations by police following the deaths of three young women and one of their father's two wives, all part of a polygamous family, allegedly from Afghanistan, living in Canada. On trial are the father and brother of the three young women and their father's second wife.
It is as if a piece of ancient history is being played out ironically in this "first Canadian capital" a city that more than most Canadian cities, is steeped in its own history. Here, however, the history of "honour killings" is a stark reminder of the brutality, and the fanaticism that, according to the witness quoted above, predates the major faiths.
The four deceased were found in a car at the bottom of a lock in the Rideau Canal just outside Kingston after police say, the car was pushed by another car into the lock, bearing markings that purport to match the dent on the "death vehicle."
For Canadians, this story, obviously tragic, is another example of cultural phenomena that we simply do not comprehend. Our law, based on the Judeo-Christian Decalogue, punishes killing for whatever reason(s). Family honour, while somewhat important, does not trump the preservation of life.
Published reports of quotes from the accused father indicate little if any remorse, given the damage these deceased have caused to "family honour" by their disreputable behaviour, in what is seen as normal adolescent behaviour in North America. Press reports indicate that the dating habits of the 17 and 19-year-old women is at the root of the motivations for the killings.
Here, in microcosm, is a distinct clash of civilizations, pitting Canadian criminal law against centuries of family attitudes and beliefs that came with the family from Afghanistan.
All Canadians will be watching as the defence brings its case, and the jury its verdict.

Positivity versus "peace of mind"....A first person account of positivity trumping truth

By Deepak Chopra, CNN website, December 5, 2011
Editor's note: Deepak Chopra is a mind-body expert who specializes in integrating the healing arts of the East with the best in modern Western medicine. Learn more at www.deepakchopra.com.
Medicine hasn't proven that positivity is good prevention, but let's go a step further. To me, the problem with positive thinking is the thinking part. It takes effort to be positive all the time. The mind has to defend itself from negativity, and that is exhausting as well as unrealistic. You may succeed in calming the appearance you present to the world, but there's almost always a struggle hidden just below the surface; at the very least there is a good deal of denial. Being fanatically positive is still fanaticism.

The alternative to thinking is a calm mind that is at peace with itself. I believe that such a mind delivers the benefits that positive thinking cannot, and my view is supported by studies showing a decline in high blood pressure, stress levels and other disease states among long-term meditators.
Meditation is a spiritual practice, but it's also a mind-body practice. Here the results are not final, either, in part because almost the only research subjects tend to be Buddhist monks. We need expanded studies based on Western subjects; that much is clear.
The upshot is that medicine cannot be definitive on how mood affects wellness. But if I wanted to enhance a state of wellness before symptoms of illness appeared, there is much to be gained and no risks involved in trying to reach the best state of mind possible.
A mind and a spirit "at peace"....that is far different from a mind and a spirit driven to "find happiness".
This American "pursuit of happiness" is one of the most dangerous of ideals, ensconced as it is in the U.S. Constitution as if it were a condition for which any government, provided by any party, could and must deliver.
And under the same banner is the "right to bear arms" (for a National Militia only, I believe)...and the right to "free speech" which, by definition ultimately includes "hate speech".
The underpinning energy current of capitalism is "positivity"....just ask any salesman or woman, especially the ones at the top of their sales competitions. Positivity generates a kind of culture that is not only not proven to be healthy, but actually demands a considerable degree of denial.
Having served in a consultant capacity for a medium-sized firm in the mid-nineties, then earning approximately $2 million annually, I was asked to lead the executive group in team building. The chief investor had purchased the company from its founding "mom-and-pop" owners, hired a couple of younger Production Managers and believed, rightly, that the group was not functioning as a "team."
The evidence soon became quite clear, presented by the principals themselves, that the "mom-and-pop" component of the quintet were both active alcoholics, and were both in different ways sabotaging the efforts of the company to produce the highest quality products, in the most effective and efficient time, and to deliver those products in a timely manner to some very large and deep-pocketed corporations for their deployment in large aircraft engines. The quality control, especially of the chemical portion of the production process, under the supervision of the "pop" from the "mom-and-pop" duet was, in a word tragic. Errors, including shipments returned because they did not meet specifications were rampant. Similarly, in the shipping department, supervised by the "mom" of the "mom-and-pop"duet were a disaster. The 40 odd women from several nationalities and languages often did not understand the instructions they were to follow, and shipments were either delayed or shipped incorrectly.
Before writing a report in both my findings and recommendations, I decided it might be best to inform the CEO, also the chief investor and his wife, a member of the investment group, of the sabotage that was costing the company both money and reputation. Over dinner, in the privacy of a private room in an upscale restaurant, I told my story, supported by the evidence given by both "mom-and-pop" and their adult son, who sought detachment and eventual withdrawal from his parents and the company, to my dinner guests.
The CEO and his wife, along with the "mom-and-pop" were European immigrants, having come to North America following World War II, during which they had all suffered several emotional stress. Today, we would call it "post traumatic stress syndrome." I recommended that the CEO provide a six-month period of rehabilitation for both "mom-and-pop" and following their recovery, ascertain their competency to resume their duties in the firm.
The next morning, to my shock and dismay, I was ushered into the CEO's office, given the cheque for my services, and told to leave the premises immediately. I was told that I was interested only in the "dark side" the negative side of all situations and that I was inappropriate for that firm. The CEO was an avid reader of the 7 principles of effective leadership by some guru of the Mormon faith, and found my "truth-telling" too "negative."
Of course, I beg to differ.
I also beg to differ with my psychologist friend in Boston who, following graduation with a doctorate in psychology, and a thirty-year successful practice in therapy and executive coaching, then enrolled in a post-graduate course in Happiness Psychology, from the University of Pennsylvania. His coaching and therapy practice did not need the new learning; he believed that he needed the new approach "to remain fresh" was I think how he put it.
Peace of mind and spirit cannot ever be divorced from the reality on the ground, in the room where we eat, breathe, sleep and work. And the conditions of that room, including the culture of the organization, the degree of truth-telling permitted by the organization's leaders will go a long way to determining the degree of "peace of mind" among the workers in that organization.
And all the talk of positivity will never erase the potential negative "truths" that both the individuals and the organization must face, if both seek to reach their potential effectiveness in all phases of their lives.

Hedges: Where were you when they crucified my movement?

By Chris Hedges, truthdig.com December 5, 2011
Chris Hedges gave an abbreviated version of this talk Saturday morning in Liberty Square in New York City as part of an appeal to Trinity Church to turn over to the Occupy Wall Street movement an empty lot, known as Duarte Square, that the church owns at Canal Street and 6th Avenue. Occupy Wall Street protesters, following the call, began a hunger strike at the gates of the church-owned property. Three of the demonstrators were arrested Sunday on charges of trespassing, and three others took their places.
The Occupy movement is the force that will revitalize traditional Christianity in the United States or signal its moral, social and political irrelevance. The mainstream church, battered by declining numbers and a failure to defiantly condemn the crimes and cruelty of the corporate state, as well as a refusal to vigorously attack the charlatans of the Christian right, whose misuse of the Gospel to champion unfettered capitalism, bigotry and imperialism is heretical, has become a marginal force in the life of most Americans, especially the young. Outside the doors of churches, many of which have trouble filling a quarter of the pews on Sundays, struggles a movement, driven largely by young men and women, which has as its unofficial credo the Beatitudes:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.


Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted.


Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the earth.


Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied.


Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.


Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God.


Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons and daughters of God.


Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

It was the church in Latin America, especially in Central American and Augusto Pinochet’s Chile, which provided the physical space, moral support and direction for the opposition to dictatorship. It was the church in East Germany that organized the peaceful opposition marches in Leipzig that would bring down the communist regime in that country. It was the church in Czechoslovakia, and its 90-year-old cardinal, that blessed and defended the Velvet Revolution. It was the church, and especially the African-American church, that made possible the civil rights movements. And it is the church, especially Trinity Church in New York City with its open park space at Canal and 6th, which can make manifest its commitment to the Gospel and nonviolent social change by permitting the Occupy movement to use this empty space, just as churches in other cities that hold unused physical space have a moral imperative to turn them over to Occupy movements. If this nonviolent movement fails, it will eventually be replaced by one that will employ violence. And if it fails it will fail in part because good men and women, especially those in the church, did nothing.
Where is the church now? Where are the clergy? Why do so many church doors remain shut? Why do so many churches refuse to carry out the central mandate of the Christian Gospel and lift up the cross?
Some day they are going to have to answer the question: “Where were you when they crucified my Lord?”
Let me tell you on this first Sunday in Advent, when we celebrate hope, when we remember in the church how Mary and Joseph left Nazareth for Bethlehem, why I am in Liberty Square. I am here because I have tried, however imperfectly, to live by the radical message of the Gospel. I am here because I know that it is not what we say or profess but what we do. I am here because I have seen in my many years overseas as a foreign correspondent that great men and women of moral probity arise in all cultures and all religions to fight the oppressor on behalf of the oppressed. I am here because I have seen that it is possible to be a Jew, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Christian, a Hindu or an atheist and carry the cross. The words are different but the self-sacrifice and thirst for justice are the same. And these men and women, who may not profess what I profess or believe what I believe, are my brothers and sisters. And I stand with them honoring and respecting our differences and finding hope and strength and love in our common commitment.
At times like these I hear the voices of the saints who went before us. The suffragist Susan B. Anthony, who announced that resistance to tyranny is obedience to God, and the suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who said, “The moment we begin to fear the opinions of others and hesitate to tell the truth that is in us, and from motives of policy are silent when we should speak, the divine floods of light and life no longer flow into our souls.” Or Henry David Thoreau, who told us we should be men and women first and subjects afterward, that we should cultivate a respect not for the law but for what is right. And Frederick Douglass, who warned us: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” And the great 19th century populist Mary Elizabeth Lease, who thundered: “Wall Street owns the country. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street. The great common people of this country are slaves, and monopoly is the master.” And Gen. Smedley Butler, who said that after 33 years and four months in the Marine Corps he had come to understand that he had been nothing more than a gangster for capitalism, making Mexico safe for American oil interests, making Haiti and Cuba safe for banks and pacifying the Dominican Republic for sugar companies. War, he said, is a racket in which newly dominated countries are exploited by the financial elites and Wall Street while the citizens foot the bill and sacrifice their young men and women on the battlefield for corporate greed. Or Eugene V. Debs, the socialist presidential candidate, who in 1912 pulled almost a million votes, or 6 percent, and who was sent to prison by Woodrow Wilson for opposing the First World War, and who told the world: “While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.” And Rabbi Abraham Heschel, who when he was criticized for walking with Martin Luther King on the Sabbath in Selma answered: “I pray with my feet” and who quoted Samuel Johnson, who said: “the opposite of good is not evil. The opposite of good is indifference.” And Rosa Parks, who defied the segregated bus system and said “the only tired I was, was tired of giving in.” And Philip Berrigan, who said: “If enough Christians follow the Gospel, they can bring any state to its knees.”

And the poet Langston Hughes, who wrote:
What happens to a dream deferred?
Does it dry up
Like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore—
And then run?
Does it stink like rotten meat?
Or crust and sugar over—
Like a syrupy sweet?
Maybe it just sags
Like a heavy load.
Or does it explode?

And Martin Luther King, who said: “On some positions, cowardice asks the question, ‘Is it safe?’ Expediency asks the question, ‘Is it politic?’ Vanity asks the question, ‘Is it popular?’ And there comes a time when a true follower of Jesus Christ must take a stand that’s neither safe nor politic nor popular but he must take a stand because it is right.”
Where were you when they crucified my Lord?
Were you there to halt the genocide of Native Americans? Were you there when Sitting Bull died on the cross? Were you there to halt the enslavement of African-Americans? Were you there to halt the mobs that terrorized black men, women and even children with lynching during Jim Crow? Were you there when they persecuted union organizers and Joe Hill died on the cross? Were you there to halt the incarceration of Japanese-Americans in World War II? Were you there to halt Bull Connor’s dogs as they were unleashed on civil rights marchers in Birmingham? Were you there when Martin Luther King died upon the cross? Were you there when Malcolm X died on the cross? Were you there to halt the hate crimes, discrimination and violence against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and those who are transgender? Were you there when
Matthew Shepard died on the cross? Were you there to halt the abuse and at times slavery of workers in the farmlands of this country? Were you there to halt the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Vietnamese during the war in Vietnam or hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan? Were you there to halt Israel’s saturation bombing of Lebanon and Gaza? Were you there when Rachel Corrie died on the cross? Were you there to halt the corporate forces that have left working men and women and the poor in this country bereft of a sustainable income, hope and dignity? Were you there to share your food with your neighbor in Liberty Square? Were you there to become homeless with them?
Where were you when they crucified my Lord?
I know where I was.
Here.
With you.


And to Chris Hedges' question, we answer, "Here with you!"

OECD: Income disparity growing quickly in Canada

By Tavia Grant, Globe and Mail, December 5, 2011
Income inequality is a hot topic these days, as mirrored by the Occupy movement’s concerns over the growing gap between the rich and the rest. Protesters aren’t the only ones preoccupied with the disparity; prominent figures from Warren Buffett to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz have also fretted over the growing gap, exacerbated by the recession and weak recovery.

“Income inequality increased during both recessionary and boom periods, and it has increased despite employment growth,” said Stefano Scarpetto, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s deputy director of employment, labour and social affairs, during a presentation of the report.
A growing wage gap carries significant economic consequences. Countries with greater income inequality tend to see shorter, less sustained periods of economic growth, an IMF paper this fall concluded.
“Greater inequality raises economic, political and ethical challenges as it risks leaving a growing number of people behind in an ever-changing economy,” the OECD paper said.
Its 400-page analysis, entitled Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising, a follow-up study to one released in 2008, delves into reasons behind the growing gap.
Canada in particular has seen a widening chasm since the mid-1990s. OECD research shows the average income of the top 10 per cent of Canadians in 2008 was $103,500 – 10 times than that of the bottom 10 per cent, who had an average income of $10,260, an increase from a ratio of 8 to 1 in the early 1990s.
The richest 1 per cent of Canadians saw their share of total income rise to 13.3 per cent in 2007 from 8.1 per cent in 1980.
Moreover, the richest of the rich – the top 0.1 per cent – saw their share more than double, to 5.3 per cent from 2 per cent. At the same time, the top federal marginal income tax rates tumbled – to 29 per cent in 2010 from 43 per cent in 1981.
Two factors explain Canada’s growing gap: a widening disparity in labour earnings between high- and low-paid workers, and less redistribution.
“Taxes and benefits reduce inequality less in Canada than in most OECD countries,” the study said.
Shifts in the labour market are a key reason why the gap is widening, Mr. Scarpetto said. The prevalence of part-time and temporary contract work is eroding wages. Technological progress has been more beneficial to high-skilled workers, while the gap in men’s earnings in particular is growing ever wider.
Why is it that the Occupy Movement and the wealthiest individuals can both see the income inequality gap as serious while those in the "political class" want the movement silenced?
Well, those "without" and those who have the most are most aware of the implications...and the political class wants to preserve the status quo.
It is the political class who aspire to join the top 10% of income earners, if they have not already entered the hallowed club.
And it is the political class from whom the world has the most to fear.
They have been bought by the richest; they have sold their votes for favours for the corporations whose success is far more important to them than whether there is clean water on every First Nation Reserve in Canada.
Imagine the fagility of a city councillor who, upon listening to comments from those attending a Santa Claus parade, "tut-tutting the encampment in Confederation Square" and then running to the council meeting to put a motion on the floor to have the encampment shut down presumably because 'it does't look nice'.
In other cities, like New York, the billionaire mayor was the leading voice to remove the Occupy movement from Zucotti Park, a private park owned and operated by a Canadian corporation served by a former New Brunswick premier, Frank McKenna, once an aspirant for leadership in the Liberal Party of Canada.
The income inequality gap to which the OECD has pointed is the result, in part, of continual moves by corporations to gut workers' hours, benefits, wages, health and safety benefits, working conditions, much of it the result of moving from full-time, permanent workers to part-time, casual and even "temp" workers, in a scorched earth policy of lowering costs and thereby prices for their customers.
Technology has also played a part, given the increased deployment of high tech equipment leading to the termination of human workers who formerly performed the tasks now done by technology.
Unions, likewise, have fallen prey to the corporate guillotine in many cases without so much as a whimper of protest.
Ordinary workers and ordinary families are the victims of a highly organized and deliberately planned campaign of elimination of all of those significant enhancements (the right calls them entitlements) for which the labour movement fought so vigorously and persistently over the last century to obtain. And while entrepreneurs are welcome in the economic mix, they are at risk of losing both work and incomes, for example, if and when they are ill, disabled or suffer a family tragedy. And the number that succeed relative to the number that fail is very low, probably less than 10% who succeed, and that only after several years of "getting established".
The income gap also points to a cultural and perceptual gap between those who have and those who have not. In the first category, the "haves", the perception of those falling behind is that they are lazy and worthless, otherwise they would not be where they are. Consequently, the "haves" are also opposed to extensions of unemployment benefits, worker retraining programs, and family support programs funded by the government.
"Pick yourself up by your own bootstraps" is one of the rallying cries of the rich to the poor, if there is even a notice of these "in the underclass".
So as the income gap grows, so too does the potential for the governments in the west, in countries like Canada, to grow increasingly cold, aloof and detached from their responsibility to the poor. And, among the corporate executives, while they participate in token charity contributions, their political stance supports lower taxation for the "haves" and fewer benefits for the "have-nots".
It is not difficult to foresee a Canada where only the rich matter, where only the top 1% of the rich really matter and the rest of us a merely slaves to that top 1%...and they would have no pains to their consciences if and when that scenario plays out, unless some First Nation Chief declares a "state of emergency" and makes a messy headline of their tidy plans to continue to ignore the plight of the poor while the political class drinks from the bars and the taps of the rich.

Not only Egyptians fear Islamist government in their country

By Patrick Martin, Globe and Mail, December 2, 2011
With Islamist parties poised to win a majority of seats in Egypt’s parliamentary election, the country’s Christians and secular Muslims are growing desperate for ways to avoid the restrictions of an Islamic regime.

Many are quietly discussing what they call “Plan B,” an exit strategy – first for their money, then for their family. Others imagine a cataclysmic outcome
“The odds of there being violence have just gone up,” says a well-connected business consultant in Cairo’s affluent Maadi district. “Mubarak’s old guard hates the Islamists,” he explained. “They might try to disrupt the electoral process in hopes that the army will step in.”

It may take something like that to derail the Islamists’ campaign. The lead established after the first round of voting by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party and the strong showing by the upstart Salafists’ Nour Party may actually increase in the second and third regional rounds of voting that end in early January. These rounds, in Giza, the Nile Delta, Sinai and Upper Egypt, are even richer veins of conservative Muslims.
If the Salafists can do this well in Cairo and Alexandria without much of an organization, says Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center in Herzliya, Israel, imagine how well they can do in these other areas and with the number of volunteers they now can draw on.
Seeing as it’s falling behind, the leading secular movement, the Free Egyptians Party, created this year by telecom mogul Naguib Sawiris and some like-minded business people, met Thursday to plot its strategy for the upcoming rounds.
They want redress for numerous electoral violations by the Brotherhood’s FJP and are asking the courts to strike down some FJP gains.
They also intend to make substantially larger ad buys on television, radio and the Internet, in hopes of attracting more voters. And they are assembling a much bigger army of volunteers to better get out the vote.
More than any of that, however, the Free Egyptians plan to use fear to turn their electoral deficit into a political advantage.
“Many Egyptians share our concerns about the prospect of an Islamist government,” said Naguib Abadir, the FEP’s executive director. “We expect large numbers of such people to come forward and support us.”
It is not just people’s fear of conservative moral regulations that will cause this stampede, the FEP believes, but their fear also of a national economic collapse.
As if on cue, the financial assistant to military chief Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi said Thursday that Egypt’s foreign reserves will fall to $15-billion by the end of January from $22-billion because so much capital is fleeing the country.
The collapse in tourism and foreign investment since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak has driven the Egyptian pound to its lowest level in almost seven years.
While the FEP is strongly critical of the Brotherhood’s party for violating electoral rules, the secularist flag-bearer says it will not violate rules in retaliation. “We would lose the moral high ground,” said Mr. Abadir, “one of our biggest assets.”
It is not only Egyptians who are fearing the Islamic Brotherhood's coming to power in Egypt. The rest of the world is also fearing that scenario. Opening the ballot box to all citizens is one thing; doing it immediately after 42-plus years of one-man rule is quite another. How can the people become educated about the implications of various potential scenarios from massive voting within less than a year after the ouster of Mubarak? The short answer is, "They can't!" And the people with the biggest bank accounts will have the most influence in the elections process, something the west has already had too much of.
The rest of the world is watching, and somewhat apprehensive about tidal wave #2 that may sweep Islamist governments into power after watching with amazement wave #1 that swept the dictators out.
Egypt would do well to slow the process down a little, conduct full public education of the implications of various political "reforms" including the participation of a vigorous fourth estate to probe the intentions of all parties and candidates. There is far too much euphoria about the success of the Tahrir Square movement to remove Mubarak for the depth and breadth of the new government's intentions to have fully been comprehended, even in a relatively intelligent and educated populous.
If a massive exodus of both money and people from Egypt is one potential result of an Islamist government, those who remain will have their options restricted, their lives and education curtailed and their international relationships potentially impaired. Theocracies, no matter the root of the theology, are essentially unworkable. They are also mixing oil and water, metaphorically, in an "unholy" attempt at combining the matters of state with matters of the theology.
And frequently, the fundamentalists whose energy and myopia brought the movement to power are unable to govern all of the people because their interest is so brittle. That dynamic is not different dependent on the theology; it happens with all faith roots.

Bullying and racism...two seeds from same tree of faux-superiority

By Ingrid Peritz and Karen Howlett, Globe and Mail, November 30, 2011
Ontario on Wednesday unveiling tough legislation that could lead to expulsion for students who send classmates hateful text messages or shove them in the hallways at school.

Quebec on Wednesday said it would review its school anti-violence programs, and Edmonton’s school board on Tuesday evening joined the Canadian school districts that have voted to adopt an anti-bullying policy for sexual minorities.
“We want our schools to be warm, welcoming, safe, secure and accepting,” Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said when the new law was introduced. “We want all our kids to feel free to be who they are.”
The worst fate currently facing students in Ontario caught bullying is a temporary suspension.
The political efforts follow a grim tally of adolescent suicides. Jamie Hubley, an openly gay Ottawa teen, killed himself in October after becoming a target of bullying because of his sexual orientation. Mitchell Wilson, an 11-year-old boy with muscular dystrophy, killed himself in September after he was attacked by a 12-year-old boy he knew from his elementary school in Pickering, east of Toronto. Jenna Bowers-Bryanton, a 15-year-old aspiring songwriter from Truro, N.S., killed herself last January after months of bullying at school and online.
It’s impossible to know whether legislation such as Ontario’s might have saved Marjorie (Raymond a 15-year-old who took her life) who complained of bullying after she switched to a new high school three years ago in the Gaspé community of Sainte-Anne-des-Monts. Her mother believes her daughter’s tormentors were mainly girls.
Quebec set up a program in 2008 to counter schoolyard violence, and about 80 per cent of schools have implemented it. Premier Jean Charest, calling Marjorie’s suicide a “terrible tragedy,” said his government would look at “what more we can do that could be more effective.”
And this Editorial from Globe and Mail, November 30, 2011
Ontario has entered “don’t ask, don’t tell” territory. Gay students in its publicly funded Roman Catholic schools would be given the right – in law – to form gay-straight clubs or alliances. But not necessarily under that name.

The government has gone so timidly about doing the right thing that it has done the wrong thing. Its measure on gay-straight clubs is part of a new law on school bullying introduced on Wednesday. But its timidity is reminiscent of that of a bystander to bullying who – with a bit more moral courage – could put a stop to it.
The government argues that it is the support that matters, not the name. Up until now, Ontario’s Catholic schools have blocked attempts at gay-straight alliances, saying that “equity clubs” can battle intolerance of all kinds, and that teens are too young to identify their sexual preference.

But the new support from the Ontario government goes only halfway. It is similar to president Bill Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” law of 1993, now repealed, under which homosexuals were allowed in the U.S. military, as long as they didn’t breathe a whisper of it. That put gay and lesbian soldiers in a terrible position – vulnerable to expulsion, and still treated as if they needed to hide who they are.
To be made nameless is not a small thing. It is to be told that some shame is associated with who you are. The clubs can exist but, depending on how the Catholic schools react, perhaps only in the closet, a place of shame.
The Catholic schools have the right to their beliefs about homosexuality. But they are public schools and they do not have the right to insist on a second-class status for students who identify as homosexual, or who simply have questions about their identity, or who have gay or lesbian parents. They need to try a little harder to make religious belief and equality work together.
This is not an abstract issue. It is difficult to be gay in high school, and gay teens suffer from depression, and depression is a factor in suicide. If Ontario truly wishes to defend those vulnerable to bullying, it should do so wholeheartedly. The best answer is to promote acceptance, and require it from those who refuse to give it.
"Second-class" is  a status imposed on others by those who consider themselves "first class." It is a prominent feature in Canadian schools, that some students impose "second-class" status on others using every conceivable method of communication, and thereby increasing both the volume and the frequency of the "attack" against those considered "second class".
A similar, and even more egregious situation parallels the school "second-class" status at Attawapiskat First Nation Reserve on the shore of James Bay where the people are living in shacks, without adequate food, clothing, clean running water, employment, education or medical care.
And this from Editorial, Globe and Mail, November 30, 2011
Images of children and toddlers with skin rashes lying on mouldy mattresses in decrepit shacks, and families of 10 crammed into wood-frame tents with wood-burning stoves create a distinctly un-Canadian scene. But this is daily life in Attawapiskat.

Community leaders, claiming frustration with the federal government’s response to their housing needs, declared an emergency last month and asked the Red Cross to step in. They say they are worried about surviving the winter in the remote northern community, located near James Bay, Ont. Generators, heaters, insulated sleeping mats, blankets and winter clothing were flown in to the Cree reserve of 1,800. But the tactic was also political, and it has succeeded in generating media attention, and opposition indignation.
Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan responded Wednesday by announcing that Attawapiskat would be placed under third-party management. He has concerns about accountability, and wants to know how the $80-million the federal government has invested since 2006 has been spent.

While critics call this a crude attempt to deflect blame, placing the reserve in third-party management will hopefully bring clarity and transparency to the crisis. A 2010 audit identified a lack of oversight in how funds for housing were being dispersed, and noted Ottawa wasn’t properly tracking housing projects. While there has been no evidence of misappropriation, the problem of mismanagement, if true, must be addressed. Effective First Nations governance is key to the community’s long-term viability.
However, Ottawa also has a responsibility to First Nations people. Two years ago, a sewage backup pushed wastewater into many homes, prompting a costly evacuation, and indebting the community.
Aboriginal leaders say that more than one third of the $80-million has been used to send children to school off-reserve. The community’s school was built on a diesel spill and had to be torn down. This year’s federal housing allocation was only about $1-million -- that is enough to build four houses. Yet there are 314 people waiting for new homes.
The children and families of Attawapiskat deserve better. Canadians don’t expect to encounter these scenes of poverty and devastation in their own backyard. But they also expect scarce public resources to be well-spent.
There is a legitimate argument that these stories are not linked, that they are separated by thousands of miles and eons of time and culture. However, suicide is just one of the spiked statistics on First Nations Reserves. And "second-class-ness" is at the core of both situations.
Adults and children are both caught is a vicious whirlwind of "putting others down" and the methods, while different perhaps, are nevertheless similarly heinous.
We don't use words like those chosen by the Ontario Premier in announcing his new legislation on school bullying: we want our schools to be "warm, friendly welcoming and accepting places" when we describe the social conditions we wish to see on First Nation Reserves. However, we do inflict a form of "second-class" status on those people through our abstract, detached and indifferent attitudes, policies, histories and relationships.
It is not, however, feasible to "expel" those responsible for the treatment of First Nations people, when such "bullying" occurs. The society is not as easily defined or monitored as the individual schools.
Social policy, government legislation, expulsion, closeted "gay-straight alliances"...half-way measures of acceptance and tolerance of differences...these are mere gestures and are not transformative, nor are they addressing the root causes of "racism" and "sexism" and bigotry and hatred. When these attitudes are exposed for what they are, and when they are addressed as the cancerous virus that infects us all potentially, and when we all take responsibility for their existence, their persistence and their galloping growth and sophistication, only then might we begin to see some sustained change in our social relationships.
Blowing trumpets about his government's spending $90 million in Attawapiskat over six years and wondering where the money has gone, as the Prime Minister did so self-righteously in the House of Commons yesterday, is no more effective than soft soothing words without adequate full support for "first class" status for all students from the Ontario Premier. The problem is not "where is the "$90 million"? The problem is our collective attitude of superiority and its accompanying "second-class" status that we see everywhere.
Until all persons and all groups are living in a world where we are all considered "first class" and there are no "second class" people or groups of people, then we can expect the victims of our extended "superiority" and "bullying" and racism, sexism, ageism,....and all other forms of denigration to continue and even to appear to be out of control.